This week’s conclave of world leaders in New York has presented two contrasting narratives for the Syria-Iraq war and the current moment of upheaval in the Middle East.
For a successful U.S. strategy, military action must be tailored to support diplomatic efforts and goals. The United States needs to understand and reduce the motivations for people to join the Islamic State.
The well-intentioned instincts of Barack Obama have run up against the harsh, complex realities of a Middle East in which no conflict has only two sides or a good outcome that doesn’t create new risks.
The threat of radical non-state actors, such as the Islamic State, has created an apparent convergence of interests between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.
With respect to Iran, the United States has three basic choices: a war option, a deal option, and a “muddling through” option.
The success of any U.S. effort to establish an international coalition to counter the Islamic State will depend on whether Saudi Arabia and Iran can compromise.
Both the United States and Iran have a major interest in curtailing the rise of radical Sunni groups like ISIS.
Unless and until Iran prioritizes national and economic interests before revolutionary ideology, it will continue to remain a country with enormous but squandered potential.
One year ago, Hassan Rouhani, a cleric running on a moderate platform, won the Iranian presidential election. How has he fared? Four Iranian experts discuss Rouhani’s policies and prospects for change.
During a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nuclear diplomacy with Iran, speakers made several references to South Africa’s nuclear past and what it means for the six powers trying to negotiate a verification agreement with the Islamic Republic.
















Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices