Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The Biden administration on Thursday rescinded former president Donald Trump’s restoration of U.N. sanctions on Iran… Biden has said the United States wants to rejoin the [Iran deal] and the State Department said Thursday the U.S. would accept an invitation from the European Union to attend a meeting of the participants in the original agreement -- Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and Iran.” AP News
“A rocket attack at a U.S.-led military base in Kurdish northern Iraq on Monday killed a civilian contractor and wounded five other people including a U.S. service member… A group calling itself Saraya Awliya al-Dam claimed responsibility for the attack on the U.S.-led base, saying it targeted the ‘American occupation’ in Iraq.” Reuters
“NATO defence ministers at a meeting on Thursday made no decision on whether or when to pull out of Afghanistan, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said.” Reuters
Read our most recent coverage of the Iran nuclear deal here. The Flip Side
Many on both sides blame Iran for the attack in Iraq and call for a response from Biden:
“This was only the latest attack claimed by a group named Saraya Awliya al-Dam, which translates roughly to Guardians of the Blood Brigade. But there’s overwhelming evidence this is a front group for the well-known and powerful Iraqi militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), which has strong and well-established ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and Lebanese Hezbollah…
“The Iranian government denied it ordered the attack, and it is certainly possible AAH was freelancing, but it doesn’t matter, said [Washington Institute for Near East Policy scholar Michael] Knights. Iran has influence over its proxies, and it could choose to restrain them. The attack showed that Iranian leaders, at the very least, are sitting on their hands… The Biden team claims to have learned from Obama-era mistakes. With Iran, that means pursuing diplomacy without turning a blind eye to the IRGC’s mischief in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere… If Iranian proxies feel they can attack U.S. troops without consequence, it won’t be long before the next and more deadly strike. That could spark the very escalation and conflict the Biden administration is rightly trying to avoid.”
Josh Rogin, Washington Post
“This is a key test of the Biden administration: If the United States reacts with words alone, the Biden administration will show the Iranians that such attacks are cost-free. The only lesson that Iran’s leaders will learn from such a response is that the Biden administration’s desire to return to nuclear diplomacy will permit Iran to put American lives at risk whenever it wishes…
“The Biden administration should instead adopt a policy of deterrence, warning Iran that it will be held accountable directly… The United States has a multitude of military options, some of which would clearly signal to Iran that we have no wish to escalate into a larger conflict — but that we insist the Iranian regime stop trying to kill Americans — or else. That’s the message the Biden administration should be sending this week.”
Elliott Abrams, National Review
Other opinions below.
“Since President Joe Biden took office, Iran’s regional proxies have been busy. This month alone, Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed credit for a drone attack against Saudi Arabia’s Abha airport; one of the most prominent critics of Hezbollah, the journalist Lokman Slim, was found murdered in his car in Lebanon; and in Iraqi Kurdistan, a front group for one of the country’s most deadly Shiite militias claimed credit for a series of rocket attacks in and around Erbil… At the very least, Biden should halt any efforts to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal so long as Iran’s proxies are running wild.”
Eli Lake, Bloomberg
“The Iranians, plainly, are seeking to send a message to the new U.S. administration. The message is ‘don't mess with us—we're crazier than you are.’ This preliminary communication is not meant to lead toward conflict. On the contrary, it is happening precisely because the Iranian regime believes that the current U.S. administration wishes to avoid conflict. The escalation is background music intended to produce the right mood of trepidation on the U.S. side, so that when talks begin in earnest in the period ahead regarding a return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and the ending of U.S. pressure on Iran, the Americans will be more amenable to a swift signing off…
“The Iranians think this will work because they look back at the 2014–2015 period. That was the year when Iranian proxy assistance to the murderous Assad regime reached its height. It was the year when the Houthi bid for power was launched, and the Shiite Islamists took the Yemeni capital, Sana'a. And it was the year in which the JCPOA was signed, and sanctions lifted… [Tehran] thinks it is dealing with Obama 2.0. It remains to be seen if Iran is right.”
Jonathan Spyer, Newsweek
“Both Washington and Tehran will claim victory when a ‘new’ deal is concluded… The Biden administration will lobby hard with the media, expecting them to regurgitate the virtues of a ‘new and improved JCPOA,’ much as the Obama team did in 2015… So, how can the American people independently assess whether the rhetoric in defense of the deal is convincing? Here is the litmus test…
“We will know that there are no significant changes in the ‘new’ JCPOA if the sunset provisions allowing Iran to have an industrial-size nuclear program in 10 years remains in place. We will know it is more smoke and mirrors if inspections are still not allowed at military facilities where weaponization is likely to occur. Our skepticism should rise if inspectors are not allowed 24/7 access to declared and undeclared nuclear sites, and all inspections will end in 10 years. Then we can judge whether the agreement has been simply repackaged for political consumption with the same flawed product inside or is something with substantive changes.”
Eric R. Mandel, The Hill
Regarding American troops in the Middle East, “If Biden is sincere that he is not merely going to return to the status quo of the Obama administration and will base his foreign policy on what’s best for the American people, orders to withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria should closely follow the conclusion of Biden’s review.”
Daniel Davis, The Federalist
“BBC reported that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that he is ready to return to compliance, as long as the U.S. and the other signatories lift sanctions, on whatever terms or schedule that Biden wants. ‘If Americans take one step, we will take one step,’ Rouhani said. ‘If the Americans take all the steps at once, we will take all the steps at once. If they want to do it gradually, fine. If they want a group of actions, fine.’… So a path to a solution seems clear: The Europeans devise a formula by which the U.S. and Iran do what they need to do simultaneously, step by step, with the EU and the International Atomic Energy Agency verifying each step… This will be the first test of the Biden team’s aptitude for this business. Really, it shouldn’t be that hard.”
Fred Kaplan, Slate
“Last week, we fielded a unique survey of scholars with expertise in the Middle East… The vast majority speak regional languages, have spent significant time in the Middle East, and have dedicated their professional lives to the rigorous study of the region and its politics. Within three days, 521 scholars had consented and responded… The United States returning to the Iran nuclear agreement (the JCPOA) as it’s currently written would make it less likely that Iran would get a nuclear weapon within the next decade — that’s what 75 percent of our survey respondents say…
“Perhaps unsurprisingly, the scholars overwhelmingly oppose either military action against Iran or a continuation of the Trump administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ policy. The primary divide was over tactics: Sixty-seven percent say the U.S. immediately returning to the JCPOA before addressing other issues would better serve U.S. interests, while 23 percent prefer first negotiating a grand bargain including ballistic missiles and regional policies in alignment with allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.”
Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami, Washington Post
Regarding American troops in Afghanistan,“The repeated failure to hold the Taliban accountable for their continued violation of the terms of their agreement with the United States, including their unkept promise to break ties with al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, has set Afghanistan on a path that could lead to state collapse… President Biden is rightly reviewing the US-Taliban agreement, which it must consider as part of broader strategic calculation to not only push for a real peace process, but to prevent a reckless withdrawal that leads to state collapse, a civil war, and the revival of a global terrorist haven…
“With the US-Taliban agreement, President Biden inherited a rapid troop drawdown that is not based on conditions. The US should now re-assert meaningful conditions and place its commitments on hold if they are not met… As several former US diplomats have proposed, both the Taliban and the Afghan government should agree to an independent, third party mediator to help work through complex and divisive issues in order to support and reach a political settlement. In the meantime, the United Nations, for its part, should not lift sanctions on the Taliban until it meets basic human rights obligations.”
Madeleine K. Albright and Rector Federica Mogherini, CNN
