Syria is looking more like a collapsed state every day. Spillover is destabilizing Lebanon, putting pressure on Jordan, an important regional partner, and imposing a major strain on Turkey, a NATO ally. The influx of Sunnis, some of whom are extremists, into Iraq from Syria is putting Iraq's tenuous stability at risk and pushing the Maliki government closer to Iran. Nearly a million people have now fled Syria for safety abroad. Meanwhile, the influence of extremist groups, such as the al Nusrah Front, continues to grow as these groups slip into the areas vacated by the Syrian state.

Then there is the question of Syria's chemical weapons. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper recently expressed his concern to Congress that the Assad regime, “having found its escalation of violence through conventional means inadequate, might be prepared to use the chemical weapons against the Syrian people.”

This commentary appeared in Los Angeles Times on March 29, 2013.

Don't want to cut benefits? Then allow the system to pay for lower-cost drugs or care.

Now that the budget “sequester” is in effect, Congress is shifting its attention to entitlement reform. There's simply no way to achieve long-term reductions in federal spending without touching the big health programs, particularly Medicare. Although raising the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 appears off the table, at least for now, the budget plan that Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) is proposing would shift a greater share of the program's growing costs to beneficiaries in the years to come.

The bipartisan deal that kept the federal government from hurtling over the “fiscal cliff” on Jan. 2 actually increased Medicare spending. At the last minute, a powerful bipartisan group of senators inserted a provision into the bill that blocked Medicare, for two years, from getting a better price on an expensive drug used by kidney dialysis patients. This was in addition to a previous two-year extension obtained by Amgen, the drug's manufacturer. The move saddled Medicare with roughly $500 million in added costs over the next two years and generated a windfall for Amgen.

Last week, the main Chinese subsidiary of Suntech, the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels, was forced to take steps toward bankruptcy as a result of missed payments to bondholders and a debt level of approximately $1.4 billion. In recent years, the Chinese government has designated renewable energy as a strategic industry. Through a combination of government purchases and subsidies to Chinese companies, Chinese manufacturers have dramatically expanded capacity to manufacture solar panels, taking market share in China and abroad from established Western manufacturers by slashing prices.

But demand for photovoltaic solar panels still primarily depends on government subsidies, as in most parts of the world solar power remains more expensive than conventional sources of electricity and even other renewable sources of energy, like wind power. Europe’s fiscal problems have caused governments to cut subsidies for solar power, especially in Spain, but also in Germany, leading to a fall in demand. Moreover, both the United States and the European Union have responded to inroads by Chinese producers by imposing countervailing duties, so as to protect local manufacturers from their subsidized Chinese competitors.

This commentary appeared in U.S. News & World Report on March 28, 2013.

For the past several months, the Senkaku islands—known as the Diaoyus in China—have been at the center of tensions between China and Japan. Both sides claim ownership of these uninhabited islets in the East China Sea, and of the potentially resource-rich waters surrounding them.

China, challenging Japan's existing control of the islands, has sent ships and aircraft into the area to confront the Japanese. Each side has scrambled fighter jets in response to the other, and Chinese warships have reportedly locked weapon-targeting radars onto a Japanese helicopter and ship—a subtle but unmistakable ratcheting up of the tension.

This commentary appeared on Wall Street Journal Online on March 27, 2013.

Increases in U.S. oil production put downward pressure on world market prices of oil, as increases in supply put downward pressure on prices in any market. But in a world where global demand for petroleum and natural gas liquids runs over 80 million barrels per day, projected increases in U.S. output add just a few percent to global supply. The increased U.S. output is useful, but is unlikely to be enough to lead to a very sharp decline in oil prices for an extended period of time. Demand growth in developing country markets will likely play a more decisive role in determining long-term prices for petroleum than increased U.S. production alone.

Because the price of oil will still be determined by global as opposed to national or regional markets, even if North America becomes a net exporter of petroleum, prices for U.S. and Canadian consumers will still be dictated by world market prices. Even though Canada has been a major net exporter of oil for years, prices for gasoline in Canada are driven by the same factors as prices across the border as shown by the similarities in gasoline prices between in Vancouver and Seattle and Windsor and Detroit. Even if the United States no longer imports oil from the Middle East, the United States will still be vulnerable to oil price shocks driven by developments in the Middle East.

This commentary appeared on ForeignAffairs.com on March 27, 2013.

