The two philanthropists are funding a new think tank to reintroduce some restraint and accountability to U.S. statecraft.
There has been a shocking lack of discussion on whether that aid is in any way beneficial to U.S. national security. The short answer is no.
Despite loud protests about American betrayal, core U.S. national security interests in war-ravaged Syria were always narrow and specific: destroy the Islamic State's physical caliphate.
The art-of-the-deal president might finally have a national security advisor who'll enforce his preferences instead of undermining them.
The president may already be tiring of a maximum pressure policy that has resulted in much less than its supporters predicted.
The iconic Cold War INF treaty is now dead and buried, and another key pillar of international nuclear order may soon follow suit.
Trump may not court a war, but he is doing too little to avoid one. He needs to act fast.
The more impressive candidates are on stage, the more likely that Americans will consider voting for a Democrat. But the 2020 campaign could also drag the Democratic party through such a brutal internal battle that the person who eventually wins the nomination will come out badly damaged.
He forces foreign policy and political establishments to re-evaluate positions that have been taken for granted—then says something imbecilic.
Over 100 political and armed opposition factions met to determine Syria's fate.