Russia’s Syria Intervention Sign of Weakness, Not Strength
Russia can only afford to be “bold” in Syria because it has no other allies to care about.
Russia can only afford to be “bold” in Syria because it has no other allies to care about.
Until the United States withdraw from the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will recycle itself.
Egypt’s parliamentary elections are really a competition between the army and big business.
America should be wary of involving itself in the Middle East again, the president warns.
So long as all parties in Syria are determined to destroy each other, America has little reason to get involved.
Three weeks before an election, two suicide bombings in Ankara underline divisions in Turkish society.
Israel can’t replace its alliance with the United States, but China could be an important partner.
Supporters of Yemen’s former strongman support a peace plan while Saudi-led forces march on Sana’a.
Russia’s involvement means Syria no longer needs to rely exclusively on its more controlling ally.
The presence of Russian troops in Syria will discourage other powers from invading.
Boycotts didn’t end apartheid. They won’t decidedly change Israel’s policy in the Palestinian territories either.
The Syrian leader’s protectors send forces to support his regime in the areas it still controls.
Rather than attack the Islamic State, Russia bombs in defense of Bashar Assad’s homeland.
Syria’s Bashar Assad is not a bulwark against fanaticism and war. He is the enabler of both.
A truce between Islamists and Bashar Assad’s allies involves population transfers in the north and south of Syria.