All Policy Analysis by Dennis Ross

President Bush's commitment to staying the course in Iraq remains as strong as ever. In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week, he invoked the ideological struggles of the past to explain why we must prevail in the current conflict. While many have questioned his analogies to

Leverage is crucial for the effective conduct of statecraft. But it is not always easy to exercise it. Consider the case of Pakistan. One would think the Bush administration would hold some sway over President Pervez Musharraf, given the $10 billion in aid it has provided his government since 9/11

As someone who believes it is essential to restore statecraft to the conduct of American foreign policy, I find it reassuring, not troubling, that a debate should emerge between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the circumstances in which to meet or engage the leaders of rogue states. Don't

It may be fashionable among some in Washington or even Tel Aviv to believe that it is time to talk to Hamas. But to the members of Fatah and the Palestinian independents in the West Bank with whom I have been meeting, it surely is not. What you hear from

Tony Blair is joining the ranks of those who not only are committed to Arab-Israeli peace but will act as an envoy to try to do something about settling the conflict. As a former envoy, I can only welcome him to the club. It helps that he brings passion, energy

Historically, Palestinians have always felt that they could ill afford to fight themselves. Yet, today we are witnessing just such a struggle between Fatah and Hamas, and the very identity of the Palestinian people and their cause is at stake. Will the cause be a national cause or a religious

Nothing is more basic to statecraft than matching objectives and means. Sounds elementary, but it is not necessarily the norm in our foreign policy. Look at Iraq: It is the emblem of a policy that too often has been shaped by a mismatch between objectives and means. The administration's assessment