The sanctions debate is, once again, in full bloom. Thanks to Iran’s budding nuclear program and the intransigence of Tehran thus far, policymakers and pundits are again pondering the utility of sanctions. Amid a flurry of sanctions activity at the U.S. Department of Treasury, in Congress, at the UN, and overseas, the question persists: ‘‘Do sanctions work?’’

Iraq is on much sounder footing today than it was in 2005 or 2006. Yet once again, after Sunday's parliamentary elections, the country is probably in store for long negotiations over who will share power in the new government -- a battle that could strain Iraq's fledgling political institutions and complicate the planned drawdown of U.S. forces.

After six months of a stance perceived by many Iraqis as "hands off," the administration appears to have realized that political engagement is most important when a military presence is waning. Yet recent comments by Vice President Biden suggest that U.S. officials' mind-set toward Iraq could do as much harm as good.

Understanding how energy shapes the grand strategies of China, Russia, India, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and others is vital in mapping out the contours of the future global order. These seminars are the basis for identifying possible new nodes of international conflict and cooperation, and deficiencies in existing international structures. The seminars also draw attention to geopolitical problems that could arise as the United States and other countries make energy more central in their plans, as well as well as highlight the geopolitical implications of possible shifts away from fossil fuels. Watch videos of the seminars online.

U.S.-Chinese relations have remained on a fairly consistent trendline over the decades since Beijing started its policy of reform and opening.  Chinese leaders have emphasized their commitment to economic growth über alles, characterizing China's emergence as a "peaceful rise," and restraining expansionist political ambitions in the region and beyond. American leaders have sought to entice China into the existing order through the global trading system and other international institutions, while hedging against the country's increasing might.

The Post asked former officials, strategists and others for their thoughts on the next phase of the Obama administration: "Robust diplomacy will be necessary to solving the panoply of problems facing the United States. But we might consider launching such engagements not through handshakes and apologies but by making bold statements that actually strengthen our capacities."

President Obama deserves the high marks for his treatment of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in his first 100 days. With his trip to Baghdad and his March 27 speech on Afghanistan, Obama has taken ownership of both wars and offered reasonable paths forward. On Iraq in particular, he deserves kudos and gets an A-.

President Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan deserves high marks on several fronts: The president made a compelling case connecting these countries with U.S. interests; he committed substantially more military and civilian resources to the effort; and he placed equal weight on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the latter being the true epicenter of this conflict.

Meghan L. O'Sullivan is a lecturer in public policy at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. From July 2004 to September 2007, she was special assistant to President George W. Bush and served as deputy national security advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan during part of that tenure. She spent more than two years in Iraq, most recently in fall 2008 at the request of Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General Raymond Odierno, to help conclude the security agreement and strategic framework agreement between the United States and Iraq.

President Obama's declared shift of the primary mission of U.S. forces from "population security" to a more focused set of counterterrorism, training and force-protection tasks by August 2010 is both welcome and reasonable. This evolution was originally advocated by the Baker-Hamilton commission in 2006 and is actually already well underway. And just as the population security mission required more forces to execute (hence the "surge"), a narrower mission set will require fewer.