Are our actions making America stronger or weaker in the eyes of our adversaries?

The real revolution in Iran--a silent coup by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps--has gone unnoticed.

Too often, U.S. negotiators have become unwitting advocates for their adversaries.

It is a mistake lump one of the most diverse groups of people into the catchall "Muslim world," as if a shared religion was the most important defining attribute.

Former vice president Dick Cheney has effectively defended hard calls in a time of war.

The Obama administration has leapt energetically into the rehyphenation of South Asia policy.

The challenge for the Obama administration is to ensure that the 2012 elections are not about Iraq either.

The real question President Obama's plan for withdrawal from Iraq elicits is: what's the strategy?

The new administration deserves a chance to fulfill our allies' hopes--and make clear that President Obama's team is not hopelessly naive.

The Middle East has a way of forcing itself on the agenda of White House residents no matter their party.

Why Israel's campaign against Hamas may succeed.

The establishment in Washington has come up with a framework for a new Middle Eastthat includes bringing Syria back into the diplomatic fold. But will it work?

It isnow up toObama and his incoming administration to devise a strategy for winning the war in Afghanistan and defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Obama has developed a habit of fudging.

Howdid John McCain and Barack Obamaapproach foreign policy questions at the first presidential debate?

How will the next U.S. president approach foreign policy challenges?

The Taliban and al Qaeda now constitute a parallel government in parts of Pakistan.

Should the United Nations mandate in Iraq be extended?

A remembrance of the late Jesse Helms, the legendary and controversial chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Barack Obama, once in opposition of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which labels Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorists, now favorsit.

The underlying reality of North Korea's nuclear activities will haunt President Bush's successor and threaten international peace.

The Bush administration will end its term by agreeing to an accord thatrewards Pyongyang for its misbehavior and falls short of the president's own demands.

The United States needs to remain an imposing force in Iraq in order for the violence to diminish.

The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act ensures that Congress is leading our nation to confront the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Will harsher and more effective economic sanctions raise the cost to Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and change the calculus of decision-makers in Tehran?

There is no guarantee that all who yearn for freedom, once free, will use it well.

The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, General Mohamed ElBaradei, is investigating the development of Iran's nuclear program.

The race to take the White House in 2009 has had the predictable effect of deepening partisan divisions.

The United States must develop a more comprehensive strategy to address the manifold challenges Iranian policy in theMiddle East and beyondposes to our interests.

The allure of securing a place in history could account for the about-face on key foreign policy issues in North Korea and the Middle East.

The decision on Iran may come to choosing between a nuclear Islamic Republic or a military strike.

Before pushing for more United Nations resolutions on Iran, the current ones must be enfored.

Before pushing for more United Nations resolutions on Iran, the current ones must be enforced.

The Bush administration is moving toward tighter sanctions on Iran to diminish threats of terrorism.

If we are to apply pressure to the regime in Tehran, we must know who is bankrolling it.

Talks will not stop Iran's nuclear program.

In meeting with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas,Condoleezza Rice is looking for diplomatic successes in all the wrong places.

How will Congress handle the war in Iraq?

Acknowledging mistakes should not mean accepting defeat. Rather, correcting mistakes can better enable victory.

A few questions for the incoming Secretary of Defense.

The recent American election has brought a bizarre meeting of the minds in which liberals and conservatives agree: President George W. Bush's freedom agenda must end.

What would a Democratic majority actually mean for U.S. foreign policy?

Iran has pursued ruthless oppression at home, terrorism abroad and weapons proliferation, largely with impunity. The time has come to end the free ride.

Washington has made a 180-degree turn: the cowboy is gone, the rudeness is gone and with them, it appears, has gone a sound security policy.

Can anything be done to brake accelerating Palestinian violence? The answer isn’t as complicated as many suggest.

The collapse of the Palestinian Authority, whatever that means, will not end the terrorism, nor will cash handouts.

The president needs to force international tyrants to make a choice: reform or face isolation.

The United States has, and must use,the diplomatic and economic leverage to help make the space for true democracy in the Middle East.

American people should be certain that their democratically elected leaders are making decisions based on unbiased intelligence. They won't get that from today's CIA.

