Daniel Sorek

1.4K posts

Daniel Sorek banner
Daniel Sorek

Daniel Sorek

@DanSorek

Own views / Former Goldman Sachs Global Institute, NYC Govt/ Started in i-banking, now write on Mid-East, Cyber, NatSec / Dual 🇨🇦 🇮🇱 in 🇺🇸

New York, NY Katılım Mayıs 2011
1.8K Takip Edilen469 Takipçiler
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
Something that analysts generally agree on is everything the regime does is in service of regime survival. It is theoretically possible to force the regime to consider which actions increase their chances of survival. The admin should use all its levers to incentivize the regime to accept that even uranium concessions are necessary to have a shot of staying in power. At the same time, they regime would then have to contend with its domestic unrest but with degraded IRGC, Basij, and other agencies.
Richard Goldberg@rich_goldberg

The rump regime is so brave, powerful and fully in control that it is deathly afraid of turning the internet back on.

English
0
0
0
29
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
My bigger point that I’ll try to reiterate: we have demand for a supply of very low quality ideas and also no demand for people to hear opposing ideas. That wasn’t always the case, especially with the latter. We need to figure out why youth want to ONLY feel comfort with their own ideas instead of some discomfort with other ideas. And then we need to address that.
English
0
0
0
3
Stephen Jackson
Stephen Jackson@stephjackson200·
@DanSorek @havivrettiggur Sure if free speech is equal for all. Try inviting somebody to speak on campus who thinks we should return to slavery or lynchings. Do u think that person would be allowed their free speech on campus? Speech is never so free as when it’s attacking America and the Jewish people
English
1
0
0
7
Daniel Sorek retweetledi
Mehdi Yahyanejad
Mehdi Yahyanejad@mehdiy_fa·
🚨A source in Iran told me that the rumors regarding the arrests of Ghalibaf and Araghchi are false. Additionally, Mojtaba Khamenei is reportedly urging regime officials to remain committed to the negotiations.
English
9
16
56
7.3K
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
Senator Graham signals a potential development on Iran: a bigger blockade. Comes at a time when some accounts are seeing increased US military presence in theater.
Lindsey Graham@LindseyGrahamSC

I had a very good call this morning with @POTUS and @SecWar Pete Hegseth about the way forward regarding the Iran conflict.   I think the President’s decision to leave the blockade in place is very smart. It is having a strong effect on the ability of Iran to continue to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism – which they appear intent on doing.   I not only expect this blockade to stay in place until Iran shows a commitment to change their ways, I expect the blockade will be growing and that it could become global soon.   To those assisting or thinking about assisting the Iranian regime in distributing its oil, which provides resources for terrorism, you do so at your own peril.   Well done to President Trump and his team. This is the best chance since 1979 to change the behavior of the regime and I hope this can be accomplished through diplomacy.

English
0
0
0
22
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
@SaraEisen Great questions. @SenWarren 's answers reflect long-time trends in US politics on both sides of the aisle: -Character for thee but not for me. -Interests matter most (she'll look past everything because he aligns on the Great Recession). - Nothing is taboo anymore.
English
0
0
3
1.6K
Sara Eisen
Sara Eisen@SaraEisen·
I asked Senator Warren why she campaigned with Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner and called him “my kinda man!”… when he had a chest tattoo of a Nazi symbol, allegedly said people concerned about rape should “take some responsibility for themselves and not get so f—-ked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to?” And also reportedly wrote “I dig it” next to a video online of Hamas terrorists murdering several Israeli soldiers cnbc.com/video/2026/04/…
English
402
326
2.2K
110.7K
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
1. That method may have been more appropriate when the US wasn't in an active war. 2. What do you mean by this? 3. That's sometimes an element of negotiations. The Iranians know this too but they use LEGO animations. 4. But now the US and the regime are in a war so there is an incentive to negotiate a deal faster. 5. Appears that the regime did not take the negotations seriously and the US team decided to leave for that reason. 6. Ok.
English
0
0
0
3
Richard Stengel
Richard Stengel@stengel·
1. All int'l agreements are negotiated first by lower level staffers. 2. Principals can't negotiate deals while in the spotlight. 3. But the president has to turn everything into a spectacle. 4. The JCPOA agreement took two years, and that was on just one issue: nuclear enrichment. 5. These guys were supposed to iron out an agreement on the Strait, nuclear, oil, Lebanon, and missiles all in one night. 6. Impossible. 7. And, by the way, didn't he want to open the Strait?
English
52
375
1.6K
43.3K
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
Great thread by @ChairmanG who chaired @ChinaSelect . Many used to say that we need more technologists in Congress. I think it could do with more historians like Rep. Gallagher. "The best tribute we can pay Eisenhower today is to ask the same questions of Beijing that he asked of Moscow: where is your standard of proof? And failing to find it, we must build the same coalition of free nations and make absolutely certain that the cost of aggression is too high for Xi to pay. This is our chance for peace. This is exactly what's at stake in the Pacific right now."
Mike Gallagher@ChairmanG

