And moves like his Jan. 15 announcement generally work—both to secure a leader’s power and ensure a favorable transition down the road.
Economic measures can de-escalate tensions, but not if used crudely.
The ideological architects of one of the United States’ most disastrous foreign-policy decisions—the 2003 invasion of Iraq—are spinning a tale to support Trump’s most dangerous move to date.
The U.S. president may claim that the strike on Iran’s Suleimani was meant to “stop a war,” yet it will do anything but.
Its next chapter will be fought through export and import controls, investment restrictions, and sanctions—and the United States should prepare itself now.
Protesters in Iraq and Lebanon are rising up against Iranian influence, sectarianism, and corruption. The U.S. Congress should offer conditional aid that forces governments to respond to their citizens’ grievances.
Washington could find itself fighting its way back into the region for the first time since World War II.
State Department officials who find themselves wrapped up in the Trump impeachment inquiry will need public support for years to come.
Enlisting Beijing to interfere in the U.S. election is no joke.
Washington should do more to address the worsening humanitarian situation in the region.
Under Trump, the relationship between the two populations has suffered. The next president should change that.
The White House’s aggressive deployment of coercive economic tools has given rise to a growing geopolitical backlash.