Foreign Affairs

Foreign Affairs



In-depth insight and analysis on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy since 1922. Sign up for our newsletter:

New York, NY
Joined on February 17, 2009


We looked inside some of the tweets by @ForeignAffairs and here's what we found interesting.

Inside 100 Tweets

Time between tweets:
7 hours
Average replies
Average retweets
Average likes
Tweets with photos
0 / 100
Tweets with videos
0 / 100
Tweets with links
0 / 100

Rankings (sorted by number of followers)

104. in country United States and category Magazines & Journals

223. in country United States and category Media

244. in category Magazines & Journals

Last Seen Profiles


Why has nationalism once again become a central, disruptive force in global politics? In the cover package of our March/April 2019 issue, eight authors consider the reasons for nationalism’s resurgence and how to avoid its more destructive consequences.


Liberals should not adopt the framing and rhetoric of populists and opportunistic center-right politicians, writes Jan-Werner Müller, as doing so will lead them to make preemptive concessions that betray their ideals.

Can carbon-removal technologies curb climate change?

The liberal world order is clearly worth saving, write @profLind and William C. Wohlforth. The question is how.

In both the developed and the developing world, writes Andreas Wimmer, nationalism is here to stay. To ensure that a more benign form of nationalism trumps a more divisive one, leaders must learn to look out for the interests of all their people.

To focus on election interference may be to fixate on past attacks while missing the most acute vulnerabilities now, writes @robknake. The real cyberthreat from Russia today may be an attack on the electric grid and other critical U.S. infrastructure.

“The human mind’s propensity for us-versus-them thinking runs deep.”

From the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the Paris agreement to the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has made a series of unilateral decisions with enormous consequences. @JimGoldgeier and @ProfSaunders discuss how presidential power has expanded in recent decades.

Jan-Werner Müller warns against the adoption of populist rhetoric about voters’ concerns by parties and institutions across the political spectrum:

A more autonomous Europe will cause some headaches for future U.S. policymakers, write @benjaminhaddad and @apolyakova, but European strategic autonomy will benefit Washington as well.


.@KAnthonyAppiah discusses the long tradition of cosmopolitanism, how the term became associated with out-of-touch elites, and why it’s needed now more than ever:

.@nargesbajoghli examines the debates about the future of Iranian politics taking place within the regime’s ranks:

Our newly published article on @ForeignAffairs. @PeterHaysGries and I argued that while Chinese nationalists desperately desire reunification, Trump’s“America First” rhetoric has only encouraged such reckless thoughts, and Taiwanese remain passive.

In the absence of a shared national history, writes Jill Lepore, illiberal actors have taken up the task of defining what it means to be American. Historians, she argues, must reenter this debate.

It’s true that there is a bias for action in government, writes Jake Sullivan, but foreign policy practitioners do struggle with the decisions they face, and they earnestly debate the merits of doing something more, less, or different.

Marta Figlerowicz writes that local politics could revive the Polish left.

In recent decades, ambitious expansion of the liberal world order has been met with resistance when it challenges the principle of sovereignty. @profLind and William C. Wohlforth argue that liberal states must now rein in their expansionist impulses.

With Pakistan’s economy in crisis and his government restricted by its close ties to the military, will Imran Khan be able to deliver on his campaign promises?

Jake Sullivan reviews two new books by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, each highlighting the failures of U.S. foreign policy:

U.S. grand strategy should take a conservative approach, write Jennifer Lind and William C. Wohlforth. The choices at the extremes—undoing alliances and institutions or further extending American power—represent dangerous experiments.

“If Iraqi hedging requires a soft touch from the United States, Trump delivered the polar opposite.”

Next Page