Latest news with #QuincyInstituteforResponsibleStatecraft
Iraqi News
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Iraqi News
Bombing Iran, Trump gambles on force over diplomacy
Washington – For nearly a half-century the United States has squabbled with Iran's Islamic Republic but the conflict has largely been left in the shadows, with US policymakers believing, often reluctantly, that diplomacy was preferable. With President Donald Trump's order of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the United States — like Israel, which encouraged him — has brought the conflict into the open, and the consequences may not be clear for some time to come. 'We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next three to five years without the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want,' said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and supporter of the 2003 Iraq war who is now vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute. US intelligence had not concluded that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, with Tehran's sensitive atomic work largely seen as a means of leverage, and Iran can be presumed to have taken precautions in anticipation of strikes. Trita Parsi, an outspoken critic of military action, said Trump 'has now made it more likely that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next five to 10 years.' 'We should be careful not to confuse tactical success with strategic success,' said Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 'The Iraq war was also successful in the first few weeks but President Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' did not age well,' he said. – Weak point for Iran – Yet Trump's attack — a week after Israel began a major military campaign — came as the cleric-run state is at one of its weakest points since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the pro-Western shah. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which enjoys Iran's support, Israel — besides obliterating much of Gaza — has decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah, a militant group that would once reliably strike Israel as Tehran's proxy. Iran's main ally among Arab leaders, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, was also toppled in December. Supporters of Trump's strike argued that diplomacy was not working, with Iran standing firm on its right to enrich uranium. 'Contrary to what some will say in the days to come, the US administration did not rush to war. In fact, it gave diplomacy a real chance,' said Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the American Jewish Committee. 'The murderous Iranian regime refused to make a deal,' he said. Top Senate Republican John Thune pointed to Tehran's threats to Israel and language against the United States and said that the state had 'rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace.' – Abrupt halt to diplomacy – Trump's attack comes almost exactly a decade after former president Barack Obama sealed a deal in which Iran drastically scaled back its nuclear work — which Trump pulled out of in 2018 after coming into office for his first term. Most of Trump's Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long seen Iran as an existential threat, attacked Obama's deal because it allowed Tehran to enrich uranium at levels well beneath weapons grade and the key clauses had an end date. But Trump, billing himself a peacemaker, just a month ago said on a visit to Gulf Arab monarchies that he was hopeful for a new deal with Iran, and his administration was preparing new talks when Netanyahu attacked Iran. This prompted an abrupt U-turn from Trump. 'Trump's decision to cut short his own efforts for diplomacy will also make it much harder to get a deal in the medium and long runs,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint. 'Iran now has no incentive to trust Trump's word or to believe that striking a compromise will advance Iran's interests.' Iran's religious rulers also face opposition internally. Major protests erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, who was detained for defying the regime's rules on covering hair. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Trump's strikes could either entrench the Islamic Republic or hasten its downfall. 'The US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is an unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, US foreign policy, global non-proliferation and potentially even the global order,' he said. 'Its impact will be measured for decades to come.'
Int'l Business Times
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Int'l Business Times
Bombing Iran, Trump Gambles On Force Over Diplomacy
For nearly a half-century the United States has squabbled with Iran's Islamic republic but the conflict has largely been left in the shadows, with US policymakers believing, often reluctantly, that diplomacy was preferable. With President Donald Trump's order of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the United States -- like Israel, which encouraged him -- has brought the conflict into the open, and the consequences may not be clear for some time to come. "We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next three to five years without the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want," said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and supporter of the 2003 Iraq war who is now vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute. US intelligence had not concluded that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, with Tehran's sensitive atomic work largely seen as a means of leverage, and Iran can be presumed to have taken precautions in anticipation of strikes. Trita Parsi, an outspoken critic of military action, said Trump "has now made it more likely that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next five to 10 years." "We should be careful not to confuse tactical success with strategic success," said Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "The Iraq war was also successful in the first few weeks but President Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' did not age well," he said. Yet Trump's attack -- a week after Israel began a major military campaign -- came as the cleric-run state is at one of its weakest points since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the pro-Western shah. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which enjoys Iran's support, Israel -- besides obliterating much of Gaza -- has decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah, a militant group that would once reliably strike Israel as Tehran's proxy. Iran's main ally among Arab leaders, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, was also toppled in December. Supporters of Trump's strike argued that diplomacy was not working, with Iran standing firm on its right to enrich uranium. "Contrary to what some will say in the days to come, the US administration did not rush to war. In fact, it gave diplomacy a real chance," said Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the American Jewish Committee. "The murderous Iranian regime refused to make a deal," he said. Top Senate Republican John Thune pointed to Tehran's threats to Israel and language against the United States and said that the state had "rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace." Trump's attack comes almost exactly a decade after former president Barack Obama sealed a deal in which Iran drastically scaled back its nuclear work -- which Trump pulled out of in 2018 after coming into office for his first term. Most of Trump's Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long seen Iran as an existential threat, attacked Obama's deal because it allowed Tehran to enrich uranium at levels well beneath weapons grade and the key clauses had an end date. But Trump, billing himself a peacemaker, just a month ago said on a visit to Gulf Arab monarchies that he was hopeful for a new deal with Iran, and his administration was preparing new talks when Netanyahu attacked Iran. This prompted an abrupt U-turn from Trump. "Trump's decision to cut short his own efforts for diplomacy will also make it much harder to get a deal in the medium and long runs," said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint. "Iran now has no incentive to trust Trump's word or to believe that striking a compromise will advance Iran's interests." Iran's religious rulers also face opposition internally. Major protests erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, who was detained for defying the regime's rules on covering hair. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Trump's strikes could either entrench the Islamic Republic or hasten its downfall. "The US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is an unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, US foreign policy, global non-proliferation and potentially even the global order," he said. "Its impact will be measured for decades to come."
