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 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.
By Onur Ant
Michael DiMino, Public Policy Manager at Washington DC-based think tank Defense Priorities, said Tehran’s attack is meant to show its willingness to respond to the April 1 strike on its embassy compound in Syria while avoiding further escalation.
“Given the telegraphing and diplomatic backchanneling in advance of these strikes, Iran has likely calibrated this attack to provide a ‘Goldilocks’ response aimed at a forceful reprisal that still mitigates escalation risks.”
By Courtney McBride and Peter Martin
The attack drones and cruise missiles "are likely part of a coordinated multi-phase response in an attempt to overwhelm and confuse Israeli air defenses," said Michael DiMino, a former CIA analyst and current fellow at Defense Priorities.