PRESS ROOM

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius had a column in today’s paper that gave a muddled, fairly escalatory take on the continuing crisis in the Persian Gulf between the Iranian government and the forces lined up against it.

Amidst rising tensions in the Gulf, Yemen—the terrain where Iranian and Saudi proxies have been engaged in a bitter civil war—presents President Trump with a unique opportunity to salvage his reputation as a dealmaker. More importantly, it could be a vital first step in reversing a dangerous game of saber-rattling between Washington and Tehran.

The Trump administration’s effort to use $3.6 billion from the fiscal year 2020 Pentagon budget to pay for the president’s border wall is the latest attempt to get the department involved in a controversial and damaging policy that should be none of its business.

The attack on Saudi oil facilities that has rippled through global markets and increased the prospects for U.S. military action against Iran underscores the need for a course correction in U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

The Pentagon is the world’s biggest consumer of fossil fuels—and agent of climate change.

The Trump administration’s unique embrace of the defense industry and his determination to sell weapons to dictators and human rights abusers may be sowing the seeds of welcome change in the realm of U.S. arms exports. A new study shows a staggering 70 percent of Americans believe that such exports make the United States less safe. Congress must seize the chance to rein in an administration whose policies are undermining national security.

Launching an attack that could spark a regionwide war will protect no one. The best way to defend American allies and promote peace and stability in the Gulf is to de-escalate by reviving the Iran nuclear deal and ending American support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. At this crucial moment, smart diplomacy is far preferable to reckless military action.

Upgrade Development Dive in. We'll learn what you like along the way. GEN Alaska’s Swimsuit Scandal Unfairly Polices Young Girls’ Bodies ONEZERO Leak of Microsoft Salaries Shows Fight for Higher Compensation Attention Angry White People: 7 New Rules FORGE How to Stop Overthinking The Emperor’s New-Old Nuclear Clothes Helena Cobban Helena Cobban Follow Sep 18 · 8 min read How is it still possible to write a lengthy article about the military/strategic dynamic among the triad of Israel, Iran, and the United States while making zero mention of Israel’s robust nuclear-weapons capability? New York Times staffers Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti, and their editors at the Times magazine clearly think this is quite okay.

The Trump administration’s effort to use $3.6 billion from the fiscal year 2020 Pentagon budget to pay for the president’s border wall is the latest attempt to get the department involved in a controversial and damaging policy that should be none of its business.

The attack on Saudi oil facilities that has rippled through global markets and increased the prospects for U.S. military action against Iran underscores the need for a course correction in U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

A recent Department of Defense report found that climate change "will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security."

One of the most ill-advised decisions made by the Trump administration is to transfer oversight of the export of firearms from the State Department to the Department of Commerce. The new policy will make it easier for terrorists, tyrants and criminal gangs to get access to U.S.-made semi-automatic pistols, assault-style firearms, sniper rifles and ammunition. To add insult to injury, it would also end the practice of notifying Congress of major firearms exports, thereby thwarting its ability to stop dangerous sales.