In the inaugural episode of JINSA Snapshot, a new video series in which JINSA experts help make sense of complex and fast-moving geopolitical events, JINSA President & CEO Michael Makovsky, PhD is joined by JINSA Randi & Charles Wax Senior Fellow John Hannah.The two discussed the recent signals that Israel is preparing a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and Hannah’s view that unlike similar situations in the past, “this time, it really does begin to feel different” and that “people ought to buckle up.”

Makovsky and Hannah also discussed the latest in U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations and how that key factor interacts with possible Israeli military action, and the potential U.S. role in any Israeli military strike on Iran.

Please subscribe to JINSA’s YouTube channel, youtube.com/jinsadc, to stay up-to-date on the new JINSA Snapshot series demystifying the complex situation in the Middle East.

The post JINSA Snapshot: Heightened Tensions with Iran appeared first on JINSA.

“On this solemn day, we remember and mourn the tragedy of October 7 a year ago, when Iran-backed Hamas led an invasion of Israel which savagely attacked, raped and killed over 1,200 people and abducted over 250. It triggered a regional war that has claimed thousands of casualties and reshaped international relations and politics. We stand strongly with Israel as it seeks to eliminate the existential threat posed by the monstrous Iranian regime and its barbaric axis of terrorist proxies, and free the remaining 101 hostages held in Gaza, including several Americans. This is truly a civilizational battle, and America must stand firmly and fully with Israel, with no daylight between them, supplying the Jewish state with all the weapons it needs and collaborating to defeat the common enemy.

“Recent weeks suggest the tide is turning, with Hamas’s military ability mostly destroyed, and Hezbollah on the back foot, but the acute threat of Iran and its axis remains, especially as Iran advances its nuclear program to dangerous levels. Ultimately, the future of the Mideast will only brighten when the villainous Tehran regime collapses, from pressure from abroad and within.

“To honor the memories of the victims of October 7 and ensure a victory for both our great countries, JINSA is committed, now more than ever, to deepening U.S.-Israeli security cooperation.”

The post Statement from JINSA President and CEO Dr. Michael Makovsky on October 7 Anniversary appeared first on JINSA.

Download the letter here.

The post Open Letter from Retired U.S. Military Leaders in Support of Israel on October 7 Anniversary appeared first on JINSA.

This stark departure from routine U.S. intelligence assessments hardly seemed to register in the White House, or at the party conventions for the candidates seeking the Oval Office come January. For years, Washington has largely ignored Tehran’s accelerating progress that threatens longstanding U.S. pledges to stop it from acquiring the ultimate weapon. By exploiting America’s sleepwalking, Iran now poses the very real risk that it could achieve every element of a working bomb without reliably being detected.

Preventing this outcome must be an immediate issue for the next president. With Iran on the nuclear precipice, the next commander-in-chief will have no time, and little margin for error, as he or she also must staff a new administration and confront countless other priorities.

On the eve of their first head-to-head debate, our new report from the Jewish Institute for National Security of America lays out the urgency for a serious plan to start addressing this threat the moment either candidate assumes office.

Iran steadily built up its nuclear program for more than two decades, before kicking it into overdrive amid a vacuum of real U.S. strategy over the past five years. As Secretary Blinken admitted recently, Iran can produce a bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium in just 1-2 weeks if it wants. This offers little chance to catch any such breakout attempt, especially compared to the window of 3-4 months in November 2020.

Though less appreciated, Iran’s improving capacity to keep churning out fissile material is no less important. It can now fully crank out eight bombs’ worth of 90 percent enriched uranium in just one month, and another four in the following couple months. Today, Iran could amass an arsenal’s worth of fissile material in the same timeframe it needed to produce just one bomb’s worth when President Biden was elected.

As the recent U.S. intelligence assessment suggests, there are growing indications Tehran could be closing in on the final element of a bomb: a nuclear explosive device. Israel’s covert seizure of Iranian nuclear archives in 2018 laid bare how Tehran systematically outpaced the world’s assumptions about its weaponization progress. And just this summer, American and Israeli intelligence revealed Iran’s new research and simulations of nuclear detonations.

