International Relations

Stephen Walt argues that the tragic irony is that the individuals and organizations in the United States that have been the most ardent in shielding Israel from criticism and pushing one administration after another to back Israel, no matter what it does, have in fact done enormous damage to the country that they were trying to help.

Joseph Nye argues that the "one China" formula, if combined with other measures to bolster deterrence against any sudden acts of aggression, can still help to keep the peace.

Prior to October 7, 2023, the defining feature of Israeli foreign policy was the drive to normalize ties with Arab states, thereby "shrinking” the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and assembling Iran's rivals into a broad regional coalition. Despite the endurance of interests that made such a pursuit desirable, the most lucrative selling point of normalization—the ability to develop it into a diplomatic construct with which to contain Iran—had already expired prior to October 7, along with the essential contextual condition for such a deal: broad US support. Rather, the "Age of Normalizations," a period in which diplomatic normalization could feasibly serve as the kernel of Israeli strategy, expired in late 2021 as a consequence of the Biden administration's volte-face in the Middle East.

This week in Say More, Project Syndicate talks with Joseph S. Nye, Jr., an emeritus professor at Harvard Kennedy School, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, and the author, most recently, of A Life in the American Century.

Amidst Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, the debate intensifies over whether the Biden Administration should pressure Ukraine into diplomatic talks with Russia. Proponents believe negotiations could preempt prolonged conflict whereas opponents feel such a move could compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty. The sensitivity of the topic demands a nuanced evaluation of its implications for Ukraine and the international order.

This study group, led by Dr. Karen Donfried, is examining key foreign policy debates flowing from Russia’s war against Ukraine. Students discuss and debate the weekly topic with guest speakers.

There is intense debate on whether the Biden Administration should supply Ukraine with any necessary weapons to ensure victory. Advocates argue this support is crucial for Ukraine's self-defense and deterrence against further aggression, while opponents raise concerns about escalation risks and the potential strain on US military stockpiles. This debate requires careful consideration of the strategic and geopolitical consequences of military aid.

This study group, led by Dr. Karen Donfried, is examining key foreign policy debates flowing from Russia’s war against Ukraine. Students discuss and debate the weekly topic with guest speakers.

Stephen Walt analyzes the foundations of U.S. influence over Israel—and the lack of it.

Europe after the Russo-Ukrainian War must develop a new security structure to defend against any Russian aggression. The safest option is a non-offensive, confidence-building defense. This option includes proposals such as the “spider in the web” strategy and the “porcupine” strategy to provide for European security in a region threatened by Russian expansion—without relying on the threat of nuclear war. 

Stephen Walt writes that those who favor foreign policy restraint believe the United States should trade and invest in other countries, encourage other states to do the same, and be open to managed immigration instead of building walls in a fit of xenophobia.

Christopher Darnton responds to Rachel Metz's Winter 2022/23 article, "The Cult of the Persuasive: Why U.S. Security Assistance Fails."