If the U.S. is serious about reducing its presence in the Middle East while confronting an every-more-threatening China, restraining Russia, and maintaining its global leadership, it must show its willingness to take military action. Thus argues Efraim Inbar, who fears American credibility being diminished across the globe. The threat of a nuclear Iran, he concludes, might provide an opportunity to restore some of that credibility:

The U.S. can rebuild its superpower status by demonstrating its determination to use military force to pursue its national interests when necessary. The place to take a stand and change the impression of a weakened U.S. is with Iran.

The Biden administration seeks a compromise in a new [nuclear] deal with Tehran. However, it ignores the fact that Iran is determined to progress on the nuclear path and continue circumventing sanctions. Its survival depends upon achieving this goal. North Korea is its model. Iran perceives the U.S. as weakened, not having the guts to use force if needed. Therefore, Tehran humiliated Washington by excluding its presence in the ongoing talks and employing delay tactics to draw out the process.

There are times in international relations when the military option may be the only one left. Washington declared its strong opposition to an Iranian nuclear bomb. Its European allies back this position. Even Russia and China have no interest in seeing Tehran go nuclear.

Washington must instill fear in the hearts of its enemies if it is to leave the Middle East with as little damage as possible to U.S. standing and security. The American military still has enough punch to punish regional opponents and to generate fear if necessary. There may come a time soon when the Biden administration has to demonstrate a willingness to use force with Iran, to send a clear message that America is still serious about being a superpower.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.