All Policy Analysis by Robert Satloff

The current set of potential obstacles is much less formidable than what Washington faced just six months ago, and translating possibility into reality begins with the Trump-Netanyahu meeting.

The incoming U.S. administration has no intention of strong-arming Israel into working with such a problematic organization, so officials should focus on pressing other UN agencies to take on its job in Gaza—or risk cuts to their own funding.

The nascent administration needs to clarify its stances on preventing an Iranian nuclear breakout, investing in Arab-Israel military cooperation, and responding to potential West Bank annexations.

A panel of distinguished journalists from across the Middle East discuss regional perspectives on the second Trump administration’s potential approach to critical issues of war and peace.

Israel’s former president and Jordan’s former foreign minister discuss the legacy of the peace treaty after three decades, including its relevance to the current regional conflict.

By building on the death of an Iran-backed terrorist leader, President Biden has the opportunity to leave the Middle East better today than it was on October 8, which is no small achievement.

Washington should push to negotiate limited border understandings now—it makes little sense to open a larger, more catastrophically destructive conflict if the outcome is likely to end up at the same place.

In such a challenging environment, news organizations must work especially hard to convince readers that sources are honest, legitimate, and trustworthy.

As laid out in President Biden’s speech, the initial terms of the proposed deal include a disturbing imbalance in who guarantees that Hamas and Israel fulfill their commitments under the agreement—a problem that should be fixed now rather than later.

The president may have inadvertently created a cordon of immunity around Hamas in Rafah, decreased pressure on the group’s leaders to accept a cease-fire, and raised doubts among Arab partners.

The Gaza war has inspired prominent Arab media outlets and statesmen to come up with vile new forms of Holocaust denialism, but other voices offer a glimmer of hope.

The Washington Institute's executive director decries the manner in which Americans and other hostages held in Gaza are being used as nameless bargaining chips.

The paper’s editors appear to have taken the path of least resistance by failing to address any of the serious questions raised about its “decomposing babies” story.

For Hamas and its extremist fellow travelers, military campaigns and terrorist attacks during the holy month have long been perfectly acceptable tactics.

A heartrending story about finding decomposing infants in a Gaza hospital is full of troubling holes, discrepancies, and conflicts of interest that should have raised serious questions at the paper.

The Washington Institute’s executive director reflects on the feasibility of the Biden administration’s current diplomatic plans in the region, based in part on what local officials said during his recent group trip to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and the PA.

Experts discuss the military and political situation at what appears to be a decisive moment in the war, offering insights on Israel’s calculations, the effects of growing foreign pressure, and the need for further international action to address attacks by Iran’s other regional partners.

If Washington Post reporters had asked Israeli officials, they would have written a very different story.

Laying the groundwork for an eventual Hamas surrender would break the current binary choice between more destructive conflict and an ineffectual ceasefire.

Despite not taking the time to speak with Israeli officials or even verify key details on the ground, reporters proceeded with a heavily slanted piece that raised further questions about the paper’s wartime editorial policies.