Why is it that Muslims everywhere cannot embrace political and economic freedom? The answer is that, if given a chance, they can.

If fatigue results in the dilution of the central tenets of what is now known as the Bush doctrine,why it was that Bush so desired reelection in 2004?

For as long as the United Statescontinues to glossover Pakistan's failure to move quickly on reforms, it is making a mistake.

Reformation and renaissance in the Middle East is only achievable ifPresident Bush andCondoleezza Rice recognize that this is a full-time job for the U.S.government.

Washington's hopes that Hashemi Rafsanjani will give up Iran's nuclear weapons program are profoundly misplaced.

On the role of the United States in promotingdemocracy in the Arab world; Arab skepticism; liberalism in the Middle East;Islamicists andreform; and more.

Only economic liberalization and political freedom can quell the frustration that breeds Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

Sustained economic reforms will expand opportunities for individuals in the Arab world. Genuine political reform will leave little room for the nihilism of an Osama bin Laden.

The time has come to try again to oust Assad this timewith the newly energized Lebanese opposition.

As we applaud steps forward and work to bolster the Israelis and the Palestinians, we should remember past missteps.

Today, more than ever, Europe is singing President Bush's tune.

Promoting democracy in the Middle East will not be high on John Kerry'sagenda, but for the first time in half a century, democracy is the talk of the Arab world.

The implications of an American withdrawal of forces from Iraq are catastrophic--and not just for Iraq.

Engagement with Iran would not achieve policy change; all it would do is buy an evil regime the time it needs to perfect its nuclear weapons and to build a network of terrorists to deliver them.

Americans serving in Iraq deserve great credit for their efforts, but the coalition that won a brilliant military victory in Iraq last year has handled the peace less brilliantly.

A precipitous American exit from Iraq would signal to the world that America won't finish its battles, can't stomach a fight and won't persevere in the face of opposition.

The reports detailing the alleged perfidy of Ahmad Chalabi reveal Washington as a faithless friend and its agencies as more concerned with carrying out vendettas.

To suggest that we should cede Iraq to the latest thug with pretensions of greatness is a death sentence for the Iraqi people and all others who live under dictatorship.

Ayear in Iraq that could have been spent on building civil society, empowering political parties, and transferring credibility has been frittered away.

The UN's administration of the Oil for Food program brings into question the efficacy and integrity of the institution as a whole, as well as its ability to function credibly in Iraq.

Bush's national security doctrine and the threat of pre-emption it contains are warnings to dictators and terrorists: WMD will not protect you.

Our enemies, allies, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which acts as a bridge between the two sides of the spectrum, must be examined to gain a true understanding of the Middle East.

Iraq should be the lesson that guides the Bush administration as it considers the remaining parts of the axis of evil.

One of the questions those of us who advocate regime change in Iraq hear most often is “why Iraq, why now?”It’s a fair question, and one that deserves a good and a thorough answer.

Excerpts from digital video conference withAEI's Danielle Pletka speaking with journalists in Madrid on Iraq.

Clearly, the job in Iraq is not done. But sending in more troops is not the answer.

U.S. occupation of Iraq has made it a magnet for terrorism. Has this increased global terrorism or made it more easy to defeat?

Just as the American government will display incontrovertible proof to the Iraqi people that Uday and Qusay are dead, so too must they display incontrovertible proof that the Baath Party is dead.

Is Syria is “next”and willHizbullah will soon be on the receiving end of a Tora Bora-like bombing campaign? The answer to both questions is “no.”

The most important thing for the world to understand is that Saddam Hussein would have long been dead by now had the United States been willing to use Iraqi tactics to prevail.

Thewar in Iraq isa war whose goals are consistent, more or less, with the goals of every other war fought by the U.S. in the last century.

For as long as Saddam is in power, he will threaten the United Statesand the rest of the world.

For as long as North Korea has nuclear weapons, the world will face a regular cycle of threat and demands.

For the removal of Saddam Hussein be a meaningful exercise for the future of the Arab world, clarity of purpose and a willingness to commit diplomatic, political and military capital is imperative.

Until there is significant reform in the Arab world, and until it no longer serves the interests of many Arab regimes to deflect popular anger onto the United States, we will, for the most part, be alone in the war on terrorism.