Our mission
To inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America's narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.
Policy explainers
Expert features
By Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston
The DC-based Defense Priorities think tank recently produced what they describe as an explainer on the Chinese navy since, by the numbers, it is the world’s largest fleet. In short, there seem to be several conditions that must occur in concert and endure if the Chinese navy is to replace the U.S. Navy with its global reach in the future. See what those five conditions are, here.The DC-based Defense Priorities think tank recently produced what they describe as an explainer on the Chinese navy since, by the numbers, it is the world’s largest fleet. In short, there seem to be several conditions that must occur in concert and endure if the Chinese navy is to replace the U.S. Navy with its global reach in the future. See what those five conditions are, here.
By Brad Dress
Will Walldorf, a professor studying politics and international affairs at Wake Forest University, said he supports the U.S. withdrawal from Niger because it can allow Washington to recalibrate its approach to Africa and counterterrorism.
Walldorf said the U.S. focus on counterterrorism is “missing the heart of the problem” and that it was “staggering” how terrorism has surged under U.S. watch.
“The lack of good governance, the lack of meeting the everyday needs of citizens in West Africa, where we know food insecurity is extreme, has been really the core driver of terrorist recruitment in the region,” he said.
“If you can get to those sort of core issues,” he added, that would be “on a different playing field then what we’re offering now in terms of kind of a force-first approach.”
By Marc Champion
Others have warned that Iran—by giving notice, attacking in smaller waves and using fewer than 200 ballistic and cruise missiles from an arsenal estimated to include at least 3,000—wasn’t trying to maximize damage, but to make a deterrent point, meaning that next time could be very different. As Michael DiMino, a fellow at the dovish Washington think tank Defense Priorities told me, had the attack been designed to cause real damage it would, at a minimum, have included a barrage from Hezbollah, on Israel’s northern border.
By Gabriel Gavin
However, according to Daniel Davis, a retired U.S. army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow at Defense Priorities, provoking Iran into undercutting the prospects of a ceasefire could be a deliberate strategy. “The only reason this is an issue is because Israel chose to assassinate a general in the Iranian embassy in Damascus,” he said. “They chose the most volatile, in-your-face target they could, I think, to spawn something.”
By Carol E. Lee, Courtney Kube, Aurora Almendral, Andrea Mitchell and Anna Schecter
Benjamin Friedman, policy director of the think tank Defense Priorities, said in a statement that “the Israeli government has courted a fight with Iran, perhaps encouraged by the prospect of U.S. help in going after Iran.”
“Instead of talking about ‘ironclad’ support for Israel, the president should have made clear the U.S. support is limited and does not extend to all circumstances,” Friedman said. “War with Iran would imperil U.S. security for no obvious pay off.”
Defense Priorities, based in Washington, advocates restraint in U.S. foreign policy.