Cooler but still well above normal this week

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

For the United States, tensions are rising with both allies and adversaries. Rogue states are racing to master new technologies and create weapons of mass destruction. And faith in international institutions is seemingly deteriorating. What does this all mean for U.S. national security?

Staged in the Intelligence Squared "unresolved" format, five  foreign policy experts argue "for" or "against" a number of motions revolving around some of America's most pressing national security issues, including: Is NATO no longer fit for purpose? Is the Russia threat overblown? 
And, is it time to take a hard line on Iran?

FOR: "NATO expansion, which was all designed just to keep NATO alive, has failed miserably. It's turned Eastern Europe into a real mess, and we're now more deeply involved in Eastern Europe than ever when we should be either pivoting to Asia or spending the money here in the United States." —John Mearsheimer, political science professor, University of Chicago.

AGAINST: "Ask yourselves: would the U.S. be better able to protect its interest and help solve the challenges of the future without willing and capable allies standing by its side? Think about it: if NATO did not exist today, we would be racing to invent it."
—Derek Chollet of The German Marshall Fund of the United States & former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense.

FOR: "Putin's Russia, anyone's Russia, should be America's number one national security partner in the world. Washington squandered that opportunity after 1991, and it's continued to squander it today by inventing or provoking threats residing in Russia, which do not exist."
—Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian Studies and Politics, New York University & Princeton University.

AGAINST: "I notice that a few individuals up here probably don't want to maintain NATO, and they're oddly the ones who believe that Russia isn't a threat."
—Reuel Gerecht, senior fellow, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies & former CIA Case Officer.

FOR: "It is time to take a harder line on Iran. They are the top state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They are destabilizing neighboring governments. They're arming Hezbollah and Hamas. They are keeping Bashar Al-Assad in power and doing a lot of the murderous work of that horrible war."
—Kori Schake, deputy director-general, International Institute for Strategic Studies. 

AGAINST: "The hawks believe that you can get really tough with the Iranians, and you can beat them into giving up nuclear weapons forever. I don't think that's going to happen."
—John Mearsheimer, political science professor, University of Chicago.

Politics and Government News

Shows

MPR News Presents

Several debate motions on key issues: the role of international institutions such as NATO and the UN, and the threats from Iran, Russia, and rogue states.

IQ2 debate: Trump and US national security

President Donald Trump and Nikki Haley at the United Nations.

Intelligence Squared debate: Trump and US national security

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox