Perhaps a presidential aspirant should not have to know the name of every leader of Hamas, but how can you understand the region if you don’t know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, as Hewitt asked Trump? Or the difference between Hamas and Fatah? Or the difference between ISIS and al-Qaida? Or what Iran’s governing doctrine dictates?

Should not a presidential candidate be expected to have at least a rudimentary knowledge the origins of these various groups, their goals, who funds and sponsors them, and how they relate to each other? If a candidate can’t answer these questions, how can they possibly understand what is going on in the region and the threats that confront America from it?

This is not to say you have to know as much about these groups as a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy to be a successful president. It also doesn’t mean that everyone with a basic understanding of the dynamics of the region will have the same policy solution on how to stop the Islamist terror threat. Obviously not. But if you don’t know the basics, it’s hard to imagine how you can even begin to formulate a response to the threat — or choose between various proposals your advisors formulate.