In parallel, regime officials increasingly advertise their ability and readiness to weaponize if provoked – a marked and abrupt rhetorical shift from years of Tehran’s self-righteous insistence that its nuclear program was purely peaceful and civilian in nature.

Iran has obscured much of this progress by violating its safeguards agreements with impunity. Since 2021, it has rolled back access by IAEA inspectors to its enrichment-related sites. For even longer, it has blocked inspectors from pursuing new leads, drawn from Israel’s archives seizure, regarding weaponization. Throughout, the IAEA director has sounded alarms about his agency’s inability to track Iran’s expanding nuclear program, including potential clandestine capabilities.

These factors combine to make Iran’s eventual achievement of nuclear weapons capability seem inexorable absent a change in course. Yet the current administration prefers to avoid anything that risks near-term tensions with Tehran, even if this courts much greater future risks. For the same reason, neither presidential candidate has offered a clear alternative strategy, nor have they drawn serious attention to the problem.

Staying this course will be more freefall than autopilot as Tehran’s ongoing progress further contradicts core U.S. commitments and rings increasingly hollow in the ears of friends and foes around the world. It also will embolden Iran to continue deepening ties with other U.S. adversaries and destabilizing the Middle East, in turn compounding the existing challenges confronting American leadership and credibility in overlapping crises from Europe to the Indo-Pacific.

The next administration will inherit this deteriorating deterrence deficit, with precious little time before October 2025, when it loses a key remaining lever to rebuild international pressure by “snapping back” UNSC sanctions that have lapsed steadily since 2020.

Vice President Harris and former President Trump must explain how they plan to fulfill America’s consistent, bipartisan pledges across six Presidential administrations to prevent a nuclear Iran. Debate moderators should put the issue squarely before the candidates, asking if they would order military operations if presented with credible intelligence that Iran is on verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Though risky, uncertain, and demanding, tackling this worsening crisis is still preferable to the alternatives in an already-dangerous world for U.S. interests, leadership, and credibility that are increasingly in doubt globally. With November 5 right around the corner, preventing a nuclear Iran is also imperative to address what a resounding majority of voters see as a major national security threat.

Ambassador Eric Edelman is the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Gen. Charles Wald, USAF (ret.), served as the deputy commander of U.S. European Command. They co-chair the Iran Policy Project at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), where they are Distinguished Scholar and Distinguished Fellow, respectively. 

Jonathan Ruhe serves as Director of Foreign Policy at JINSA.

Originally published in RealClearDefense.

The post What Will Trump or Harris Do if Iran Goes Nuclear? appeared first on JINSA.

That Hamas still holds hostages is due partly to the Biden-Harris administration’s misguided policy of pressuring Israel to end the war prematurely. It backfired and only prolonged the war and its consequences.

Despite coming firmly to Israel’s defense in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, and again when Iran has directly threatened Israel, the Biden-Harris administration has been fixated on forcing Israel to end the war, even if it means Hamas survives to control Gaza, to ensure electoral support from its progressive base in November. It has accused Israel of war crimes, despite its own legal investigation not being able to find any, has accepted Hamas casualty numbers, and suspended key weapons shipments to Israel.

Perhaps most momentously, the administration heavily pressured Israel not to enter Rafah, the last main stronghold of Hamas forces and its key transit area for supplies. Vice President Kamala Harris said in March that it would be a “huge mistake” for Israel to invade Rafah, that there would be “consequences” if it did, because she has “studied the maps” and there’s “nowhere” for the Palestinians to go. Yet, Israel evacuated over a million Palestinians in a couple weeks in May with minimal casualties, and it found the six executed hostages in a tunnel in Rafah, a kilometer from where it rescued an Israeli Arab hostage last week.

Israeli military and political leaders are responsible for not invading Rafah sooner, but President Biden and Vice President Harris heavily contributed to a costly delay of several months. It prolonged the war, reduced the odds of more hostages surviving, emboldened Hamas to withhold concessions, led to more Palestinian suffering, undermined Israel’s ability to confront Lebanese Hezbollah, and seemingly eliminated the chances for Saudi-Israel normalization, at least before November.

