U.S. Central Command said today that at 2 p.m. local time the U.S. military in Erbil Governate (Northern Iraq) shot down an Iranian drone engaged in an "unprovoked attack" that "appeared as a threat to CENTCOM forces in the area."
What makes this quite different from previous drone shoot-downs is that this was reportedly an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) drone. In previous exchanges in Northern Iraq and just over the border in Syria, "Iran-backed militias" have been accused of the provocations. This one goes right to the heart of the regime, which has always kept a distance from the militias on the ground and has not taken responsibility for previous attacks.
We know, however, from recent headlines that Iran has been targeting Kurdish groups it claims are responsible for fomenting the massive protests across Iran for the last 11 days. As of this afternoon, at least nine people have been killed and 24 wounded in the Erbil region, according to Al Jazeera, with that death toll expected to rise. The Iranians have been engaged in a "wave" of shelling and drone strikes, with Washington condemning them as an “assault on the sovereignty of Iraq and its people."
The CENTCOM press release did not speculate, but it seems fairly certain that today's shoot-down was related to that wave of attacks and the U.S. choosing to intervene on Iraq's behalf. That our troops are not there to defend Kurds from Iranians but under a completely different AUMF does not matter. We're there and, at this point, so integrated into the Iraqi military and security landscape that any threat to Iraq could be a "threat to CENTCOM forces." That goes for the U.S. forces still positioned in Syria.
So what happens when the Turks decide to start really pummeling the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), who are U.S. allies, as they have promised? A NATO-vs.-NATO showdown?
Perhaps there is support for U.S. forces remaining in the region to protect the sovereignty of Iraq and its people — lord knows they have earned it — but shouldn't that be up to the American people via congressional approval and oversight? That isn't the case, however. The U.S. military has remained there, in harms way, under every successive administration since the 2003 invasion, without a new AUMF. Now they are embroiled in regional disputes that bring the U.S. closer to a direct confrontation with Tehran. Is this what we want?
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft.
File photo of Iranian Mojer-6 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, which US military says it shot down in Northern Iraq on Wednesday. (Tasnim News/Creative Commons/Wikimedia)
European leaders met this week at the behest of French President Emmanuel Macron, who wants to solidify a plan to send troops to Ukraine as a security package. However, the meetings emerged, according to the Wall Street Journal, “without a public commitment from other European countries to send troops.”
France and the United Kingdom have been pushing for troops on the ground in Ukraine, and other countries, like Sweden, Denmark, and Australia, have indicated a willingness to do so as well. The main hurdle appears to be that most are apparently unwilling to send their armed forces to Ukraine without the protection of the United States.
“My wish is that the Americans are engaged at our side, but we have to be prepared for a situation in which they maybe don’t join in,” Macron said.
Another European diplomat said, "when Ukraine was in a better position, the idea of sending troops appealed. But now, with the situation on the ground and the U.S administration as it is, it's not very sexy.”
European countries did agree this week to provide more aid and training for Ukraine. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom also agreed to send a team to Ukraine to analyze how many troops would be needed for a hypothetical European force.
Meanwhile, after negotiations earlier in the week, U.S. and Russian leaders agreed on an expanded ceasefire deal focused on the Black Sea. The Kremlin clarified that accepting an agreement would hinge on the relaxation of sanctions on the agricultural bank, Rosselkhozbank.
The U.S. did not explicitly promise to lift sanctions but that it would “help restore Russia’s access to the world market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, lower maritime insurance costs, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions.”
European leaders balked at the idea of lifting sanctions. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said doing so would be “a serious mistake.” Additionally, U.K. Prime Minister Kier Starmer said, “now is not the time for lifting sanctions.”
“Moscow has shown every indication of driving a hard bargain in the talks conducted thus far, not to mention that much of the subject matter is innately technical and simply does not lend itself to swift resolution,” said the Quincy Institute’s Mark Episkopos. “There have been signs in prior weeks of a slow convergence between U.S. and Russian positions… However, Kyiv, flanked by some of its European partners, has voiced deep-seated reservations about possible concessions and other terms of a potential peace settlement.”
