Latest news with #MiddleEastImages
Forbes
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Iran's Expulsion of Afghans Deepens Afghanistan's Humanitarian Crisis
Afghan refugees, after being deported from Iran, rest at the Islam Qala border crossing between ... More Afghanistan and Iran on July 4, 2025. (Photo by Mustafa Noori / Middle East Images via AFP) (Photo by MUSTAFA NOORI/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images) Since March of 2024, Iran has expelled more than 1.2 million Afghans with nearly half a million deported in just two weeks following its June conflict with Israel. While deportations began 2023, they have accelerated sharply in recent months, exacerbating what is already one of the world's most severe displacement crises. Afghanistan is home to over 2.6 million officially registered refugees and 3.5 million internally displaced people. Most Afghan refugees reside in neighbouring Iran and Pakistan, and Iran hosts an estimated 4-6 million Afghans, many lacking formal legal status . With more than 4 million Afghans live in Pakistan, almost 2 million illegally, Pakistan has also periodically tightened its immigration policies. Islamabad forced an exodus of Afghans in 2016 and 2017 when more than 600,000 and 150,000 were expelled, respectively. More recently, citing a rise of violent attacks and a strain on public services, Pakistan has forced out another 850,000 Afghans since 2023. Though Iran has also cited security concerns and its conflict with Israel as the reason for the mass deportation effort (with Afghans scapegoated and accused of spying on behalf of Israel), it is Iran's deteriorating economic conditions that have driven the expulsion of Afghans. Runaway inflation and job scarcity have led to rising anti-Afghan sentiment within Iran. Many Afghans have faced violence, humiliation and abuse at the hands of Iran's security personnel and in some cases, Iranian citizens. International human rights groups have also documented Afghans in Iran enduring years of physical abuse, unlawful detentions in inhumane conditions, slave labor and family separation. And yet it was the dire economic conditions in Iran that drove Afghans to willingly leave in 2018 when 400,000 undocumented Afghans returned due to the lack of job opportunities in Iran. Most Afghan migrants have to take low paying jobs in Iran's grey economy and the depreciation of Iran's rial made it impossible to support their families back in Afghanistan—which widely uses the dollar. Some Afghans were making far less than $4 a day and could not survive. Most Afghans that have remained in Iran only have a quasi-legal status. Those better off were formally recognised as refugees from earlier waves of displacement, while those who arrived primarily after the Taliban returned to power were census slip holders with limited access to housing, jobs, education and healthcare. By 2022, 2.6 million Afghans were registered through this census slip holder process. But on June 5th of this year, the Iranian government declared that these censor slips were no longer valid, ordering an estimated 2 million to leave the country, lacking legal recourse and humanitarian support. Return to a Collapsing State Those being forced to return to Afghanistan face an uncertain future. The Taliban-led government has little administrative capacity to reintegrate hundreds of thousands of returnees. Those returning have no homes to go to and face renewed displacement. The state has no revenues to support basic services and donors are no longer paying the bills. Health, water and sanitation services have halted, leading to a spike in preventable illnesses. Any basic services that the government does provide are mired in bureaucratic delays. According to figures from a United Nations report, the poverty rate in Afghanistan is a staggering 97% with an unemployment rate of 69%-- both worsening since the Taliban took over. For women, the situation is even more depressing with 90% of women excluded from the workforce, unable to work outside their homes. Afghanistan's formal economy has also effectively collapsed, and over one-third of Afghans face acute food insecurity, with 95% of Afghans reporting that they do not have enough to eat. Not surprisingly, the burden of malnutrition and calorie deficits falls most heavily on girls and women. Compounding matters, terrorism continues to threaten Afghanistan. Most of the Taliban's revenues have been drained to address the threat posed by the Islamic State in Khorasan Province (ISKP). Though the Taliban's heavy-handed approach has resulted in a decline in ISKP attacks, the Taliban has not been able to prevent the ISKP from using its territory to launch attacks on other countries. While an influx of returning refugees has no direct effect on terrorist group capacity, large numbers of displacement and people living in poverty are conditions that terrorist groups can exploit. The Taliban's strained relationships with Iran and Pakistan further complicate reintegration efforts. As both countries continue deportations, Afghanistan's already fragile stability may collapse under the pressure.
