To defeat Islamist terror, it's time to change the rules

A discussion this week examines whether the United States can defeat Islamist adversaries employing asymmetrical warfare, and whether diplomatic approaches will prove effective with Iran and its affiliated militant groups.

Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that the "rules-based international order" Established after World War II may be "binding the hands of the United States" In confronting adversaries like Iran. He contends that "if our hands are tied, we're the stronger power, and we have justice on our side, but yet cannot take the action that is necessary to win based on rules that we created," That represents a problem. "It may be time to revise them," He states.

Schanzer characterizes diplomatic initiatives by Trump administration envoys and advisers to persuade Iran to abandon nuclear ambitions or convince Hamas and Hezbollah to cease operations in Gaza and Lebanon as "not feasible," Pointing to prior administration failures. He argues instead that these groups can be defeated through military means.

According to Schanzer, Trump requires a "new strategy" To counteract advantages Iran has accumulated through rising oil prices and American munitions shortages.

Schanzer identifies significant strategic stakes: an Iranian defeat could enable creation of an Indian-Middle East energy corridor linking the subcontinent to Europe through moderate Arab states and Israel, improving the international situation. Without such an outcome, he warns of a competing alliance of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan that would obstruct regional stability, American influence, and Arab-Israeli normalization efforts.