…

Jonathan Ruhe, fellow for American strategy at JINSA, echoed Stricker on the importance of abolishing the Iranian enrichment program. He told Fox News Digital, “An acceptable deal would have to embody many of Trump’s stated redlines from his first administration, and from the run-up to last summer’s 12-Day War. 

“This means permanent bans on enrichment, reprocessing and weaponization capability and, equally importantly, full verification of Iran’s compliance with these strictures.”

…

Ruhe said, “The JCPOA failed to ensure IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors could monitor, and account for, the entirety of Iran’s program and its compliance with the deal. This problem has worsened significantly in the decade since, as Iran systematically stonewalled inspectors.

“Iran’s negotiators always drag out talks and avoid giving clear answers. They still think time is on their side, with their blockade hurting the global economy and their missile arsenals being dug out and prepared for renewed conflict. Trump should insist on a definitive response from Tehran and be ready for renewed operations.

“As a cautionary tale: The Obama team first entered nuclear talks with stringent redlines, but then they let Iran call their bluffs, ignore their deadlines and wear down their demands until we ended up with the JCPOA,” Ruhe said.

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that obligates it not to enrich uranium for military purposes. However, U.S. and European intelligence reports have documented Iran’s illicit proliferation activities.

Ruhe said, “This regime cynically wants it both ways: They insist the NPT gives the ‘right’ to peaceful enrichment, yet they flout the treaty’s safeguards. By claiming this ‘right,’ they try to make certain core issues non-negotiable. By this logic, they should get to retain enrichment capacity. So, the questions then become how much and what the U.S. has to give in return for this supposed sacrifice by Iran.

“As the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s name indicates, it’s an agreement to prevent proliferation, not to promote nuclear development.”

…

 Read the full article in Fox News.

The post Nuclear Experts Warn Iran’s Uranium ‘Right’ Is a Myth, Say Trump Is Right To Hold Firm appeared first on JINSA.

…

Yoni Tobin, a senior policy analyst at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, also called for caution in optimism over the talks, stating that a ceasefire “does not constitute progress,” also noting that past ceasefires that halted fighting between Israel and Hezbollah “only kicked the can down the road in terms of disarming Hezbollah.” He also expressed skepticism over Lebanon repealing its anti-normalization law. 

“Beirut repealing its law criminalizing communications should be a clear-cut U.S. demand in talks, but I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that is on the table right now — though it should be,” Tobin said. “As one of the main funders of Lebanon’s military, Washington has the leverage to compel Beirut to reverse this arcane law, which remains an obstacle to what is squarely in the American interest: a normal, productive relationship between Israel and Lebanon.”

 Read the full article in Jewish Insider.

The post Israel-Lebanon Talks Face Key Test as Ceasefire Expiration Looms appeared first on JINSA.

While the rate of launches dropped sharply as the war progressed — from roughly 80 missiles fired at Israel on the first day to around 10-20 per day over the following weeks — the sustained attacks have raised questions about the extent of the damage inflicted in both the most recent war and an initial round of fighting in June.

…

Yet the effect of such attacks can be short-lived, according to Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow for American strategy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.

“Striking the entrances to underground facilities is a good way to completely, yet only temporarily, block operations at these sites,” said Ruhe, who noted that Iran is already recovering from the damage.

…

Ruhe noted that another challenge in striking missile sites stems from Iran’s size and terrain.

“Iran is a large and mountainous country, with lots of missiles that can be fired from lots of places,” he said, adding that the US-Israel campaign largely focused on targets in western and southern Iran. “Many Iranian missiles can still reach the Gulf from deeper inside the country, where Israel and the United States didn’t operate as extensively.”

With Iran’s missile program down but not out, it remains a distinct possibility that the latest engagement was not the last and that Israel, and perhaps the US, will need to reprise the military campaign to pare back Iran’s capabilities.

And there’s no guarantee a future operation would see any more success, given Iran’s demonstrated ability to adapt under pressure, refining its tactics in real time to blunt Israeli and US efforts.

“Iran adapts during war to complicate US-Israeli targeting,” Ruhe said. “For instance, it dispersed its launchers and switched up its firing tactics during the 12-day war in response to Israel’s successes in targeting launchers.”

 Read the full article in the Times of Israel.