Episkopos added, “these concerns and the way they’re being raised speak to a larger lack of buy-in that, if left unsquared, will complicate efforts to get a peace deal past the finish line.”
On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journalreported that President Trump said that the Kremlin may be “dragging its feet” on the Black Sea ceasefire deal. “I’ve done it over the years. You know, I don’t want to sign a contract. I want to sort of stay in the game, but maybe I don’t want to do it quite—I’m not sure,” he said, referring to his previous experience in real estate.
Russia’s mission to the United Nations accused Ukraine of sabotage. In a statement to the Security Council, UN Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy said, “Kiev continues to plan and carry out strikes against Russia's energy infrastructure, thus trying to hoodwink both us and the United States.”
According to CNN, South Korean officials claim that North Korea sent an additional 3,000 soldiers to Russia in January and February. Pyongyang also sent “220 pieces of 170-millimeter self-propelled howitzers and 240-millimeter multiple rocket launchers,” and that further aid was likely to increase depending on the situation.
The European Commission advised EU citizens to have at least 72 hours of food and supplies in reserve. CNN outlined the new document released on Wednesday, which cited Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, geopolitical tensions, and other concerns.
U.S. State Department news:
During a State Department briefing this week, a reporter asked spokesperson Tammy Bruce if the Trump administration agreed that Putin had legitimate claims to Crimea or other regions annexed by Russia, referencing comments made by envoy Steve Witkoff. Bruce said she did not want to speculate on the topic but promised that the president was “singularly focused” on bringing peace to the conflict.
Another reporter asked how the administration was planning on ensuring trust between the United States and Ukraine. Bruce replied, "this isn’t about trust or if—who you’re dealing with and whether or not you like them or you don’t or what that dynamic is.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Andrew Harnik / Shutterstock.com
In recent weeks, many of the same neoconservative voices who pushed the U.S. into Iraq are calling for strikes on Iran. Groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy are once again promoting confrontation, claiming there may never be a better time to act. But this is a dangerous illusion that risks derailing what Donald Trump himself says he wants: a deal, not another disastrous war in the Middle East.
A war with Iran wouldn’t just risk another endless conflict. It would blow up Trump’s broader agenda at home and abroad.
A major conflict would drain U.S. resources and attention, distracting from domestic priorities and weakening America’s leverage on every front: China, Russia, Europe, and trade. Europe could seize the moment to prolong support for the war in Ukraine and resist Trump’s push to reset transatlantic ties. Trade partners like Mexico, Canada, India, and others could take advantage of America’s preoccupation to extract lop-sided concessions. And a unilateral strike would likely fracture the international community.
Russia and China, despite their own misgivings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, would point to U.S. aggression as the real threat, undermining American credibility at the United Nations and beyond.
And the most dangerous consequence? A strike could backfire and push Iran to do exactly what Trump says he wants to prevent: build a bomb. Iran is already enriching uranium near weapons-grade. If it withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the last threads of international oversight would disappear. An attack would likely galvanize even more hardline elements in Iran and provide the political justification to sprint for a nuclear weapon.
Trump could go down in history, not as the president who solved the Iran crisis, but as the one under whose watch Iran finally became a nuclear weapons state. That’s not the legacy he wants, or one the country can afford.
Raising alarms, Trump recently declared, “Something will happen to Iran soon.” But he also made clear, “Hopefully, we can have a peace deal. I’m not speaking out of strength or weakness, I’m just saying I’d rather see a peace deal than the other.” These are not the words of a warmonger. They are the words of a negotiator, someone who still sees the value in diplomacy.
Trump is not alone. In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, his foreign policy envoy Steven Witkoff offered a notably more restrained perspective on Iran than is typical from the foreign policy establishment. Witkoff emphasized pragmatism, verification, mutual respect, and, most importantly, avoiding conflict. His remarks reflected a grounded approach rooted in a clear understanding of both American interests and the region’s complex dynamics.
