"Michael Singh, a managing director at the Washington Institute and former senior director at the National Security Council, said the JCPOA was 'effectively dead,' regardless of the outcome of the election..." Read the full article here: Full Article
"Leaked news this month that China and Iran had come to the verge of signing a 25-year trade and military partnership agreement struck like a geopolitical storm in Washington — a rising rival of America and a longtime foe joining forces to threaten the United States’s predominant position in the Middle East. "The agreement ambitiously promises to bring a huge Chinese presence into Iran’s economic development, in exchange for a regular supply of heavily discounted Iranian oil..." Read the full article [...]
"There is remarkable agreement across the spectrum of Iran experts on what this campaign has achieved: not much. '"Maximum pressure" has caused unprecedented economic pain for the Iranian regime, but has not yet resulted in any outcome that advances American interests,' concluded an analysis by Michael Singh, who was senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. 'It has not resulted in a new U.S.-Iran negotiation, ended or meaningfully obstructed Iranian regional [...]
"Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said there was a firm consensus in the US capital that China failed to act on early indications of a brewing outbreak, and even took steps to suppress the information. “'While other governments were also slow in marshaling their responses, China’s failure is singular in that it may have cost the world the chance to avert this pandemic altogether by halting the virus spread before it began,' he told [...]
"'Iran is carrying out a relatively low-cost but effective strategy to increase the pain for the US and for our Iraqi friends, so deterring Iran is not going to be a one-off event but will require a willingness to strike again and again,' said Mike Singh, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council. 'The question is: is the US willing to pursue an indefinite campaign against Iranian proxies in the region given the clear desire—especially [...]
"Next February, the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which limits U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons, will expire. With the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) last year following Russian violations, and Moscow’s flouting of other treaties meant to limit U.S.-Russian competition, the lapse of New START could prove to be the final nail in the coffin of the post-Cold War arms-control regime. "That prospect has raised alarms on Capitol Hill, where Republicans and Democrats alike find themselves [...]
"Historically, the strategic foundation for U.S. involvement in the peace process has been twofold. First, the peace process was a way for the United States to manage seemingly contradictory partnerships with Israel and the Arab states, few of which recognized Israel and several of which had waged war repeatedly against the Jewish state. As Egypt and Jordan relinquished their own claims to the West Bank and Gaza beginning in the 1970s, the Arab world largely threw its support behind the Palestinian [...]
"When the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump ratcheted up its 'maximum pressure' campaign last May, with the professed aim of driving Iran’s oil exports to zero, it didn’t take long for Tehran to respond with escalation of its own. In the months since, Iran has reportedly attacked pipelines, tankers, and one of the world’s largest oil processing facilities in Saudi Arabia—prompting a spike not just in oil prices but also in worries about a new war in the Middle East. [...]
"In a town where polarization and partisanship seem to be the rule, there is one proposition to which politicians both right and left seem able to agree: it is time to end the 'endless wars.' "It’s a notion that is difficult to resist — who exactly is for 'endless war,' after all? — and rooted in deep public frustration with the costly but seemingly fruitless interventions of the post-9/11 era. But as a guide to policymaking, opposition to 'forever wars' is [...]
"The hasty withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Syria not only has immediate and grave implications for the safety of America’s erstwhile Kurdish partners and the fight against ISIS, but the United States also has ceded its single greatest source of leverage to broker an end to the conflict: the remaining one-third of Syrian territory not under the control of President Bashar al-Assad and Russia. "With American forces withdrawing under pressure — from a NATO ally, no less — the instinct [...]