The post Buried But Not Out, Iran’s Ballistic Missiles Remain Potent Threat Despite Airstrikes appeared first on JINSA.

JINSA Iran Policy Project Advisor VADM (ret.) Robert Harward, former Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command, joined Morning Edition on NPR to discuss the U.S. naval blockade on Iran and the future of U.S. policy on Iran.

VADM (ret.) Harward argued that the blockade has been “very successful” at preventing oil shipments from leaving Iran, which he described as the “lifeblood” of the regime. He further expanded on the strategic impact the blockade has on ongoing U.S.-Iranian negotiations, noting that it raises questions regarding whether the Islamic Republic can “endure the longer-term pain” of continued conflict with the United States.

The post Former Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command on the Future of the Iran War appeared first on JINSA.

While the president said on Tuesday he would extend his ceasefire with Iran, the US military has been pressing on with deployments to the Middle East that significantly expand its capabilities.

…

Retired General Joseph Votel, who oversaw American military operations in the Middle East as the head of US Central Command, said the additional forces were designed to “send a message” to Iran and “make sure that [Trump] has the most flexibility in terms of options”.

…

Votel said the forces could also do “very limited-duration, limited-scope operations into Iran”, such as on the southern coast to support an operation related to the Strait of Hormuz.

The MEUs and 82nd Airborne can all put boots on the ground quickly — the MEUs from the sea, and the 82nd Airborne from the air.

But such an incursion would come with considerable risk. “As soon as it’s known that there are troops on the ground, they become a great big target,” said Votel. “Protecting ground forces would become the top priority for the military.”

…

The 82nd Airborne troops would, by contrast, stage from an air base within a couple of hours’ flight from the target location. They would fly on C-17 or C-130 transport aircraft, jump from the planes and parachute into the drop zone. They would also drop their vehicles and artillery, he added. “Most of what they would need would drop with them,” Votel said.

The US has used the 82nd Airborne in operations including the invasion of Panama in 1989 and for the American withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The US sent a headquarters element to Nato’s eastern flank after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

…

The 82nd Airborne paratroopers would jump with one to two days of supplies, such as meals and ammunition, so they would need a means to be replenished. There would also need to be plans to evacuate casualties and for a quick-reaction force to reinforce the ground troops should they “get in trouble”, Votel added.

…

Read the full article in the Financial Times.

The post Trump Bolsters Gulf Force appeared first on JINSA.

Brian Kilmeade and JINSA President & CEO Michael Makovsky, PhD discuss the looming deadline for the Israel-U.S.-Iran ceasefire and why the IRGC may have taken over negotiations.

The post Iran’s Commitments are Meaningless: JINSA President and CEO Michael Makovsky on the Brian Kilmeade Show appeared first on JINSA.

…

“The message is out that most ships are not wanting to go out there,” Kevin Donegan, a retired vice admiral and former top Navy commander in the Middle East, said in an interview on Monday.

…

Read the full article in the New York Times.

The post U.S. Has Turned Back 27 Ships Since Strait of Hormuz Blockade Started appeared first on JINSA.

A United States Navy destroyer intercepted an Iranian-flagged cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, firing into its engine room after repeated warnings. Following a six-hour standoff, U.S. Marines then repelled from helicopters onto the ship taking custody of the vessel. President Donald Trump issued Tehran a stern warning, still threatening to ‘take out their bridges and power plants’ if ongoing peace talks fail, as Iran’s new and aggressive hardline IRGC leader consolidates his military control.

Retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, JINSA Iran Policy Project Advisor and former U.S. Central Command Deputy Commander, spoke to Fox News in an April 20 interview to break down the unfolding situation.

The vice admiral stated that America will need to continue to apply this kind of pressure on Iran in order to leverage it in negotiations. And, according to Vice Admiral (ret.) Harward, there is a good chance the Trump administration will do so. He stated that while he believes President Trump “was hopeful we could bring this to a conclusion earlier,” the president is nonetheless “willing to stay to the bitter end to see this through, and that’s what all our Gulf Arab partners are looking for as well.”

The post U.S. Navy Seizes Iranian Tanker, More Talks In Doubt: VADM (ret.) Harward on Fox News Radio appeared first on JINSA.

…

“You can get a small channel in that area surveyed in days not weeks using Unmanned Underwater Vehicles,” said VADM (ret.) Kevin Donegan, a JINSA Generals & Admirals Program participant and former commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet based in the Gulf.