Newsweek
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
What Is 'Deportation-Tok'? People Share Life After Leaving US
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As President Donald Trump continues to implement his immigration crackdown, a new social media trend has emerged: Deportation-Tok, where people share videos of their lives after leaving the U.S. Why It Matters The Trump administration, in keeping with its pledge to carry out the largest mass deportation program in the history of the United States, has authorized ICE raids around the country. This immigration crackdown, which was a central part of Trump's successful bid for reelection, has been met with protests and pushback. Some arrests have been criticized as being heavy-handed, and in addition to people living in the country without legal status, immigrants with valid documentation—including green cards and visas—have been detained. Demonstrators holding signs and flags in Los Angeles on June 14. Demonstrators holding signs and flags in Los Angeles on June 14. LAUREN PUENTE/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Since Trump returned to office in January, headlines about deportations across the U.S. have dominated news cycles. However, the coverage doesn't often extend to what happens afterward. Now, through "Deportation-Tok," people who have been deported are showing what their lives look like outside the U.S. As of writing, the "life after deportation" hashtag on TikTok has more than 4,000 posts. In the text overlay of one video, user @blancamarquez5 wrote, "When trump deports you after living in the states for 20 years … now you just a 25-year-old homeless mom trying to figure it out laughing to keep myself from crying." Another video, posted by user @olgaschronicles23, showed a series of pre- and post-deportation situations. The text overlay "life after deportation" appeared throughout the clip, which began with footage of a house and yard under the caption "I wish I had a bigger house." The video then cut to a clip of a more rundown home with a text overlay that said, "What I came back to." The next scene showed a laptop under text that said, "I want more money I wish I had another job." The video then cut to footage of a farm under text saying, "Working full labor for less than 5 percent of what I was making." However, not all "life after deportation" videos are negative in tone. User @ posted a video of an individual who said he had been deported to Mexico but returned to the U.S. the following week. Newsweek has not independently verified the events in the video. In the clip, the man said: "Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump. Me wanna say thank you to you for deportation me to Mexico and give me one week's vacation. My boss never give me. … One week I be back in U.S." Another video, posted by user @ included the text overlay "The HARSH reality of getting deported back to Mexico …" before cutting to images of things the creator identified as positives of living in Mexico, including housing, food and grocery stores. Newsweek has contacted @blancamarquez5, @olgaschronicles23, @ and @ for comment via social media outside regular working hours. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump said in April: "We're going to work with them right from the beginning on, trying to get them back in legally. So it gives you real incentive. Otherwise they never come back. They'll never be allowed once a certain period of time goes by, which is probably going to be 60 days." One social media user commented on @blancamarquez5's video: "People saying you had 20 yrs to get your citizenship are soooo out of touch with reality!!! Hang in there and I'm sorry this country and government failed you." One social media user commented on @olgaschronicles23's video: "You need to stop feeling sorry for yourself. If you had all that in the US & didn't appreciate it by getting legalized that was on you. Go to the big cities there is work out there." What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to continue its hard-line immigration approach.
IOL News
13-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Making Football Great Again: Donald Trump to attend FIFA Club World Cup final
American president Donald Trump will attend the Fifa Club World Cup final between Chelsea and PSG on Sunday evening. Picture: Mehmet Eser / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP Image: Mehmet Eser / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP Donald Trump will on Sunday showcase his unexpected attachment to a sport in which "America First" remains a dream, for now. The US president is attending the final of the newly expanded FIFA Club World Cup in his latest use of the beautiful game as a soft power political weapon. His appearance at the MetLife stadium in New Jersey, where Paris Saint-Germain face Chelsea, is very much a trial run for the World Cup final, which will take place in the same stadium next year. Trump has made it clear he sees both tournaments, as well as the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, as showpieces for what he calls the "Golden Age of America" during his second term. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Trump's Personal and Political Embrace of Soccer: FIFA President Gianni Infantino's Influence and Barron Trump's Fandom The billionaire Republican's close friendship with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, a frequent visitor to the White House, is also a factor in his appearance. Trump has kept the Club World Cup trophy next to his desk in the Oval Office since Infantino dropped by in March. But Trump's embrace of football, or soccer as he would say, is also personal. The president's 19-year-old son Barron is a fan, as Infantino pointed out in a press conference at FIFA's new office in Trump Tower in New York on Saturday. Trump's Connection to Soccer: From White House Goal to Personal Passion Asked if Trump liked the game, Infantino replied: 'Well I think he does. In his first term as president of the United States there was a soccer goal in the garden of the White House. 'He then explained to me that his son loved football, and that he loved the game. And of course when you are a parent, you love what your children love, so I think that he loves it.' As a student at the New York Military Academy, Trump himself also reportedly played the game for a season. 