Conventional and Nuclear Weapons in Future U.S. Security Strategy

On the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy website, AHS speaker Elbridge Colby discusses the shrinking gap between U.S. and Chinese military capabilities requires careful attention to mitigate the potential risks of security instability. 



The Risks of a Nuclear Iran Spread Far Beyond the Middle East

In the Weekly Standard, AHS speaker Dan Blumenthal explains why the United States is under no pressure to conclude a deal with Iran:

"For Washington, getting a good deal means forcing a rogue regime to make the strategic decision that having nuclear weapons is worse than giving them up. Only Washington can lead in making the risks of holding onto nuclear weapons worse than the risks of abandoning them."



A Nuclear Iran Puts U.S., All Mideast Allies at Risk

In the Boston Herald, AHS speaker James Jay Carafano explains why President Obama’s strategy of negotiating with Iran could put Israel at risk:

"The deal provides no assurance that Iran won’t cross that line in the future. That kind of pact leaves Israel facing a potential showdown with a nuclear-armed adversary. The most common concern conjured is that, as the first nuke comes off the assembly line, an apocalyptic mullah will fire it at Tel Aviv or hand it off to a terrorist group to do the job for him. But that’s not the most likely scenario."



Dislodging ISIS in Iraq

In the Weekly Standard, AHS speaker Gary Schmitt asks what the likely victory of Iraqi forces retaking Tikrit from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria can tell us about the current U.S. military strategy in Iraq:

"With sufficient American “boots on the ground”—say, an Army division’s worth—and an intensified air campaign, ISIS would soon be on its heels, and possibly even routed. Theology might make martyrdom an attractive alternative in theory, but, in practice, most want to think their ultimate sacrifice helps the winning side."


What Congress’s Iran Letter Signals About Obama’s Diplomacy

In the Wall Street Journal, AHS speaker Michael Singh assesses the controversy over the recent open letter to Iranian leaders:

"Diplomacy is not just about negotiating with adversaries. It is also about bringing along one’s allies and domestic constituencies, without whose support an agreement would be a hollow achievement. Leadership is not simply about exercising prerogatives; it is also about persuading others to follow." 



The Tyrant’s Hopelessness

In the American Interest, AHS speaker Jakub Grygiel argues that to understand a tyranny, you have to understand the tyrant's soul:

"There is still an analytical place for tyrants. In fact, many of today’s strongmen—say, Vladimir Putin—resemble more ancient tyrants than modern ones. Ideology and science play less of a role in their hold on power. Today’s tyrants are ideological opportunists—postmodern leaders who shape their “narrative” according to public relations needs."



US Military Force Sizing for Both War and Peace

On the AEI website, AHS speaker Mackenzie Eaglen discusses the Pentagon's sizing of the U.S. military:

"These peacetime missions represent the most cost-effective and preferred use of American military power. They magnify all other aspects of American national power while upholding stability in vital regions."