After clearing one lane, he said, “Traffic can then begin to flow in this smaller channel that could be widened over time.”

…

Read the full article in the Wall Street Journal.

The post The Navy Sends in the Robots to Clear Hormuz of Mines appeared first on JINSA.

As a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, a Navy SEAL and a member of the National Security Council under former President George W. Bush, I spent decades helping oversee U.S. military operations across the Middle East under leaders including Jim Mattisand Lloyd Austin, both of whom later served this nation as Defense secretary. If I were advising President Donald Trump now, my message would be simple: Do not confuse a pause in hostilities with Iran — or even a limited, chaotic “opening” of the Strait of Hormuz — with a durable solution to the hostility between our nations.

The president’s position on Iran has, at times, appeared inconsistent. At times, he has suggested regime change in Iran as an objective. At others, his focus has shifted toward more limited goals, such as preventing a nuclear weapon, reopening the Strait of Hormuz or securing concessions through negotiation. Those are important objectives but they are not, by themselves, a strategy for ending the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. A lasting resolution requires a clearly defined end state.

That kind of clarity has been missing in how the United States has communicated its objectives. Statements suggesting overwhelming or immediate destruction may project strength, but they can also create ambiguity about U.S. intent. Deterrence works best when it’s consistent and tied to clear strategic objectives.

That starts with being clear about the threat. Iran’s leadership has consistently pursued nuclear capability, advanced its missile program, expanded proxy networks across the region and actively supported U.S. adversaries. Those are still their goals, and those goals are not going away. Iran will continue pursuing them regardless of temporary pauses or agreements.

For nearly five decades, U.S. policy has focused on slowing Iran’s progress rather than stopping it outright. Sanctions, limited strikes and negotiated agreements have each had moments of success. But nothing yet has altered the regime’s direction. Instead, our actions have bought more time for Iran to rebuild and continue advancing under less immediate pressure. The current ceasefire fits that pattern. It will lower tensions in the short term, but it will not resolve the underlying conflict.

That raises a more fundamental question: What is the objective? If the goal is simply to manage the threat, then another ceasefire and another round of negotiations may suffice. But if the goal is a lasting resolution, then the U.S. must be clear about what that requires. As long as the current regime remains in power, Iran will continue pursuing the same policies it has for decades. That’s why regime change is not a secondary objective; it is the only path to a durable resolution.

But that does not mean a U.S. invasion of Iran. It means pursuing a different strategy: one that applies sustained economic and operational pressure to the regime’s core institutions, including measures such as targeted economic and maritime restrictions, one that sets clear and enforceable conditions in any negotiation and creates the conditions for internal change over time.

First, any negotiation must be anchored in non-negotiable outcomes. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure must be fully dismantled. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium must be removed. Support for proxy militias and terrorist networks must end. The free flow of commerce through critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz must be guaranteed.

Second, pressure must extend beyond military targets to the core structures that sustain the regime’s power. That includes the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its financial networks and the internal security apparatus that enforces control at home.

Third, the U.S. should more clearly support Iranians. If regime change is to occur, then it will ultimately be driven from within. American policy can influence the conditions under which that change becomes possible: through information access, economic pressure and coordinated international isolation of the regime’s leadership.

The events of the past several weeks have already shifted the landscape. Iran’s leadership is under greater strain, its capabilities have been tested and its vulnerabilities are more visible than they have been in years. This is not a moment to reset the status quo on a regime that’s now operating from a weaker and more exposed position.

Trump was right to act on the threat Iran poses. But a ceasefire without a clearly defined political objective risks turning military gains into another temporary pause in a decades-long cycle. If the U.S. wants something more than a moment of calm, then it must be willing to define and pursue a different outcome.

There can be no lasting peace with the current regime in Tehran, which is why the current blockade is a step in the right direction. By applying sustained economic pressure without causing further destruction, or making sweeping financial concessions to Iran, it weakens the regime from within and moves us closer to the only outcome that can deliver lasting stability and peace.

VADM Robert Harward, USN (ret.), former Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command, is an Iran Policy Project Advisor at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

Originally published in MS NOW.

The post Regime Change in Iran Remains as Necessary as Ever appeared first on JINSA.