In the April–May 2017 issue, François Heisbourg presents an analogy between Donald Trump and Kaiser Wilhelm II and argues that personality matters; Ash Carter examines why the United States continues its engagement in the Middle East; Mark Fitzpatrick sets out priorities for tackling the Iranian nuclear threat; Alexey Arbatov analyses the differences between the US and Russia in thinking on nuclear weapons; Hans Mouritzen defends the strategy of Finlandisation; Robert Ayson and Manjeet S. Pardesi examine the changes in the Asia-Pacific region as a result of military coercion; Nina Kollars explores the difference between genius and mastery in military innovation; Wolfram Lacher asks if Libya’s collapse was predictable; David Hannay and Thomas R. Pickering outline the wider significance of the Iran nuclear agreement; Naysan Rafati contributes a review essay; H.R. McMaster, Ray Takeyh, Gilles Andréani and David C. Unger review new books; and Jonathan Stevenson suggests H.R. McMaster’s effectiveness as US national security advisor will be determined by Trump’s whim.
In the April–May 2017 issue, François Heisbourg presents an analogy between Donald Trump and Kaiser Wilhelm II and argues that personality matters; Ash Carter examines why the United States continues its engagement in the Middle East; Mark Fitzpatrick sets out priorities for tackling the Iranian nuclear threat; Alexey Arbatov analyses the differences between the US and Russia in thinking on nuclear weapons; Hans Mouritzen defends the strategy of Finlandisation; Robert Ayson and Manjeet S. Pardesi examine the changes in the Asia-Pacific region as a result of military coercion; Nina Kollars explores the difference between genius and mastery in military innovation; Wolfram Lacher asks if Libya’s collapse was predictable; David Hannay and Thomas R. Pickering outline the wider significance of the Iran nuclear agreement; Naysan Rafati contributes a review essay; H.R. McMaster, Ray Takeyh, Gilles Andréani and David C. Unger review new books; and Jonathan Stevenson suggests H.R. McMaster’s effectiveness as US national security advisor will be determined by Trump’s whim.