Last week, Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), declared a cease-fire in his party's nearly three-decade-long struggle with the Turkish state. Before then, the insurgency -- which had claimed some 40,000 lives -- had seemed intractable. Ankara's attempts to put it down had only inflamed Kurdish nationalism and made the PKK stronger. But with Ocalan now apparently ready to try to resolve differences peacefully, the prospects that the uprising will come to an end have improved.

Ocalan's announcement came at an opportune time. Several factors had already made the moment ripe for peace. First, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the broader Turkish public had come to recognize that trying to end the insurgency with force was a dead end and that the government would have to make a more determined effort to find a political solution to the Kurdish conflict.

Second, the Kurdish issue is closely linked to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's political ambitions. Under AKP bylaws, Erdogan cannot run for another term as prime minister when his second term ends next year. Instead, he is widely expected to try to run for president. If he wins, he will be the first popularly elected president in Turkish history, capping his political career and giving him the chance to shape Turkish politics until 2023, the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Turkish Republic.

This commentary appeared on Foreign Policy on March 22, 2013.

Obama shows Netanyahu and Abbas—and their people—how it's done.

For all the drama of President Obama's stirring speech Thursday in Jerusalem, the most encouraging thing about it may have been the applause from the audience. “Remarks of President Obama to the People of Israel,” the White House called the speech—and, like President Reagan, Obama went soaring over the heads of officials, elites, and pundits, directly to Israel's citizenry. In that may lie the nub of a second-term approach to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking that could prove more fruitful than the frustrations of the first.

Conventional wisdom holds that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not ripe for resolution—that Obama should hold back, take the lessons from his failure to spur sustained and constructive peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, and turn to less painful topics. This is more conventional than wise.

This commentary appeared in New York Daily News on March 25, 2013.

According to a poll released this month by the Pew Research Center, nearly half of American gun owners report that their main reason for having a gun is protection; fewer than a third own a gun primarily for hunting. This is a striking change from 1999, when nearly half of gun owners kept firearms mainly for hunting and only about one quarter cited protection as their most important reason.

Pew's results might make sense if violent crime were surging. But it's not. Since 1993, homicide and non-negligent manslaughter in the U.S. have been cut in half. Violent crime overall is down 48%. But perhaps even more important — and less understood — an ample body of evidence indicates that the benefits of keeping a gun for protection are substantially outweighed by the associated risks.

Historically, wars were fought primarily for material gain: livestock, treasure, tribute, or territory. More recently, however, the profit motive for war has declined as life has become more precious and conquest and plunder have become less acceptable, although conflicts waged for control of diamonds and other precious commodities continue in parts of the world. International law generally prohibits military action by one state against another except for reasons of self-defense. In modern warfare, “gains” must be measured in less-tangible forms, such as preserving national security, liberating threatened populations from tyranny, protecting human rights. Military action to achieve such ends is considered unavoidable and is rarely assessed as an investment.

The invasion of Iraq was a war of choice, however, and therefore should be assessed in terms of costs and benefits. Neither the United States nor its allies had been attacked by Iraq, and there was no evidence that any attack was imminent. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, and his regime was an affront to human rights, but the country had suffered under his rule for many years. Iraq's liberation was not the reason for going to war. The official purpose of the invasion was to remove any threat posed by Iraq's presumed arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Regime change was a consequence, not a cause. And although Iraq's citizens are freer now, they are by no means more pro-American.

This commentary appeared on Ms. Magazine on March 20, 2013.

In the past two months, two of my friends—both seemingly healthy women—became unlikely victims of cardiovascular disease. One, a woman who by any textbook definition would be considered at low risk for heart problems, nonetheless suffered a heart attack. Thankfully, she is recovering. The other, a longtime friend and a mentor of mine, tragically passed away after suffering a stroke. These experiences left me wondering how we can accelerate efforts to reduce cardiovascular disease risk and mortality in women.

As a women's health researcher, I am concerned about how long it is taking to bring attention and resources to this problem. After all, it has been decades since we've learned that cardiovascular disease affects women every bit as much—or even more—than it does men. Indeed, since 1984, cardiovascular disease has killed more women than men (PDF) in the United States. When it comes to women's health, cancer gets a good deal of the attention; somehow, it hasn't fully registered that so many of our mothers, sisters, friends and daughters are being affected by another, often silent killer.