Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz
Hover fellow Peter Berkowitz says the absence of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain leaders at the Camp David summit suggests a lack of confidence in the Iran nuclear deal.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, weighs in on President Obama’s recent visit to Israel.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses his upcoming book Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, notes that Israel has the right to defend itself against the threat posed by Iran. He also discusses whether Obama should delay an attack on Iran.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, defends the international laws of war by exposing the flawed assumptions and defective claims that have gained currency from The Goldstone Report (2009 Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission) and the Gaza Flotilla controversy.
Legal scholar Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argued in RealClearPolitics in February 2016 that Israel's possession of the Golan was “lawful and just” and should be supported by the United States and the international community.
Parsing the State Department Policy Planning Staff’s New China Report with Peter Berkowitz.
The prospect for peace in the Middle East requires believing in miracles.
Over the last few days, Israel has pulled its troops out of Gaza and agreed to a 72-hour cease-fire with Hamas. The battle over international public opinion, however, continues to rage.
Bin Laden is gone now, dispatched from this earthly realm in 2011 by the Navy’s lethal SEAL Team Six. Yet we remain mired in the seemingly endless fighting in the Middle East, and the rationale for that is in dire need of clarification, if not justification.
On July 1, the Coalition Provisional Authority—the body headed by U.S. ambassador Paul Bremer that has governed Iraq since the end of the Iraq war—will transfer sovereignty to a temporary Iraqi government. The transfer of power raises a number of hard questions. Will our attempts at nation building in this ethnically and religiously divided country succeed? Just what are our responsibilities in ensuring that success? And how long will or should the United States maintain a military presence in Iraq?
Now that the war with Iraq is over, will our strained relations with our longtime European allies and the United Nations return to "normal"? Is that even desirable? Or are we witnessing the emergence of a fundamentally new structure of international relations?
Over the past year, the clashes between the Bush administration and European leaders over the best way to handle Saddam Hussein have led many observers to suggest that the half-century-long alliance between Western Europe and the United States is dead. How serious is the rift between Europe and America, and why has it emerged? Is it still in the strategic interest of the United States to maintain tens of thousands of troops in Europe, or should we pull out of NATO altogether?
The Koret-Taube Task Force on National Security and Law met at the Hoover Institution on Thursday, January 5, 2012, to discuss the pressing challenges the United States confronts as it seeks, consistent with the Constitution and the international laws of war, to defend the nation and, where necessary, wage war.
Uzi Arad visited the Hoover Institution on Friday, April 26, 2013, to discuss Israel’s national security challenges and US-Israel relations.
The causes, the players, and the likely consequences of the Arab eruptions. A conversation with Hoover fellows Peter Berkowitz, Victor Davis Hanson, and Peter Robinson.
How NATO has survived—and will continue to prosper—in the post–Cold War era. Military historian Peter Mansoor explains the historical trajectory of NATO, how it adjusted after the demise of the Soviet Union, and why it will survive the current threats from Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
How the foreign policy establishment systematically misunderstands the threat from jihadism.