'Go home' Trump's apparent fondness for football may seem unusual for a country where, despite growing popularity, the sport still lags behind American football, basketball and baseball. The former reality TV star has, however, always had an eye for popularity, power and influence. And football in its own way brings all three. Trump pointed out when Infantino visited the White House in March that the United States won the right to host the 2026 World Cup in 2018, during his first term as president. FIFA Club World Cup Success and Trump's Support Amidst Election Loss He said he was 'so sad' because he assumed he would not be president when the tournament came around — but his 2020 election loss meant that he would after all. The FIFA Club World Cup has meanwhile proved more successful than its critics predicted, with around 2.5 million people attending games across the country and some gripping games. Infantino, who is no stranger to dealing with hard-nosed leaders around the world, thanked Trump for his support on Saturday. He said Trump 'embraced immediately the importance of the FIFA Club World Cup, and of course of the World Cup next year.' Infantino's Joke About Trump's Love for the Trophy and the Controversy Surrounding His Football Fandom Infantino also joked that Trump 'certainly loves as well the trophy' — whose gold-plated curves match the gilded makeover that the president has given the Oval Office. But in typical form Trump has also mixed political controversy with his football fandom. Hosting Italian side Juventus in the Oval Office in June, he delivered a diatribe on transgender people in sports before asking the players: 'Could a woman make your team, fellas?' Most of the players looked bemused before Juventus general manager Damien Comolli replied: 'We have a very good women's team.' 'He's being very diplomatic,' said Trump. Trump's hardline immigration crackdown — part of his 'America First' policy — has meanwhile sparked fears that football fans will be discouraged from coming to the United States. In May, Vice President JD Vance said that 2026 World Cup fans were 'welcome to come… but when the time is up they will have to go home.' AFP
Newsweek
02-07-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
California Ruling Could Force Change to Home Insurance Rules
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A scathing court ruling that found California's fire insurer of last resort in violation of state law for denying policyholders coverage for wildfire-related smoke damage could have major implications for the state's home insurance market, according to experts. On June 24, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stuart M. Rice ruled that the California FAIR Plan's smoke-damage policy, which requires smoke damage to be "visible to the unaided human eye" or capable of being "detected by the unaided human nose of an average person" rather than being perceptible "by the subjective senses of [the insured] or by laboratory testing" is unlawful under state law. The decision was taken in response to a lawsuit filed in 2021 by Lake Tahoe homeowner Jay Aliff, whose property was damaged in the Mountain View fire in November 2020. But it could now impact thousands of lawsuits filed since 2017, including claims related to the devastating blazes that ravaged Los Angeles County in January. A man walks through the remains of burned vehicles and homes in Altadena, California, on January 24, 2025. A man walks through the remains of burned vehicles and homes in Altadena, California, on January 24, 2025. ALI MATIN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images How California Insurers Have Approached Smoke Damage Several California homeowners whose homes were not destroyed by fires but significantly damaged by smoke, toxic ash and debris found that their insurers would not pay to cover the clean-up and remediations—all expensive activities. Luis Cazares, whose home in Altadena survived the January fires but was made inhabitable by toxic levels of lead brought in by smoke, discovered the gap in his coverage the hard way. After asking the state's insurer of last resort to help him remove and replace contaminated objects and clean up the property, Cazares received a stark rejection—"Clean it yourself"—and a damage claim payment much below what his coverage would include. Last month, he filed a lawsuit against the FAIR Plan—one of many initiated by wildfire survivors affected by the January blazes. For all of them, last week's court ruling was a victory and a sign that things are changing in a state that seemed to turn a blind eye toward smoke damage. In May, California Department of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara admitted that, for decades, the state had lacked consistent guidelines on how to approach insurance coverage and clean-up of smoke-damaged homes. "The result is confusion, delays and families forced to return to unsafe homes. Consumers are angry and rightly so. Californians deserve better," Lara said, announcing the creation of a task force within the CDI that would recommend "science-based standards, best practices for smoke restoration of homes and personal property, and enforcement tools to the Department that ensure Californians are treated fairly in the wake of wildfire smoke exposure." Judge's Decision It has taken years for a judge to recognize the FAIR Plan's approach to smoke damage as "unlawful," despite years of complaints from policyholders. The lawsuit that triggered the decision is years old and has been fought tooth-and-nail by the state's fire insurer of last resort. "The FAIR Plan filed numerous challenges to the complaint, and because the case was originally filed as a putative class action, there was a battle over class certification, which was eventually denied," Joseph Balice, a California-based attorney working for Haynes Boone Insurance Recovery, a company that helps policyholders recover insurance coverage benefits when carriers deny, delay or underpay claims, told Newsweek. The homeowner, Aliff, moved for summary adjudication—the California state court equivalent of partial summary judgment—in March 2025, and the ruling was issued late last month. "California law requires that homeowners insurance policies provide at least as much coverage as the standard form set forth in California Insurance Code section 2071," Balice said. "In this case, the court found that the FAIR Plan was not providing at least the minimum coverage required because it had limited coverage for smoke damage by imposing additional qualifications and conditions not permitted under the statute." How Ruling Could Change California Insurance Market Aliff's attorney, Dylan Schaffer, described the judge's ruling last week as "the most important decision in California insurance law in decades." Considering likely appeals that may follow the judge's decision, the FAIR Plan is expected to change its policy forms to conform to the court's ruling and potentially pay other claimants whose claims were previously denied under the existing language that was found to be unlawful, Balice said. "Homeowners that have previously had their claims denied based on these unlawful provisions should seek to have their claims re-examined and consider legal action," he urged. "And this decision sets a valuable precedent going forward, and we would expect any insurance company imposing these 'unlawful' restrictions on coverage to revise their policies to remove them and provide the coverage California law requires." FAIR Plan spokeswoman Hilary McLean already said that the insurer is working with California regulators to revise its language around smoke damage. "As the FAIR Plan is in the process of updating its policy language to reflect the manner in which claims have been adjusted since last year, it is unlikely to pursue an appeal," she told the Los Angeles Times. Newsweek contacted the FAIR Plan for comment by email on Wednesday.