The problem is that many of the loudest voices shaping Iran policy — inside and outside the government — are actively working to sabotage any realistic path to diplomacy. They talk about wanting a “deal,” but what they’re actually demanding is Iran’s surrender: zero uranium enrichment, dismantling its nuclear program, cutting ties with all its regional allies, and fundamentally changing its foreign policy. No Iranian government — pragmatist or hardliner — could accept such terms. Even Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s newly elected president who ran on a platform of diplomacy and engagement, would have no political space to agree to that kind of ultimatum.
Let’s be clear: if you’re pushing for such maximalist demands under the guise of wanting a deal, you’re not working for peace. You’re laying the groundwork for war.
Iran is a complicated actor with a complicated history. But the lessons of the past decade are clear: when the U.S. engages Iran through diplomacy, it gets results. When it relies solely on pressure, it inches closer to conflict.
The point of pressure has always been to create leverage, not to impose costs for their own sake. That leverage now exists. The question is what to do with it.
The 2015 nuclear deal was far from perfect for any side, but it did succeed in placing tight constraints on Iran’s nuclear program and subjected it to unprecedented international inspections. The aim of withdrawing from that deal was to compel Iran to accept stronger terms. That hasn’t happened.
Instead, the result has been several years of Iranian nuclear expansion, regional instability, and growing alignment between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. Iran is now enriching uranium to 60% — dangerously close to weapons-grade — and stockpiling far more than before. Meanwhile, the international consensus that once backed U.S. efforts has frayed.
Now is the time to cash in on current U.S. pressure. Not by continuing on an escalatory path that leads to war, but by using the leverage that’s been built to strike a better deal — one that delivers strong constraints, more transparency, and greater long-term security for the United States.
Against this backdrop, hawkish voices are once again pushing the illusion that striking Iran would be quick and effective. A recentreport from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) claims Israel’s alleged deep intelligence reach and risk tolerance make a “preventive strike” against Iran potentially “much more successful” than past American efforts, like when the U.S. attacked nuclear targets in Iraq in 1991 and 1993. But this dangerously downplays the risks. Even Trump’s allies are urging caution.
Vice President J.D. Vance, for example, rightly cautioned last October that “America’s interest is sometimes going to be distinct” from Israel’s — and made clear that avoiding war with Iran is in the U.S. interest. He warned such a conflict would be “massively expensive” and a “huge distraction of resources.” The reality is that a strike might at best delay Iran’s program while likely sparking a regional war, endangering U.S. troops, and pushing Iran to weaponize.
Indeed, even the same WINEP report that touts the feasibility of a strike quietly acknowledges the scale of what it would entail: “an open-ended, multiyear campaign to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, influence its nuclear proliferation calculus, and shape its political and military responses.” In other words, this wouldn’t be a quick, surgical strike; it would be the beginning of another endless war in the Middle East.
Such a conflict would also carry steep economic costs, from skyrocketing oil prices to instability across the Middle East. And it would almost certainly backfire politically: Americans are war-weary, and polls show overwhelming support for diplomacy over conflict.
What’s needed now is a pragmatic strategy to de-escalate and reengage — one that offers Iran credible incentives in exchange for verifiable nuclear limits but doesn’t require dismantling its entire program.
The Iranian leadership has shown a consistent pattern in its dealings with the United States: pressure is met with pressure, while concessions are met with reciprocal steps. History has made clear that what moves the needle is not ultimatums, but a formula grounded in mutual respect, trust-building, and incremental, verifiable actions. Witkoff’s recent interview signaled a welcome openness to serious diplomacy, but rhetoric alone is not enough. To resonate in Tehran, it must be paired with credible, calibrated actions.
Modest, realistic steps — such as allowing a limited release of Iran’s frozen assets for humanitarian purposes or reviving President Emmanuel Macron’s 2019proposal for a credit line backed by future oil revenues — would not require lifting core U.S. sanctions. Yet they could offer enough tangible benefit to bring Iran to the table. These measures should be linked to parallel Iranian concessions, such as slowing the accumulation of highly enriched uranium and enhancing IAEA access.
