In a clear response to continuing Russian aggression in Ukraine, NATO ministers last week approved the deployment of troops on the alliance's eastern flank for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Under NATO's new "enhanced" forward presence, maritime forces will be increased in the Baltic Sea and land forces sent to reinforce defenses in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

While these changes are prudent, none directly addresses the situation on the ground today in Ukraine, which remains a non-NATO member. In recent weeks, Russian-backed separatists have sharply increased their attacks in Donetsk and Luhansk -- a stark reminder that President Vladimir Putin hasn't given up his designs on eastern Ukraine.

eastern Ukraine.

Dennis Ross, International Council Member of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and David Petraeus, Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center, write in The Washington Post that it is necessary for the United States to continue to project a strong deterrent to Iran in order to insure that it does not develop nuclear weapons after the expiration of the most stringent controls of the nuclear deal. Specifically, they argue that the United States should provide Israel with the Massive Ordinance Penetrator bomb, capable of destroying the most heavily defending Iranian nuclear sites, in order to strengthen the deterrent against trying to break out and built a nuclear weapon.

For a leader who has been criticized for trying to rush out of wars to satisfy campaign promises, President Obama has been relatively resolute in Afghanistan. To be sure, he reduced U.S. forces there faster than some (including us) believed optimal starting in July 2011 — but only after having tripled the number of troops there during the first two years of his presidency. And the drawdown did not begin until he worked with coalition partners at the 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon to extend the mission from 2011 to 2014, a horizon extended again last year. Beyond that, while he declared an end to the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of last year, he also authorized Americans to continue to participate in numerous difficult and dangerous operations, including counterterrorism activities in support of Afghan forces, when needed. Some 10,000 U.S. troops continue the fight in support of what is principally now an Afghan-led and Afghan-dominated mission.

Graham Allison, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Robert Blackwill, Member of the Board of the Belfer Center and Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, General James Cartwright,Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center, Paula Dobriansky, Senior Fellow with the Belfer Center's Future of Diplomacy Project, Ollie Heinonen, Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center, David Petraeus, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center, Dennis Ross, International Council Member of the Belfer Center, and Gary Samore, Director of Research at the Belfer Center, are all signatories of the Public Statement on U.S. Policy towards the Iran Nuclear Negotiations published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The statement urges the Administration to continue negotiating until it has completed an agreement that strengthens monitoring and verification of the Iranian program, clears issues of possible military dimensions to the Iranian program, restricts research and development in order to delay Iran's ability to deploy advanced centrifuges, only provides sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable actions undertaken by Iran, and contains measures to penalize Iran if it violates the terms of the agreement. It also urges action in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and in the broader region to contain Iranian influence and reassure allies of American commitment to stability.

Fracking. 3D printing. Personalized medicine. Big data.

Each is a compelling technological trend. And taken together, advances in energy production, manufacturing, life sciences and IT amount to four interlocking revolutions that could make North America the next great emerging market -- as long as policymakers in this country don't impede their potential.

Congress at last appears set to give President Barack Obama the “fast-track” authority he needs to finish negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). But the protracted and sharp debate over the U.S. president’s trade agenda underscores growing skepticism in Washington about the value of further market integration and pessimism about the prospects for a robust global economy. The unstated question: Can America and its neighbors compete?

In The Next Great Emerging Market? Capitalizing on North America’s Four Interlocking Revolutions, Gen. (Ret.) David H. Petraeus and Paras D. Bhayani explain why North American market integration and  leadership in energy, manufacturing, life sciences, and information technology could drive substantial economic growth. But they warn that Washington must turn today’s policy headwinds into policy tailwinds to capitalize fully on these trends.

As President Obama travels in Asia, the Ukraine crisis is very much on everyone’s mind. But so are questions, stoked over the last half-dozen years in particular, about whether America is somehow a declining power that will cede space and influence to China in the years to come. The number of magazine and book covers with some variant of “Are America’s Best Days Behind Us?” could fill an entire library.

Advocates of the effort to reach a negotiated settlement with Iran over its illicit nuclear activities have emphasized the benefits an agreement could bring by peacefully and verifiably barring Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Skeptics, meanwhile, have warned of the risks of a “bad deal,” under which Iran’s capabilities are not sufficiently rolled back.

Largely absent from the debate, however, has been a fuller consideration of the strategic implications a nuclear agreement could have on the U.S. position in the Middle East.