Now, President Biden has berated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not doing enough toward a ceasefire, as Israel buried the six hostages and after it made tough concessions and agreed to various U.S. ‘final’ plans.

While pressuring Israel, the Biden-Harris administration has gone easy on Iran. Even since Oct. 7 the administration has unfrozen billions of dollars in assets for Iran, barely retaliated for repeated Iranian attacks on U.S. troops that killed three soldiers, and done little to stop Iran-backed Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, which has closed key waterways, all while Tehran approaches nuclear weapons capability. No wonder Hamas didn’t fear murdering the American hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, whose parents just spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

Biden stated he was “heartbroken” and “Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes,” while Harris stated Hamas “must be eliminated and Hamas cannot control Gaza.” (Vice presidential nominee Gov. Tim Walz walked away when asked for his reaction.)

However welcome, those sentiments aren’t enough. As we wrote days after the October 7 attack, the Biden-Harris administration needs to do three things to improve chances hostages are returned alive, advance regional security, and restore U.S. credibility. First, support Israel to the hilt. This means giving it all the weapons it needs to finish off Hamas, prepare for a war against Iran’s chief proxy Hezbollah, and strike Iran’s nuclear program, such as 2,000-pound bombs, precision-guided munitions, and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers. It should also conclude a U.S.-Israel mutual defense treaty. If Biden doesn’t do this as president, then Harris or Donald Trump should.

Second, hold Iran accountable. Stop unfreezing assets and instead enforce existing sanctions, so that Iran stops reaping tens of billions of dollars in revenue selling oil to China. Leading Iranian military commanders, especially those involved with proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, must pay for their crimes. The United States must hit Iran hard, just as President Trump killed Qassem Soleimani.

Third, pressure Qatar. This should include setting clear timelines by which Qatar must expel Hamas leadership and get them to agree to release the hostages. If Qatar does not comply, the U.S. should reduce our presence at its military base and Doha should lose its status as a “major non-NATO ally.” Any state that harbors terrorists who kill Americans is no U.S. ally.

Israeli society is enduring a lot of pain, and struggling to find the correct complex balance of freeing its hostages while securing its borders. For the U.S. it’s simpler—support Israel, and pressure Iran and Qatar. That will help free hostages, including seven remaining Americans, and advance U.S. security interests.

Michael Makovsky, a former Pentagon official, is the President and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA). Blaise Misztal is Vice President for Policy at JINSA.

Originally published in The Washington Times.

The post Harris’ Incoherent Middle East Strategy appeared first on JINSA.

War, by its very nature, is a brutal endeavor. The international law that regulates war justifies significant violence that would otherwise be unlawful in peacetime. It also acknowledges the legality of attacks that kill or injure civilians when it is “incidental” to an attack on a legitimate military target and not excessive in relation to the value of attacking that target—one of the most difficult assessments combat leaders must make when deciding whether to conduct an attack. This law, however, categorically prohibits deliberately attacking civilians to kill them, injure them, or terrorize them. Even launching such attacks, regardless of outcome, is absolutely prohibited.

There is, however, one rule of war that is arguably even more fundamental than protecting civilians from deliberate attack: the obligation to treat humanely any captive or detainee. This obligation is reflected in Common Article 3, a provision that is “common” to, or shared across, each of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. These treaties—the only treaties that have been nearly universally adopted by the nations of the world—are devoted to protecting victims of war and “ameliorating” the suffering caused by armed conflicts.

Most of the provisions of these treaties apply only to “armed conflicts” between states. But Common Article 3 is the exception. This provision of the treaties binds all organized armed groups engaged in “conflicts not of an international character,” meaning conflicts that do not involve hostilities between two or more states. No such article, or obligation, existed prior to 1949. But in the wake of the brutal civil wars that raged before and immediately after World War II—most notably the Spanish Civil War, in which it is estimated that more than 250,000 civilians and detainees were summarily executed—the states that revised the 1929 version of the conventions agreed to this new obligation.

