- All
- Counterterrorism
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- Defense Policy
- Domestic Politics
- Foreign Policy
- Obama Administration
- GW Bush Administration
- Clinton Administration
- GHW Bush Administration
- Reagan Administration
- Carter Administration
- Ford Administration
- Nixon Administration
- Johnson Administration
- Kennedy Administration
- Eisenhower Administration
- Truman Administration
- FD Roosevelt Administration
- Pre-1932 Administration
- Grand Strategy
- Legal Issues
- Foreign Aid
- Public Diplomacy
- Govt. Institutions
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Counterterrorism
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 20
- next
A new book offers useful insights into the North Korean mindset, but it overlooks the regime's durability and the reformist bent of its new leader, Kim Jong-un. The regime is here to stay, and the United States should pursue more peaceful relations.
After making steady progress on nuclear weapons in the first two years of his presidency, Obama stalled after Republicans waged a fierce battle against ratifying the New START treaty. Recent speeches -- and Obama's picks for secretary of state and secretary of defense -- indicate that he is ready to resume the fight.
Instead of continuing their endless battling, the United States and Pakistan should acknowledge that their interests simply do not converge enough to make them strong partners. Giving up the fiction of an alliance would free up Washington to explore new ways of achieving its goals in South Asia. And it would allow Islamabad to finally pursue its regional ambitions -- which would either succeed once and for all or, more likely, teach Pakistani officials the limitations of their country’s power.
The standoff between Iran and the West has moved into the Caucasus, where both the Islamic Republic and Israel are trying to woo Azerbaijan -- a country with firm historical connections to Iran but whose interests have overlapped with those of Israel. The dynamic is upsetting the regional balance of power and threatening to overturn nearly two decades of uneasy peace.
With Israel and Hamas once again locked in a shooting war, it's time to think about what a more sustainable ceasefire might look like.
Israel does not need its nuclear arsenal to remain the strongest power in the Middle East. It can make good use of the stockpile, however, by offering it up as a bargaining chip to end Iran's nuclear program.
For two decades, the United States has dominated the global arms trade, reaping a broad range of economic and geopolitical benefits in the process. But shortsighted decisions to produce expensive, cutting-edge weapons systems, rather than cheaper, more practical ones, are squandering this monopoly and letting other countries get into the market.
Debates about the possibility of containing a nuclear Iran often hinge on judgments of whether the regime there is rational. But as a wealth of recently released Iraqi documents about Saddam Hussein’s tumultuous reign in Iraq show, even an arguably rational leader can be unreasonable -- and very hard to deter.
Sanctions have succeeded in bringing Tehran back to the negotiating table, but they are a tactic, not a strategy. Any long-term policy has to aim for a democratic Iran.
Nuclear weapons are hard to build for managerial reasons, not technical ones. This is why so few authoritarian regimes have succeeded: they don’t have the right culture or institutions. When it comes to Iran’s program, then, the United States and its allies should get out of the way and let Iran’s worst enemies -- its own leaders -- gum up the process on their own.
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 20
- next