The Hill
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Israel plans to conquer Gaza?! Trita Parsi interview
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, shares insight on Israel's new plan to reoccupy all of Gaza and forcebly remove 2 million Palestinians to southern Gaza.
Al Jazeera
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Why did Netanyahu visit Trump for a second time this year?
US President Donald Trump has hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the second time since returning to office in January. Iran and Gaza were the main topics discussed. Why did the meeting take place, and what does it signal? Presenter: Dareen Abughaida Guests: H A Hellyer – senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute Trita Parsi – executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft Daniel Levy – president of the US/Middle East Project (USMEP)
The Guardian
20-02-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
We need a debate on defence spending as Nato unravels, putting Europe at risk
With current and past leaders of the armed services joining the Americans in calling for ever greater percentages of national income to be devoted to defence, some hardheaded thinking is going to be needed (Starmer will go in 'bin of history' if he fails to raise defence budget, says ex-army chief, 15 February). Unless defence spending contributes to growth, we could have the absurd situation of increasing the proportion of GDP spent on defence without any material increase in the actual amount available; 2.5% of substantial growth is better than 3% of an economy flatlining. We must also surely want a national debate on the kind of defence spending we want – matching a very different threat to that experienced in the 20th century and requiring not necessarily more personnel, but greater creativity and skill in combating the threat of the future. Above all, however, we should have a national debate about what other key services are going to be denied investment as a consequence of the ever-increasing demand to combat a real or perceived threat from the Russian federation. Protecting our own democracy and social cohesion, to parody the words of Marco Rubio, requires us to protect what we hold dear if we are to retain consent for protecting the people of eastern Europe and BlunkettLabour, House of Lords The solution to the European security crisis does not lie in increased military spending (Trump's return means UK must swiftly find a way to increase defence spending, 16 February) or a Eurobomb (As the US retreats, Europe must look out for itself – so is Macron's nuclear offer the answer?, 17 February). This discredited thinking has already taken us to the precipice: 89 seconds to midnight, according to the Doomsday Clock. Moreover, the US and European thinktanks that are advocating this path are largely funded by and work in the interest of the military industrial complex, as detailed in recent research by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Their outputs should be treated with the same degree of scepticism as the disinformation from Russian and Chinese troll factories. Europe is strong today because it has kept arms at bay and democratic politics is its first line of defence. A future European security policy should be centred on international law, inclusive diplomacy, conventional non-offensive defence, strengthened societal resilience and support for the international ban on nuclear weapons. These policies won't cost the earth; the alternatives just Davis Founder, Nato WatchRichard Reeve Coordinator, Rethinking Security Paul Rogers Emeritus professor of peace studies, Bradford University I feel as if I am now living in a parallel universe (Trump calls Zelenskyy a dictator amid fears of irreconcilable rift, 19 February). Trump, who still asserts he won the 2020 election, who asserts that the courts cannot restrict what he does, who bans books he does not like, who tells the FBI and Department of Justice to go after his enemies, who effectively sacks anyone involved in investigating his past nefarious activities, who bans news outlets from White House briefings and who overrules Congress's funding of aid, tells me Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a dictator. He prefers Vladimir Putin, who, presumably, won his election fairly. It is well beyond satire or parody and should be called out by all British politicians who value HendersonNottingham Volodymyr Zelenskyy is 'a modestly successful comedian', says a has-been reality TV BluntNortholt, London Do you have a photograph you'd like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers' best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
