Author Archives: Daniel Larison
About Daniel Larison
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.
The American Conservative is currently accepting applications for a summer editorial internship …
Rubio’s foreign policy errors aren’t limited to one bungled attack line.
Opponents of the nuclear deal that have no use for arms control or the agreements that make it possible.
Reducing tensions doesn’t appeal to those that rely on threat inflation to win and retain political influence.
The audience this morning enthusiastically cheered on the sabotage of a major U.S. diplomatic initiative.
A relationship this unhealthy isn’t going to be improved so quickly because of one leader’s political stunt.
Walker is explicitly calling for the U.S. to let Israel set the terms of our diplomacy.
Walker has been elevated to the top group of candidates despite the fact he hasn’t yet earned his place there.
Netanyahu can be expected to repeat Iran hawks’ exaggerated, false warnings about a non-existent “existential threat” verbatim.
If Walker believes what he’s saying, he is endorsing an absurdly extreme version of the “credibility” argument.
Jindal and Rubio’s foreign policy attacks fall flat.
There is no better deal coming on the nuclear issue. Paul Pillar …
Making the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program the “centerpiece of American policy” is to doom that policy to failure.
Hard-liners prefer an Iranian nuclear program that faces no real scrutiny and has no restrictions placed upon it.
Walker’s CPAC remarks remind us that he has nothing substantive to say about foreign policy.
The unionist win last September may have only delayed the dissolution of the union and Scottish independence rather than preventing it all together.
All of Britain’s wars over the last two decades have been wars of choice that it could have avoided.
If the U.S. never allowed any “light” between it and its allies and clients, that would mean letting those allies and clients dictate what U.S. policy ought to be.
Bush’s statement combines the worst sort of second-guessing with a magical belief in the power of an American military presence to forestall undesirable developments overseas.
Hawks don’t want to own the deadly and sometimes disastrous consequences of their preferred policies.← Older posts
from The American Conservative