All Policy Analysis by Robert Satloff

Given the phrase's apparently swift demise, it may be a long time before another president uses such language as a guiding military strategy.

In the president's usage, the term "ground forces" conjures up massive numbers of troops obviously superfluous to the task of defeating the ill-trained, ill-equipped militias of the Islamic State.

As the clock counts down to implementation, Washington needs to move quickly to correct the agreement's flaws and close its loopholes.

Two scholars discuss how the brushfire prompted by Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments concerning the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Holocaust can serve as a learning moment.

The next president will have a rough start if the next fifteen months are marked by more U.S.-Israeli fighting over the root causes of violence with the Palestinians, unfettered Russian and Iranian military operations just north of the Israel-Syria border, and deepening holes in the Iran nuclear agreement.

U.S. policy in Syria is failing because the Obama administration is prioritizing the urgent (rolling back ISIS) over the truly important (preventing Iran and Russia from rearranging Middle East security to their benefit).

Now that the president has won the big fight, Americans across the political divide hope he will stop quashing attempts to repair the nuclear deal's flaws.

Only firm demands for a better deal will force the president to confront an unpalatable choice: does he prefer to improve the agreement or watch it fail?

Washington Institute executive director Robert Satloff offers parents and students practical advice on how to address anti-Israel activism on campus and engage constructively on the politics of the Middle East.

There are several potential reasons why the Obama administration is still insisting that the nuclear deal is perfect as is, and most of them are deeply problematic.

The bottom line is that if lawmakers are concerned about the nuclear agreement's flaws and are hungry for the administration to take sensible measures to fix them, the limited downside of voting no is greatly exceeded by the benefits of 'a better deal.'

Because a 'no' vote on the Iran deal would have little practical impact until next year, lawmakers have time to work with the president on making reasonable fixes to the agreement even if they disapprove it in the short term.

A congressional vote of disapproval would not necessarily be a deal breaker; in fact, it could give the administration time to improve the agreement or implement other policy measures that more effectively secure U.S. interests.

Since the announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), members of The Washington Institute’s Iran Study Group have met to assess the agreement’s relationship to the parameters outlined in the study group’s June 24 policy statement. Members of the study group have also benefited from several hours of