Another option is a negotiated “pause:” a fixed-duration agreement where the U.S. freezes further escalation of sanctions and refrains from imposing new pressure, while Iran halts key elements of its nuclear expansion. This mutual freeze could serve as a time-bound window for more comprehensive talks — buying time, lowering tensions, and creating space for diplomacy to succeed.
Critics will claim this approach "rewards bad behavior." But the real question isn't about rewarding anyone, it's about results. What actually reduces the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon or dragging the U.S. into another endless war? The record speaks for itself: pressure detached from feasible diplomatic outcomes hasn’t delivered results. In fact, pressure for its own sake has backfired — driving Iran’s nuclear program forward and repeatedly bringing the U.S. to the brink of conflict.
Some will say Iran cannot be trusted. That’s precisely why inspections and verification are essential. When a deal was in place, international inspectors had access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the program was significantly constrained. Military strikes, by contrast, would likely end all transparency and push Iran to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, eliminating the last tools for monitoring and oversight.
There’s no perfect deal. But the smart play is a deal that contains Iran’s nuclear program, avoids a war, and keeps the U.S. in the driver’s seat. That should be the goal of any serious policy, not wishful thinking or ideological crusades.
President Trump has always seen himself as a dealmaker. Now’s the moment to make one that matters. He should empower voices in his camp — like Steven Witkoff — who understand that diplomacy isn’t weakness, it’s strategy. Rejecting the tired playbook of regime change and endless escalation would show real leadership.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepts rockets after Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles, as seen from Ashkelon, Israel, October 1, 2024 REUTERS/Amir Cohen TPX
As the Trump administrationproceeds full speed ahead on its Golden Dome missile defense project, U.S. officials and engineering experts alike suggest it's a next to impossible undertaking.
Gen. Michael Guetlein, Space Force vice chief, likened Golden Dome to the WWII-era Manhattan project, which created the atom bomb. Acting DoD official Steven J. Morani called it a “monster systems engineering problem.” Trump himself compared it to President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or “Star Wars,” a space-based defense system that never made it past the drawing board.
Previously called “Iron Dome for America,” the Pentagon describes Golden Dome as a missile defense system similar to Israel’s “Iron Dome," which intercepts incoming projectiles with missiles, scaled up to protect the entirety of the United States from aerial threats. The project was made official with a January 27 executive order.
Advocates emphasize Golden Dome’s significance — describing it as critical for the defense of the U.S. amid increasingly perilous geopolitical conditions. But the project’s questionable feasibility — and likely exorbitant price tag — leaves observers skeptical that the project amounts to little more than a contract generator, all while harming prospects for peace.
The weapons industry goes to bat for Golden Dome
For its part, the U.S. has put nearly $3 billion toward Israel’s Iron Dome’s production, equipment, and maintenance since 2011. Understanding that the American version won’t likely operate quite the same way due to our continent’s sheer size, the Defense Department has requested industry input.
Contractors have sent the Pentagon over 360 company concept papers for consideration. They’re also publicly gunning for a role — weapons industry mainstay Lockheed Martin, for example, has published a web page and even a teaser trailer boasting of its capacities.
“We’re a major partner in Israel’s Iron Dome today,” RTX (formerly Raytheon) Chief Executive Chris Calio likewise pointed out in late January, upon Trump’s executive order for Golden Dome. “It's the bedrock of Raytheon…we view [America’s Golden Dome project] as a significant opportunity for us, something right in our wheelhouse.”
Execs from defense tech startup L3Harris, likewise, expressed their ability and eagerness to assist in an op-ed for Breaking Defense. “With a portfolio of proven capabilities in countering air and missile threats, we’re ready to assist [Trump’s] administration in achieving this goal,” Ken Bedingfield and Ed Zoiss wrote. The Pentagon is also reviewing a proposal for a similar defense system sporting tech from Anduril, Palantir, and SpaceX.
