The School of War Reader: How to Bring Back Maximum Pressure on Iran
How to Bring Back Maximum Pressure on Iran
Richard Goldberg, Jewish Policy Center
How might the incoming Trump administration reimpose a ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Teheran? Always read Goldberg:
Maximum pressure is not the same as maximum sanctions. Sanctions are a tool, albeit a powerful one. But other tools are needed for maximum pressure to succeed. UN Ambassador-designate Elise Stefanik will need to wage political warfare against Iran at the Security Council. Accountability will be needed at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna – declaring Iran in breach of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations. … And, without a doubt, a credible threat of military action must be on the table – clearly communicated to Tehran from day one, and quickly demonstrated to the regime in and around Yemen should the Houthis continue attacks on the Red Sea.
America Must Put The “Americas First”
Joseph Ledford, Hoover Institution
The time is right for a renewal of the Monroe Doctrine:
The Trump administration has a historic opportunity to parlay the encouraging developments under way in the Western Hemisphere into long-term prosperity and stability. President Trump must dispense with nonbinding, status quo forums dedicated to pledges and declarations under Biden’s APEP initiative. Instead, Trump must seek binding, sustainable long-term economic cooperation that leads to regional integration, joint security measures that address twenty-first-century challenges, and cultural exchanges that strengthen hemispheric relations. Trump and his team should visit our neighbors often and foster continentwide goodwill. Cultivating an integrated and secure hemisphere is a long-term objective that will span multiple administrations, but it can begin anew on January 20.
‘Beijing’s Starting To Win Without Fighting’: Defense Expert Warns Of U.S. Weakness
Hank Berrien, The Daily Wire
Most discussions of the defense budget don’t make you fear for your life. But maybe the show’s recent conversation with Mackenzie Eaglen should:
Eaglen dismissed the emphasis some critics of the Pentagon have put on the exorbitant costs of defense, saying, “If we’re just looking at our own investment in isolation and not accounting for the enemy … or the competitor in this case, deterrence is expensive. … Just talking about what we’re spending and the fact of that doesn’t mean anything all by itself because is that enough relative to what?” … “I like to look at our spending relative to what we need to do with this tool of statecraft, which is as busy as it ever was,” she stated. “It matters what Beijing is spending…not only are they outpacing in output in defense investments, which is manifest all over the world; they have a blue water navy, full-stop; they are present in every single major waterway where we are, but of course, how is that changing the risk calculus for what they might do that we might disagree with to change the status quo, whether that’s the Philippines, Taiwan or somewhere else.”
Model Legislation to Track Foreign Funds to American Universities
Neetu Arnold, The Manhattan Institute
This report identifies states with lax disclosure laws for foreign funding on university campuses. Arnold also provides model legislation that states could adopt to ensure universities are transparent about their relationships with foreign actors:
State-level laws should clarify that funds that pass through university-affiliated organizations must be reported. Universities have sometimes claimed that they are not required to report contributions routed through their foundations, citing the legal separation of these entities from educational institutions, even when the funds support university activities. This lack of transparency is compounded by public records exemptions for university foundations. As a result, the federal government has not fully captured the extent of foreign funding entering American universities.
Civil War Buffs Drill for the ‘Hardest Test in History’
James Fanelli, The Wall Street Journal
If only standards could be this high for a bunch of other important things in American life:
For the first time in nearly four score and seven months, Gettysburg National Military Park needs guides, so the National Park Service will administer an exam this month. The test, last given in 2017, has gained mythic status among Civil War buffs for its degree of difficulty and slim passing rate. It requires an encyclopedic knowledge of the 1863 battle, as well as a firm grasp of the lead-up to the war and its aftermath. … Nearly 160 brave souls are set to sit for the Dec. 7 exam, but only a fraction are expected to pass. The Civil War Monitor, a quarterly magazine, once dubbed it “the hardest test in history.” Lawyers who have taken it say it’s easier to pass the bar.
In the next few days, we’ll release my analysis of Israel’s war with Iranian proxy groups Hezbollah and Hamas in essay format. Keep an eye out and feel free to share with family and friends who may be interested.
Catch our latest episode with Mark Dubowitz on Syria’s collapse, available to stream now!