This was a remarkable achievement, as it resulted in the first application of international humanitarian law to the realm of internal armed hostilities like civil wars. States and the armed groups fighting against them were now obligated to respect what the International Court of Justice later called the “minimum yardstick” of humanitarian protection.

Since 1949, Common Article 3 has evolved to reflect the most basic humanitarian obligation of the law of armed conflict. In addition to a general humane treatment obligation applicable to any person, “not taking an active part in hostilities,” the article specifically prohibits murder and summary execution. And to reemphasize, this obligation applies to both state armed forces and non-state organized armed groups like Hamas. Murdering people at your complete mercy because they have been captured and detained is therefore rightly condemned as among the most egregious violations of international humanitarian law.

Of course, it is no surprise that Hamas operatives engaged in this barbarism. This is the very nature of every aspect of their terrorist operations, which demonstrate a complete and pervasive disregard for even the most basic rules of war. And the murder of these captives truly symbolizes the depth of their illegality and immorality. Even armed groups that abuse detainees will rarely sink to the level of summary execution. Hamas, however, once again shows the world the bottomless depths of its barbarism.

This tragic incident also reminds us that there is simply no moral equivalency between Israel and its illicit enemies. Indeed, Hersh Goldberg-Polin’s murder was only the final manifestation of Hamas’ modus operandi. He suffered months of inhumane treatment as a detainee after being gravely wounded when Hamas operatives deliberately and unlawfully attacked him and other civilians huddled together in an effort to avoid the massacre that befell hundreds of civilians at the Nova music festival.

Critics of Israel will no doubt immediately cite the (often inflated and unverified) numbers of civilians killed in Gaza as the result of combat operations in Gaza to justify their efforts at, “equality of condemnation.” But as any prosecutor can readily explain, there is no equivalency between those who deliberately kill and those who cause unavoidable killing even when following the law. This is what this comparison truly reflects: one side of the conflict that deliberately attacks and murders civilians, and another side that consistently implements its legal obligation to avoid, whenever feasible, that consequence.

War may be hell, but the hell that Hamas has created for the civilians it slaughtered, the detainees it abuses and murders, and the population of Gaza it has deliberately exposed to the avoidable consequences of war is a hell that even war does not condone. There is no comparison.

LTC Geoffrey Corn, USA (ret.) is the George R. Killam, Jr. Chair of Criminal Law and Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University School of Law and a Distinguished Fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.

LtGen George Smith, USMC (ret.) is the former Commanding General of the I Marine Expeditionary Force and a participant in JINSA’s 2024 Generals & Admirals Program.

Originally published in Newsweek.

The post Beware False Moral Equivalence Between Israel and Hamas Militants appeared first on JINSA.

The former commanders prepared the report on behalf of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

“The centerpiece strategy should be expanding regional cooperation, particularly between Arab states and Israel, and building out a regional security architecture that empowers regional U.S. partners to work together to address the Iranian threat,” the report states.

Its authors include Lt. Gen. (ret.) Charles Hooper, USA , former director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency; Lt. Gen. (ret.) John Jansen, United States Marine Corps, former deputy commandant for programs and resources; and Lt. Gen. (ret.) Charles Moore, United States Air Force, who was also former deputy commander of the U.S. Cyber Command.

They also included Lt. Gen. (ret.) Steven Rudder, former commanding general of the United States Marine Corps Forces in the Pacific; and Rear Adm. (ret.) Paul Becker, United States Navy, former director for intelligence, Joint Staff.

“This was a unique opportunity to visit wartime Israel with access to the nation’s senior most leaders, which left us with several major impressions,” Becker told JNS.

He listed those impressions as “the world may have moved on from Oct. 7 but Israel has not, the conflict is multi-front and not just confined to a southern and northern border, and the Israeli spirit remains strong. However, public disagreements between Washington and Jerusalem only emboldens the war’s principal antagonist, Iran, and it’s vicious proxies’ malign activities, which makes Israel’s fight more difficult.”

In the document, the authors state, “We have prepared this report to present to our active-duty colleagues, U.S. policymakers and the American public what we saw and heard in Israel—including that which surprised us or which we had not known before.”