And counter-drone systems producer BlueHalo’s CEO, Jonathan Moneymaker, even pushed for scope creep in an interview with Business Insider, suggesting that — by bringing on state-of-the-art defense and AI-backed tech — the Golden Dome project could become a more holistic threat response system, rather than one more narrowly focused on projectiles. Naturally, the move would require "the full might of the Defense Industrial Base."
But the industry’s Golden Dome fervor should, considering its track record, be taken with a grain of salt.
“It is interesting to see how quickly defense contractors have allied themselves with President Trump’s call for a Golden Dome missile shield,” Project on Government Oversight national-security analyst and Bunker columnist Mark Thompson told RS. “Contractors’ statements about how well they can build a missile shield would carry more weight if they reflected the reality of the weapons they are currently producing.”
Thompson added, “While Lockheed talks about the need for such a Golden Dome, its F-35 fighter currently is ready for action only about 50% of the time.”
Is Golden Dome even possible?
Other feasibility issues chip away at Golden Dome’s viability. For example, Israel’s Iron Dome can intercept shorter-range projectiles deployed by regional neighbors. But if the U.S. were to be hit, it may well be targeted with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) — something Iron Dome can’t currently counter.
“The system [Golden Dome] borrows part of its name from — Israel's Iron Dome system — is only designed to defend against short to medium-range missiles. It would be of no use against an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile,” said William Hartung, a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
While the Pentagon can try to develop a system prepared for ICBMs, previous attempts haven’t been successful. “Long-range interceptors have failed many tests, and those tests were considerably less rigorous than an actual attack would be…that a new initiative would do better is both unproven and unlikely,” Hartung explained.
To defense contractors, this ICBM problem simply presents itself as another challenge, where they say some of Golden Dome’s work, complete with space-based lasers and radars, could take place beyond the atmosphere. "If [long-range] weapons maneuver around [our current defense] systems, that means our current architecture can't provide fire control ordnance,” L3Harris’ Zoiss told Fox News. “And, therefore, it has to be moved to space.”
In contrast, Pentagon insiders don’t even seem to know how Golden Dome would work in practice. “Right now, Golden Dome is, it’s really an idea,” a source familiar with internal discussions surrounding the project told CNN, emphasizing the project’s conceptual nature.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of long-range attacks Golden Dome would theoretically protect against is questionable. “It is not in the interests of either China or Russia to launch kinetic strikes to damage the U.S. homeland early in a crisis as this would likely draw the United States deeper into a conflict,” Xiaodon Liang, senior policy analyst at the Arms Control Association, wrote.
What is clear is the project’s likely-hefty price tag, even as the DoD moves (at least nominally) to cut costs. Former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim supposed that Golden Dome could cost $100 billion per year through 2030. Going further, Ret. Air Force Lt. General Richard Newton told NewsNation that the Golden Dome system could cost $2.5 trillion.
“I’m not opposed to the idea of having a system like [Golden Dome] but it’s not just, the idea pops into one guy’s head and we should just suddenly spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) mused at a March 13 Punchbowl News event on space policy.
And experts fear that Golden Dome will inflame already existing geopolitical tensions, or even encourage an arms race — where nuclear warheads, which can be attached to ICBMs — could be involved.
“Even if the United States were to sink hundreds of billions, or even trillions…into an exquisite new national missile defense program, how much return would we get on such a program if it would only encourage adversaries to build more cheap missiles?” Geoff Wilson, Distinguished Fellow and Strategic Advisor for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, asked of the project. “Such actions would do little to further American security and likely would only waste taxpayer dollars on an impossible Oval Office talking point while further inflaming a new global nuclear arms race that is putting every man, woman and child in this nation and around the globe at risk.”
“The only reliable defense against nuclear-armed missiles is to reduce the chances that they will be launched in the first place, which calls for a revival of arms control talks between the U.S. and Russia, and a dialogue on future nuclear developments with China,” Hartung said.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.