Policy Analysis

President Bush's recent address on the Middle East was a seminal moment for that region. It strengthened the idea that resolution of the long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not likely any time soon under the current Palestinian leadership -- and that successful peacemaking will thus depend on

Palestinian reform is now on everyone's mind. President Bush has made it the litmus test for Palestinian statehood and for U.S. diplomatic engagement between Israelis and Palestinians. Europeans strongly favor reform. Arab leaders who have little interest in reforming themselves are enthusiastic about Palestinian transformation. And, perhaps most important, the

As President George W. Bush was offering his vision for a post-Yasir Arafat Palestinian state two weeks ago, the Palestinian leader's cabinet was itself unveiling a "100-day plan" for reforming the Palestinian Authority (PA). This plan was clearly designed to both respond to popular demands to fix the PA's broken

The author of the seminal history of the 1967 war explores the conflict's origins and its lasting legacy.

Since 1991, the United States has averaged over 34,000 military sorties per year in support of no-fly zone operations in Iraq. One might ask, to what effect? Degrading Saddam's Capabilities The no-fly zones have neither forced Saddam Husayn to comply with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inspections nor stopped Iraqi

On June 24, President George W. Bush outlined U.S. preconditions for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Chief among these are the cessation of Palestinian terror, as well as democratic reform in the Palestinian Authority. Bush also recognized that terror does not occur in a vacuum. He demanded that "Every

Over the course of a few days at the end of May, Iran conducted a missile test; Pakistan conducted three such tests; and Israel launched a reconnaissance satellite. Each of these instances serve as proof, if any were needed, that missiles are becoming an important part of the military scene

After charting a bold new path for Arab-Israeli peace, President Bush needs to quickly close a loophole through which Yasser Arafat could emerge as the popularly elected leader of the Palestinians. Otherwise, Bush's Monday speech could amount to little more than a brief detour on the way to creating a

After much hesitation and internal debate, President Bush has changed the ground rules on American involvement in ending the conflict in the Middle East. His call for a new Palestinian leadership as well as new democratic institutions and new security measures has raised the bar for Palestinian statehood. His central

It's no surprise that the Israeli killing of wanted Hamas militant Salah Shehada and members of his family has drawn the world's attention. It is graphic and it reminds everyone of a seemingly endless struggle. But, having just returned from the Middle East, I am struck by a burgeoning danger

President George W. Bush today tore up a generation of conventional wisdom by offering a bold, new approach that conditioned U.S. support for eventual Palestinian statehood on a new political leadership; a "working democracy"; and far-reaching security, judicial, constitutional, and economic reform. At the same time, he seemed to ask

Since October 1998, Turkey has moved from the brink of war with Syria to the brink of signing a military cooperation agreement: Syrian chief of staff Gen. Hassan al-Turkomani will pay an official visit to Turkey on June 19, the first such visit by a Syrian chief of staff. The

Lying in bed Monday night, I switched the channel from a gloomy CNN documentary on Chechnya -- Christiane Amanpour describing death and destruction in another God-forsaken place -- to watch the even gloomier Palestine Television, the official satellite station of the Palestinian Authority. On an English-language talk show, the hosts

President Bush, having concluded his consultations with Middle Eastern leaders, now appears poised to make a statement about what is necessary to create the path to peace. Bush has heard very different prescriptions for what is necessary. While the specifics on the Arab side may vary, the essence of what

The IDF began planning for the contingency of carrying out extensive military operations throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip long before the deployment of Operation Defensive Shield in late March 2002. As early as 1998, during a period when hopes abounded for peace with both the Syrians and the

"At the very best, you might have met Jesse Jackson; more likely, you'd be in an unmarked grave," chided the Kurdish minister. He was not happy. It was the spring of 2001, and a friend and I had accidentally crossed from the Kurdish opposition-controlled portion of Iraq into government territory

The fracas over Secretary of State Colin Powell's interview with the London Arabic daily al-Hayat yesterday—the contents of which White House spokesman Ari Fleisher has pointedly refused to endorse—reflects a growing pattern of White House–State Department division on key Middle East issues, a damaging dynamic that will only be exorcised

Although the current campaign against terrorism is just unfolding, America has actually been in the middle of a new "World War" of sorts for some time. In order to understand this war, one must answer three crucial questions: 1) With whom is the United States at war? 2) Why is

The Bush administration appears determined to lose the War on Terror. Rather than confront sponsors of terror, the State Department increasingly engages them. The logic of engagement can sound enticing. Proponents argue that dialogue and trade encourages pariah states to moderate, while isolation and confrontation encourage rogue regimes to retrench

The year 2001 will forever be known as the year of the worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind, so far. The 2001 edition of Patterns of Global Terrorism, the U.S. government's preeminent annual accounting of international terrorism, understandably focuses on Sept. 11 and attacks by al-Qaida and its