Now, day after day, obliged to watch the heart-rending images on TV, Europeans are forced to acknowledge the catastrophe. And what has quickly become very clear is that the countries of Europe have no unified policy on immigration. Nor are they likely to come up with one in the immediate future.
We can definitely increase the resources for food aid programs, which are about less than one tenth of 1 percent of the federal budget. They can certainly be increased from this relatively tiny level of spending. Food is peace. Congress must remember this as it crafts the new budget in the coming months.
A fractured Middle East requires multilateral engagement, not blind loyalty based on circumstances that no longer exist.
The current impasse leaves the Saudis with two options: either fight the Houthis with local forces or assemble a foreign fighting force and go in through Aden. Both options pose big challenges.
Hard as it may be, the Obama administration should acknowledge the wisdom of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif's proposal for a program of dialogue and international relief aid instead of war.
In this carnage, both the Damascus dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad, which is supported by the Iranian regime, and the ultra-Wahhabi "Islamic State" that opposes the civil resistance to Bashar, are guilty.
At the very moment that a nuclear deal with Iran is looking closer to reality, Iran is expanding its influence throughout the Middle East. To the Saudis, the Emirates and Israel -- all of whom see Iran as the greatest threat in the region -- this is a disturbing phenomenon.
The coordination amongst the Arab states, U.S. enablers, and local tribesmen is unprecedented in that it represents the first truly Arab-led sustained combined air-ground campaign in modern history. It has demonstrated that the arena of smart power and force projection no longer exclusively belongs to Western military powers.
The U.S. would do much better to exercise the newfound diplomatic skills it discovered in Lausanne to nip this new war in the bud, before it blossoms into yet another long, bloody conflict with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
If it seems like Islamist terrorism has recently gotten worse, the U.S. military intervention-retaliatory terrorism cycle is the cause of much of it. This link has been deliberately disguised or diffused by American politicians.
In a classic tale of unintended consequences, just about every time Washington has committed another blunder in the Middle East, Iran has stepped in to take advantage.
The freedom enabled by the Internet to express one's own ideas, one's opinion of another's idea, to advocate or to disassociate with the collective views of other speakers, to associate locally and globally is unprecedented in history. This precious Internet freedom is, however, volatile around the world.
BERLIN -- The only realistic option to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region is international supervision -- as far-reaching and as comprehensive as possible. But this goal, even if achieved, would satisfy neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia, both of which fear that any agreement would support Iran in its effort to establish its regional dominance. So the end result could be a de facto change of regional strategic partners by the U.S. -- a development that in fact is already becoming apparent in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq.
The United States must be very careful how it formulates foreign policy involving not only these two countries but also the greater Middle East. This region is a powder keg and is no place for reckless, chest-thumping American politicians on the left and right to be tossing politically lit matches.
BEIRUT -- Amidst all this flexing of muscles, America is effectively disempowered by its stand-off policy, but also from its political investment in the war on ISIS, with its many contradictions and tensions.
I believe now is the time -- actually, it has been the time for decades now -- to consider new forms of leadership, not only in the Middle East, but around the world. We need to get away from the leaders who demonize the other, who use fear, threat, and actual engagement in war as tools for their own maintenance of power.