Chuck Freilich

With the rise of an Islamist regime in Syria, a new reality has emerged that presents both risks and opportunities for Israel. Although Iran has been pushed out of Syria, it is expected to attempt to renew its presence there. Meanwhile, Turkey is playing a central role in Syria, a development that could lead to political and military friction with Israel—potentially escalating in an extreme scenario to direct military confrontation. At the same time, Turkey is likely the only actor with both the motivation and capability to deploy ground forces to Syria. As such, it could play a positive role in stabilizing the country and reducing the risk of hostilities between Syria and Israel. Syria’s reconstruction and stabilization will require significant resources and international cooperation. To this end, Israel should present the Trump administration with a proposal to establish an international coordinating mechanism for Syrian reconstruction under US leadership. From Israel’s perspective, an international mechanism such as this would help reduce the risks of military conflict with Syria; limit Turkey’s freedom of maneuver in Syria, thereby maximizing the benefits of its involvement while minimizing the dangers; and reduce the likelihood of Iran reestablishing a foothold in Syria. Overt Israeli involvement in this mechanism would likely jeopardize its chances of success. Therefore, Israel’s role should be limited to presenting the idea to the US administration and working closely behind the scenes to safeguard its interests.

The Senate indeed rejected the three resolutions aimed at restricting arms exports to Israel, but the strong support for the initiative among the left wing of the Democratic Party and within the Jewish community is concerning. How can Israel reverse this trend?

When the prime minister addresses Congress, he will also speak to millions of American Jews. This article examines their views on the Israel–Hamas war, the Israeli government’s policies, and the upcoming US presidential election, offering recommendations for maintaining American Jewish support for Israel

January 31, 2018, was a bitterly cold night in the Shirobad neighborhood of Tehran. In an exquisitely timed and synchronized operation, Mossad agents broke into six heavy steel vaults containing a vast trove of top-secret information that showed not only that Iran had once had a military nuclear program, but that it still did. As Yonah Jeremy Bob and Ilan Evyatar wrote in their recent book Target Tehran, the event constituted “perhaps the largest physical heist of intelligence materials from an enemy capital in the history of espionage.”

What was behind the dramatic speech of the US president in which he presented the “Israeli plan” for the hostage deal, and what are the implications?

The Bush administration recently published two strategic policy reviews regarding US national security policy, the White House’s “National Security Strategy” and the Pentagon’s “Quadrennial Defense Review” (QDR). Both are the products of in-depth and extensive planning processes, which required considerable time and effort on the part of the national security machinery, including the administration’s senior officials.