In late June, the delegation of retired U.S. officers traveled to Israel under the auspices of JINSA and engaged with Israel’s top political, military and intelligence leaders, covering Israel’s strategic challenges and the role of U.S.-Israel military cooperation.

The delegation viewed the Bear Witness video, a 47-minute compilation of footage from Oct. 7’s Hamas-led mass murder attack on the western Negev, which vividly captured the atrocities. As noted by the delegation, “The brutality we witnessed in that video, and its remnants that we saw at one of the communities that was attacked, exceeds anything we have previously seen.”

The report adds, regarding post-war Gaza, that “reconstruction without deradicalization in Gaza will be a prescription for failure.”

The delegation’s discussions with Israeli leaders revealed that the conflict is far more complex than a single-front war in Gaza, the report states. Israeli officials emphasized that Israel is facing a seven-front war, with threats emanating from Gaza, Lebanon, Judea and Samaria, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran itself. This “ring of fire” around Israel is the result of Iran’s strategic investment in regional proxies—totaling $7 billion annually—and its broader ambitions in the Middle East, the report notes.

One of the most significant revelations was the extent to which Iran’s actions in the region are part of a global conflict involving the Iran-Russia-China-North Korea axis, the authors write.

Israeli officials argued that this axis is not just targeting Israel but is waging a broader war against the West, with Israel being a key front in this global struggle.”

The report notes that “Iranian-made or -designed drones are now an important part of Russia’s aerial arsenal. Much as Iran and its proxies did during the April 13 attack, Russia frequently launches barrages of Iranian one-way attack drones at Ukrainian military and civilian sites, both to inflict damage and to confuse Ukrainian air defenses so that larger, more destructive missiles can successfully reach their targets.”

Iran’s war against Israel, meanwhile, is made possible in part by funds that Tehran earns by selling its oil to China, said the authors.

The strength of the U.S.-Israel military partnership was highlighted throughout the delegation’s visit. Israeli leaders expressed deep gratitude for U.S. military support, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attack. The quick deployment of U.S. military assets, including two carrier strike groups in the Eastern Mediterranean, sent a powerful deterrent message to Hezbollah and Iran, helping to prevent a broader regional escalation, the authors assessed.

A key development in military cooperation has been Israel’s inclusion in U.S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR), as well as the Abraham Accords.

This shift has significantly enhanced operational coordination between the U.S. and Israeli militaries, particularly in defending against Iranian threats. For instance, during Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel, CENTCOM forces played a crucial role in intercepting more than 80 drones and six ballistic missiles, according to the report.

However, the delegation also noted concerns about potential rifts in the U.S.-Israel relationship, particularly regarding the timely delivery of American weapons. Delays in munitions deliveries have raised alarms among Israeli military leaders, who stressed that such holdups could embolden Hezbollah and other adversaries by creating perceptions of Israeli vulnerability.

The officers reported that “every Israeli leader we met with, political and military alike, warned us that such visible widening differences between Washington and Jerusalem embolden Iran and its proxies.”

The delegation shared that it was told by Israeli officials that “publicly aired disagreements between the United States and Israel increase the risks of further escalation by our common adversaries.”

The delegation concluded that the military relationship is vital not only for Israel’s security but also for broader U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. The ongoing conflict has highlighted the importance of continued U.S. support, in terms of both military aid and diplomatic backing.

Moreover, it stressed the need for enhanced technological cooperation between the two countries. Israel’s role as a technological innovator in areas such as missile defense, unmanned systems and artificial intelligence presents significant opportunities for joint development and deployment of cutting-edge military technologies, the delegation said.

Originally published by the Jewish News Syndicate.

The post ‘Public disagreements between US and J’lem only embolden Iran’ appeared first on JINSA.

On May 15, the letter was published in The New York Times.
On August 22, the letter was published in the Chicago Tribune.

The post Open Letter from Retired U.S. Military Leaders in Support of Israel Published in the Chicago Tribune appeared first on JINSA.

The encampments – which mushroomed to over 40 campuses in less than a week in late April and whose stated goal is divesting U.S. universities from Israel – have been a key propaganda tool for global jihadists’ radicalization campaign since their emergence.