Vox
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Why the US just can't quit Middle East wars
is a senior correspondent at Vox covering foreign policy and world news with a focus on the future of international conflict. He is the author of the 2018 book, Invisible Countries: Journeys to the Edge of Nationhood , an exploration of border conflicts, unrecognized countries, and changes to the world map. A view of the famous anti-US mural in central Tehran, Iran, that depicts the US flag with bombs and skulls on April 10. Hossein Beris/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images In April 1980, President Jimmy Carter authorized Operation Eagle Claw, an ill-fated military operation to rescue the American hostages held at the US embassy in Iran. Since then, every US president has ordered at least one — usually more than one — military intervention in the Middle East and North Africa. Under Ronald Reagan, there was the bombing of Libya and the deployment of Marines to Lebanon. Under George H.W. Bush, there was Operation Desert Storm. Under Bill Clinton, airstrikes against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and against al-Qaeda in Sudan. Under George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq. Under Barack Obama, a multicountry counterterrorist drone campaign, the toppling of Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime in Libya, and the redeployment of US troops to Iraq to fight ISIS. Under Donald Trump's first term, an expanded campaign against ISIS, missile strikes against the Syrian regime, and the targeted assassination of Iran's most powerful military leaders. Under Joe Biden, the deployment of US troops to the region following the October 7, 2023, attack and the airstrikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels. Now, in his second term, Trump has crossed another Rubicon, becoming the first US president to use military force on the soil of America's longtime adversary, Iran. Though a ceasefire has now been declared, it's very possible this crisis is only beginning, particularly if, as US intelligence agencies reportedly believe, much of Iran's nuclear program is still intact after the strikes. Trump's pivot toward the Middle East is a surprising turn from this president. This is a very different message from the one he delivered in Saudi Arabia just last month when he decried 'neocons' and 'interventionists' for ill-considered attempts to remake the region through force. Trump has said in the past, in reference to the Iraq war, that 'GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY,' and he has generally appeared to view the region — apart from wealthy Gulf States — as a hopeless war zone with little to offer the US. While he was often stymied in his attempts to withdraw troops in his first term by hawkish advisers, this time many of his senior appointees have been so-called 'restrainers,' who advocate pulling back from US military commitments overseas or 'prioritizers,' who want to shift attention to what they see as the more important challenge posed by China. Until very recently, they appeared to have the upper hand. But in the current crisis, the US actually relocated important military assets from the Pacific to the Middle East to the consternation of some Pentagon officials. The stated desire to end 'endless wars' in the Middle East and shift to bigger priorities is something the Trump administration has in common with the other two post-Iraq war presidencies. Barack Obama was elected in large part because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. In 2011, his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, promised a 'pivot' to Asia and the Pacific for US foreign policy priorities. The Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS got in the way of that, and the phrase 'pivot to Asia' became a running joke in US foreign policy circles. Joe Biden withdrew US troops from Afghanistan — not a Middle Eastern country but very much the archetypal 'endless war' of the post-9/11 era — and put forward a foreign policy vision emphasizing great power competition with China. His national security adviser infamously described the Middle East as 'quieter than it has been in decades' just days before the October 7 attacks shattered that quiet and shifted his boss's priorities. 'Right now, President Trump is having what I call his 'Michael Corleone' moment, and at some point, every president has one,' said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, referring to Al Pacino's famous line in The Godfather III, 'Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.' But why does this dynamic keep repeating? Why, 45 years after Operation Eagle Claw and 22 after the invasion of Iraq, can't the US military 'get out' of this region? The Middle East is still important…and still has a lot of problems One big reason why the US keeps getting drawn into the Middle East's crises is that those crises keep happening. 