ISIS. Syria. Iraq. Iran. It’s no secret that many of the top challenges for the security and stability of the world lie in the Middle East. On day one of their administration, the next president will be forced to make major strategy decisions in the region. Will the U.S. choose to engage militarily in Syria? How will the U.S. move forward with the Iranian nuclear agreement? After four years of the next president’s first term, what would success in the Middle East really look like?
On October 5, Brookings held an exciting conversation about how the next president can navigate these hot spots in foreign policy, and make both the U.S. and the world a safer place. As part of the Brookings Election 2016 project, this event was the first in a series of live podcast recordings.
Brookings Senior Fellow and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Robert Einhorn has released a new set of recommendations to the next president on Iran on how the U.S. can reinforce support for the Iran nuclear deal at home and abroad and promote stability in the region. Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon recently delivered a policy recommendation on the Syrian conflict, and spoke to how the next president can balance the dual goals of U.S. security and the protection of Syrian lives.
The event was moderated by veteran journalist Indira Lakshmanan of the Boston Globe, who prompted each expert to deliver a recommended course of action in a concise manner, pressed them with alternate perspectives on the issue, and ensured a lively conversation about realistic pathways to success and the obstacles that lie in the way.
For more policy recommendations on key election issues, make sure to visit Election 2016 and America’s Future.
To subscribe or manage your subscriptions to our top event topic lists, please visit our event topics page.
At the end of the day, as we all know thorny national security issues don’t just involve the military; political-military considerations invariably bleed into them. If the senior military’s leadership views are going to be just constrained to military advice … who is thinking about issues from that broader perspective?