In early May, U.K.-based al-Qaeda preacher Hani al-Siba’i lauded university protests as “the university intifada” – referencing Palestinian terrorist waves in the late 1990s and early 2000s – and called on followers to support their efforts against the United States, which he described as “based on terrorism” and “founded on murder and blood.”

Hezbollah’s deputy head Naim Qassam similarly praised the protesters in an early May interview, noting not only how they help change U.S. policy but can help drive terrorist recruitment. “The Israelis and the Americans will discover that with this type of aggression, they have laid the foundation for perpetual resistance of children and fetuses at an earlier age than the age fighters become qualified in the past,” he explained. “They will have an impact on the American position,” he noted, “Even if Biden says that he will not be influenced by this, he will whether he likes it or not.”

Terror sympathizers and Iranian regime supporters on social media have seized on footage of responses to demonstrators as evidence of the United States oppressing Muslims. Among the graphics circulating on these social media platforms is one that says it all. It features Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the head of the Houthis Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and masked Qassam Brigades and Quds Force fighters, against a red and green background – the colors of the Palestinian flag – with the words “The Good Guys Are Winning.”

All of this indicates that what has been taking place on college campuses is far from a matter of campus security, but rather of homeland security and foreign policy that the United States must frame and respond to accordingly.

Indeed, these terrorist groups have already been exploiting the war in Gaza as a way to plot their next attacks.

In early March, the Intelligence Community released its Annual Threat Assessment. In her opening testimony to Congress, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines warned that “it is likely that the Gaza conflict will have a generational impact on terrorism. Both al-Qa’ida and ISIS, inspired by HAMAS [sic], have directed supporters to conduct attacks against Israeli and U.S. interests.”

Following the ISIS attack on a concert hall in Moscow later that month, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray noted that the potential for “a coordinated attack here in the homeland” akin to the one in Moscow, “is now increasingly concerning.”

What should the United States do?

Einstein was credited with saying “if I have an hour to solve a problem, I spend the first 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.”

How the United States leadership describes what is happening on campus is key to the solution. That means President Biden is right, but incomplete, in condemning the rise of antisemitism on campus, as he did in early May. Rather, he must point out that terrorists are looking to exploit this rhetoric to harm Americans and that what we are seeing on campus is the product of planning by organizations with ties to terrorist groups rather than students’ expression of their first amendment rights.

Second, the United States must highlight the consequences for these actions, that rhetoric that promotes violence – any violence, but certainly any directed according to racial and ethnic categories, to include antisemitic rhetoric – must result in disciplinary actions by the university. Thus far many of the arrests have been for trespassing, assault, or damage to property.

Finally, the United States must integrate these responses with a coherent and constructive foreign policy regarding Israel, the main foil for these campus agitators. Whatever waffling, in either rhetoric or actions, the administration has done in recent days in terms of support to Israel, there is clearly a new urgency to demonstrate “no daylight” with Israel – a theme the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) has advanced in recent years – given the immediate U.S. homeland security risks not doing so would present.

That message should be mirrored in our foreign policy in explaining that Israel must finish off Hamas – a group that holds six Americans as hostages – and that the Rafah operation is essential to that objective.

Supporters of Hamas’s actions – whether their tents are on U.S. campuses or in the Syrian desert – need to hear the same message of “don’t” from the October 8^th version of President Biden.

LTG David Fridovich, (U.S. Army, ret.) is former Deputy Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and is a 2013 participant in JINSA’s Generals & Admirals trip to Israel. Sheriff Kim Cole is the sheriff of Mason County, Michigan, and is a 2024 participant in JINSA’s Homeland Security Program trip to Israel. Dr. Jacob Olidort was the Director of Research of JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense & Strategy.

Originally published by RealClearDefense.

The post Campus Protests Embolden Terrorist Groups appeared first on JINSA.

Originally appeared on Standpoint with Gabe Groisman.

The post LTC Geoffrey Corn, USA (ret.) on Standpoint with Gabe Groisman (6.16.24) appeared first on JINSA.