Publications

Only two weeks after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush addressed the media in the White House Rose Garden and declared "war" on terrorism financing. "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he told reporters.[1] "Today, we are asking the world to stop payment." A few weeks later, the Treasury Department—the agency that would become the weapon of choice of the White House in this new economic conflict—boasted in a press release, "The same talent pool and expertise that brought down Al Capone will now be dedicated to investigating Usama bin Laden and his terrorist network."[2]

Don't look now, but Moscow is winning the media war.

Since the start of the crisis over Ukraine some four months ago, Russia has waged a massive, sustained media campaign to shape global perceptions about events taking place on the ground there. This offensive—carried out en masse via state-run outlets like Russia Today and through an onslaught of print, radio and television reports—has included everything from blatant mischaracterizations of Ukraine's political parties to outright fabrications about the extent of the pro-Russian sentiment that exists in the south and east of the country.

As the parents of three Israeli teens live their worst nightmare, their sons the latest victims of terror, the drama can now follow a well-worn path of Palestinian triumphalism, Israeli revenge and global moral blindness. It is but another teaching moment - lest anyone still needs one - about why Israeli-Palestinian peace will not come soon and why the basic assumptions behind the "peace process" are so off-base.

Sometimes, tragedies can provide moments of clarity. The brutal deaths of teenagers Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Frenkel – whose bodies were discovered on Monday half-buried in an open field north of the city of Hebron – represent more than just a national disaster for the state of Israel. They are also an inflection point for Palestinian governance, as well as a litmus test for the true prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Is al-Qaeda really on the run? Since the death of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama administration has actively promoted the narrative that it has gained the upper hand in its struggle with the world’s most dangerous terrorist group.

The poll numbers are undeniable. Disillusioned by Afghanistan and Iraq, focused on domestic concerns, Americans increasingly want their nation to reduce its global footprint and stop trying to solve the problems of others. A cautious, poll-driven President Obama responds predictably, defining America’s global interests more narrowly and eschewing calls to address humanitarian horror, protect human rights and advance freedom far from home.

It’s hard not to notice that the Obama administration’s foreign policy is on the skids. Increasingly, the critiques leveled at the administration from both left and right share a common theme: that U.S. foreign policy has become characterized by strategic drift, with serious consequences for American interests abroad.

German statesman Otto von Bismarck famously observed that Europe represented merely a geographical notion, not a unified political entity. Russia's annexation of Crimea has again validated this acerbic insight. And, amid the absence of any Western or European unity, the sale of the France's highly advanced Mistral-class warships to Russia looms large.

Not all that long ago, Barack Obama seemed to have big plans for the Middle East. Back in June of 2009, the president traveled to Egypt to unveil what he promised would be a “new beginning” between America and the Muslim world. In a major address at Cairo’s famed Al-Azhar University, he proposed a new, more harmonious U.S. approach toward a region that had been roiled by nearly a decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new Palestinian unity government of Fatah and Hamas puts the lie to fundamental assumptions on which the U.S. approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace have long rested, most prominently within the Obama administration.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the recent national election in Ukraine is just how significant a reversal of fortune it represents for Russia.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has called Russia’s invasion, occupation and annexation of the Crimean peninsula. along with its incitement of a civil war in Eastern Ukraine. a game-changer. One region where this description could possess particular resonance is Central Asia. All Central Asian governments have considerable reasons for alarm in the wake of Russia’s actions and the supine Western response. In this context, Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Duma of March 18, 2014 represented a landmine under the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all five Central Asian states with the threat of Russian military action should they somehow threaten the dignity and honor of Russians who are citizens in their states.

Will the real Hassan Rouhani please stand up? Since his election last summer - and especially since the start of nuclear negotiations with the West last fall - Iran's new president has become a darling of the U.S. and European diplomatic set. The soft-spoken leader who now serves as Iran's political face is widely viewed as a "moderate" counterpoint to his firebrand predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as a guarantor of a much-sought-after nuclear deal with the West.

During U.S Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's recent trip to China, China's Minister of Defense, General Chang Wanquan, warned that Beijing would make "no compromise, no concession, [and] no trading" in the fight for what he called his country's "territorial sovereignty." Chang told Hagel: "The Chinese military can assemble as soon as summoned, fight any battle, and win." The comments come amid an escalating campaign by Chinese nationalists to alter the status quo in the Western Pacific that has raised alarm in capitals across the region.

Tucked away in a busy corner of the Pentagon is a little-known bureau known as the Office of Net Assessment. Headed by Andrew W. Marshall, the legendary nonagenarian strategist who has advised every American president since Richard Nixon, it serves as the U.S. military's in-house think tank on a broad range of foreign policy and defense issues. Its specialty, however, is a very specific discipline: the study of the different ways in which the United States can identify and exploit emerging trends in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

The future path of U.S.-led nuclear negotiations with Iran, which have now reached a crucial stage, may be foreshadowed in the U.S. agreement with Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons program. Any U.S.-Iranian deal-making that follows the Syrian model, however, would prove nothing more than a pyrrhic victory, leaving the Middle East more dangerous and, ultimately, the United States less secure.