Iran, the USSR and the Containment Analogy

Containing a Nuclear Iran: Difficult, Costly, and Dangerous, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2157, with James Phillips, February 14, 2011. "Proponents of a containment policy toward Iran are ignoring the harsh realities inherent in seriously pursuing such a policy. First, the U.S. has been trying to contain Iran since the Iranian revolution in 1979, with little success. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it will become even more difficult to contain. A serious containment policy will require the U.S. to maintain a credible threat of force against Iran. This will be even more difficult if Iran goes nuclear because the U.S. will have lost credibility. A containment policy will also require the U.S. to support the undemocratic governments in the countries neighboring Iran, which will pose many political dilemmas. Instead of pursuing a policy of containment, which would be a policy in name only, the U.S. should keep the military option alive, defend itself and its allies, and seek both to weaken the regime’s economic base and to empower and encourage its domestic adversaries."

Siemens (Sort of) Disengages from Iran

Annals of Disengagement, Contentions, January 29, 2010. "On Tuesday, Siemens, the German conglomerate, announced in its annual shareholders meeting that it has reduced its commercial ties with Iran. The next day, a company spokesman made that statement a bit more explicit: the company, he said, has 'decided not to conclude new contracts with commercial partners in Iran.'"

Example #1: Why the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty is a Bad Idea

The U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty and Sanctions On Iran, Heritage Foundation Foundry, August 28, 2009. "Earlier this week, the Heritage Foundation published a lengthy study of the U.N.’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty. The study details numerous problems inherent in this proposal, which is now being considered by a New York-based working group. The campaign behind the treaty is based on faulty premises, and the treaty, if brought into being as currently projected, will facilitate, not curb, the illegal arms trade, while at the same time posing a danger to the Second Amendment, to the ability of the U.S. to resist tyranny around the world, and to U.S. export controls. In a fine article posted on Real Clear World, Michael Jacobson, a senior fellow in The Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence and a former senior advisor in the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, explains part of what is at stake."

The Case Against the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty

The U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty: A Dangerous Multilateral Mistake in the Making, co-written with Steven Groves, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2309, August 21, 2009. "The treaty contemplated by the U.N.’s October 2008 arms trade resolution would be a license to almost all states, no matter how irresponsible, to buy and sell arms. It would endanger U.S. arms export control policy, clash with the Constitution, offer a dangerous justification for dictatorial rule, and make it illegal under international law for the U.S. to support freedom fighters abroad."

US-UK Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty

The U.S.-U.K. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty Merits Early Consideration, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2542, July 13, 2009. "The U.S.-U.K. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty will permit the U.S. to trade most defense articles with Great Britain without an export license or other written authorization."

The Obama-Berlusconi Summit

The Obama-Berlusconi White House Meeting: Advancing U.S.-Italian Cooperation, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2483, June 12, 2009.