Iran’s Third Path to a Bomb

The emerging agreement with Iran that President Obama sees as his legacy will give Iran three paths to a bomb: it can break out, wait out, or sneak out of the agreement. Iran will pocket its huge signing bonus; take reversible steps toward “compliance”; then either break out (perhaps after a dispute about implementation, or while the U.S. is involved in some other crisis), or wait out (after which, President Obama concedes, Iran will face no further barrier to a bomb), or sneak out (using secret sites and undetectable methods). In an important new paper entitled “Deterring an Iranian Nuclear Breakout,” Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, writes that “the most likely scenario” is “an Iranian breakout using undeclared facilities” (emphasis in original). Congress should read the paper carefully before it signs onto ObamaPeace in our time.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

Iran’s Third Path to a Bomb

Must-Reads from Magazine

The Unsympathetic Opposition

Radicalism and self-injury.

As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to be uncompromising when it came to immigration. For the most part, he has delivered. An executive order that restricted refugee intake and access to temporary visas in the first days of his administration sparked a wave of popular unrest, but the outrage subsided as Trump’s assaults on America’s permissive immigration regime became routinized. Only when Trump began breaking up the families of asylum seekers did the powerful public aversion we saw with the introduction of the “travel ban” again overtake the national consciousness. The abuse was so grotesque, the victims so sympathetic, and the administration’s insecurity so apparent that it broke the routine.

20
Shares
Google+ Print

Over-Population: The Malthusian Myth That Refuses to Die

A dangerous idea makes a comeback.

The word “ethics” appears prominently in the biographies of the authors who co-wrote a recent Washington Post op-ed lamenting the “taboo” associated with “talking about overpopulation.” Frances Kissling is the president of the Center for Health, Ethics, and Social Policy. Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Only Jotham Musinguzi, the “director general of Uganda’s National Population Council,” doesn’t mention “ethics” in the bio. That’s good because the Malthusian views promulgated in the piece are anything but ethical.

28
Shares
Google+ Print

Conservatives Against Virtue

The virtue of virtue.

At some point over the past two or three years–I’m not sure when exactly–“virtue” became a dirty word on the American right. There’s not a little irony in this development. If there’s one commitment that is supposed to tie the various strands of American conservatism, it’s the cultivation of the human virtues–those habits of the human spirit that aim at its perfection: Prudence, justice, courage, and temperance, according to the classical definition.

21
Shares
Google+ Print

PODCAST: This Is a Land of Confusion

Podcast: Border battles and the OIG report.

The implementation of a policy that separates illegal border-crossing children from their parents has thrown the Trump administration into crisis, in part, because no one is on the same page. Depending on the official speaking, this policy is either a necessary deterrent to future migrants, an unfortunate vestigial artifact of the Obama administration, or the law of the land. The hosts break down the political effect of the White House’s confusion. Also, the COMMENTARY Podcast breaks down the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s report that savages James Comey’s behavior in 2016 and suggests FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s anti-Trump bias might have had an effect on the product of the FBI’s Russia probe.

1
Shares
Google+ Print

They Think They’re Winning

Delusional or just cynical?

In the last 48 hours, the portrait of a White House in crisis has been unmistakably clear.

24
Shares
Google+ Print