America's decision to target Iranian agents in Iraq is but another sign of the Iran's massive influence. Iran's increasing power has created tensions across the region, which must be managed carefully to avoid a period of protracted warfare. Fortunately, leaders may be able to work together to ease tensions, recognizing that they share a common interest in regional stability.
Five months after the end of the war, Lebanon, Israel and the region are still feeling its aftereffects. In Lebanon, the claims of victory were mixed with a sober assessment of the massive socioeconomic losses, and the popular unity during the war was followed by deep division and rising tensions.
The session, part of the Carnegie Endowment's NEW VISION launch, examines the state of the Arab political reform agenda, what can be expected in terms of political change in the region, and what the U.S. efforts should be to promote regional reform.
Carnegie launches its New Vision. Building on the strength of its century-long practice of changing as global circumstances change, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is undertaking a fundamental redefinition of its role and mission. Carnegie aims to transform itself from a think tank on international issues to the first truly multinational—ultimately global—think tank.
After the war of last summer, Lebanon had settled back into a pretense of normality, shattered periodically by massive demonstrations in the streets of the capital, as Hizbollah mustered its supporters in an attempt to force the government to call for early elections. The government refused to give in. Hizbollah is now trying to break the impasse.
An in-depth look into the mindset of Hizbollah’s leadership, including their priorities, justifications for continued armament, and animosity towards the U.S. Through unprecedented access to high-ranking Hizbollah officials, including Hizbollah’s Deputy Secretary General.
A recent article by Roger Stern suggests that because of a likely decline in Iranian oil exports and the attendant revenues, "Iran's claim to need nuclear power could be genuine". However, the suggestion that the Iranian nuclear power program is a response to an impending decline in Iranian oil exports is surely mistaken.
The transformational objectives that led U.S. forces into Iraq are being supplanted by an unmistakable and bipartisan desire to bring troops home, end this mess and move on. That impulse, while understandable, reflects the national narcissism that dogs much of U.S. foreign policy. But one-sided solutions for ending the Iraq war are as unrealistic as the one-sided impulses that started it.
In the recent Senate hearings for the newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Senators Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) questioned Gates on his perspective on the Iran crisis.
The debate over Iran's nuclear program has now been widened, with Iran feeling emboldened to compete with the United States for dominance in the Middle East as a whole. This competition has the potential for "tragedy" if the United States feels it must use military power against Iran.