'The Middle East is an area of enduring national security interest of the United States, and it's far from stable,' said Emily Harding, a former CIA analyst now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'And as a result, we're going to keep getting dragged in until it reaches something resembling stability.' Why is it an important interest? The simple answer is economics. The Middle East contains two of the global economy's most important chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil flows, and the Red Sea, through which 12 percent of global trade flowed until shipping was disrupted by Houthi attacks. The 'no blood for oil' slogans of Iraq War protesters were an oversimplification, but it's undoubtedly true that keeping the region's oil and gas flowing to the world has been a US priority since Franklin Roosevelt met with the king of Saudi Arabia aboard a cruiser on the Suez Canal in 1945, kicking off the modern US-Saudi relationship. In the 1970s, the principle that the US would use military force to prevent any country from a hostile takeover of the Gulf region, and its vast energy supplies, was enshrined as the 'Carter Doctrine.' Today, thanks to domestic production, the US is much less directly dependent on Middle Eastern oil than it used to be, but disruptions in the region can cause global energy prices to spike. Beyond economics, events ranging from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian refugee crisis have illustrated that the Middle East's regional politics don't always stay regional. America's unique relationship with Israel is another reason why the US is continually involved in regional crises. For decades, the US has supported Israel and attempted, with mixed success, to help mediate its relationships with its neighbors and with the Palestinian territories. But the US military actually actively participating in Israel's wars rather than just sending weapons — as happened to some extent under Biden and now much more explicitly under Trump — is a fairly new dynamic. America is still the region's preeminent outside power Ever since the 1960s, when Britain withdrew many of its 'East of Suez' troop deployments, America has been the preeminent military power in the region. That remains true despite growing concern in Washington about China or Russia's influence. When crises do erupt, the US, with more than 40,000 troops in bases throughout the region and close security and political partnerships with key powers in the region, is often the outside power best positionedto intervene. When the Houthis began attacking shipping traveling through the Red Sea, there was little question of what country would lead the operation to combat them, much to the irritation of America Firsters like Vice President JD Vance. Michael Wahid Hanna, director of the US program at Crisis Group, says another reason the US often feels compelled to intervene in Middle East crises is that it 'had a major role in fomenting' something. He pointed to what he called the 'two great sins of the post-Cold War era for the United States,' the failure to secure a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the 1990s, when the US enjoyed far more leverage than it does today, and the invasion of Iraq. Both continue to drive instability in the region today. As Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous 'Pottery Barn rule' warned in the run-up to the war in Iraq, 'if you break it, you own it.' What if we're the problem? Advocates of US engagement in the Middle East argue that if we pull back, it will create power vacuums that will be filled by malign actors. Obama felt compelled to redeploy US troops to Iraq just three years after withdrawing them when the country's military collapsed in the face of ISIS. But advocates of foreign policy restraint argue that the US isn't doomed to keep intervening, and that its presence isn't actually helping. Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes that US security partnerships can actually embolden governments in the Middle East to escalate crises, knowing that they can count on US support to deal with the consequences. The most recent illustration is Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Iran, made under the correct assumption that he would have backup from the Trump administration. 'What we have is a delusion in which we think that we can continue to maintain close security partnerships with states in the Middle East, station hundreds of thousands of US service members around the region indefinitely, and that somehow the next bombing will restore deterrence, and we'll get to peace and stability,' he said. 'That hasn't worked for my whole lifetime. Taking the long view Whether you think America is uniquely positioned to provide stability or that it's the cause of the instability, voters should probably treat promises of pivots away from the Middle East with skepticism. Promising to bring American troops home is always going to be a political winner. And whether it's a rising China or America's own borders, one thing there's agreement on across the political spectrum is that America's core security interests are not in the Middle East. That's especially true as the country's post-9/11 focus on terrorism has faded. But, says Michael Rubin, senior fellow and Mideast specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, 'Most Americans understand history through the lens of four-year increments. We believe each administration starts with a tabula rasa.' Administrations are often optimistic that one military campaign (such as Israel's recent decimation of Iran's Axis of Resistance) or one grand bargain (such as the Biden administration's attempts to reach a Saudi-Israel normalization deal that would also revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) will resolve the region's issues enough that America can move on to other things. The region's leaders, many of whom have been in power for decades, often take a longer view. More likely is that the regional crises, some of which we've played a role in creating, will be occupying America's attention for administrations to come.
