“UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AFTER THE COLD WAR” (Book Chapter)
The Persian Gulf War presented the United States with the first major challenge of the post-Cold War era. President George H.W. Bush’s successful use of diplomacy and military power presented new and unprecedented opportunities for the region and American leadership. Almost thirty years later, and either despite or because of a continuous American military presence, the region has arguably never been in more disarray and American leadership more absent. The United States did not cause all of the problems currently facing the Middle East, but it has a mixed track record in its response to regional events.
"Rethinking the Iran Deal," World Policy Journal, 8 January 2016
"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, a.k.a. “the Iran Deal”) is now six months old. At the time of its release, I wrote that the United States and Iran couldn’t achieve their jointly-held goals of destroying the Islamic State and al-Qaida, weakening the Taliban, and enjoying greater regional stability without “close and cordial cooperation between the two governments.” In my analysis, I made two major errors. The first was in assuming that the United States was the only major viable partner for Iran in these specific military endeavors, and the second was in confusing Iran’s interest in stability on its own borders with an interest in regional stability."
"Don't Reform the Security Council," World Policy Journal, 21 September 2015
"The dilution of the power of the P5 would succeed in making the UNSC more reflective of the UNGA, but it would also pave the way for more ad hoc side-meetings, informal arrangements, and unilateral action. The reason that a P5 state can take whatever action it wants — invade Iraq, annex Eastern Ukraine, build artificial islands to expand territorial waters, intervene in West Africa, and so forth — is not because it can veto any UNSC resolution directed against it. The P5 states can get away with anything because no other states have the power to stop them. Nuclear weapons, force projection capabilities, and global economic strength provide a lot more cover than does the veto power. "