73 years ago today, barely three months into his presidency, Dwight Eisenhower delivered one of the most critical speeches in American statecraft. An olive branch from the man who crushed the Wehrmacht, it was also a psychological weapon against global communism, designed to end America’s first “forever war” in Korea. A thread on why Ike’s “Chance for Peace" speech matters more than ever. 🧵

English
0
0
0
23
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
Very impressive response by Mark to @nfergus 's recent thread on what he considers shortcomings in Epic Fury.
Mark Dubowitz@mdubowitz

Niall is the most thoughtful and serious critic of the Iran war. He approaches it with history and wisdom and not TDS. So his critique deserves a response. The biggest danger right now is confusing Iranian regime survival with Iranian strength. Niall’s analysis rests on that. Let me take his points in order. 1. Nobody serious expected regime change during military operations. The bet was severe nuclear and military degradation now, with political fracture later if Iranians return to the streets. Iran didn’t emerge stronger. It lost senior commanders, nuclear infrastructure, and major war-making capability. Measuring the war against a peacetime baseline is the wrong frame. The honest counterfactual is Iran at 90%+ enrichment within months, hardened sites, ICBMs, a tested weapon possibly within a year, and all the leverage that confers. Every cost we’re weighing has to be measured against that alternative. That was the JCPOA or do nothing trajectory. 2. The IRGC didn’t take over because of this war. It has run Iran for years. The war stripped away the clerical façade and removed many of its most experienced commanders. Niall implies this is worse because it removes clerical restraint, but a stripped-down, discredited IRGC with degraded capabilities and no nuclear path is objectively weaker than a clerical-IRGC hybrid with a bomb option. Naked brutality is also harder to legitimize than Shia-inspired theocracy. This is now a military dictatorship with less ability to inspire the faithful across the region. It accelerates internal fracture. 3. Military success was never about finding every missile or launcher. It was about degrading Iran’s ability to threaten breakout and regional war. Destroying half its missiles and launchers and driving missile production from roughly 100 a month to near zero is a major setback especially given projections that Iran would go from 3,000 pre-war to 11,000 ballistic missiles in 2.5 years. Trump overstates everything — “obliterated,” “destroyed,” “regime change” — but the material reality for the regime is very serious. 4. The Strait of Hormuz is leverage, but it chokes Iran’s own economy harder than ours. Economic pressure continues: $300B in direct damage, $435M per day in blockade costs mounting, triple-digit inflation, currency collapse, fuel shortages, steel and petrochemical production severely damaged. Better strategy: Ceasefire on one front; intensify pressure on the other. Trump still needs to be clear that reopening Hormuz will require CENTCOM to move through the various stages of force. 5. The “escalation vs. diplomacy” framing aren’t alternatives. Instead, they’re complementary. The blockade, sanctions enforcement, and implicit threat of renewed strikes are the escalation that runs in parallel with talks. Diplomacy only happened because force changed Tehran’s calculus, and diplomacy only succeeds if force remains on the table. Treating the choice as binary makes Trump look like he blinked. The reality is a pressure campaign with a negotiating track. Let’s reserve judgement to see who blinks. 6. The key now is no enrichment, the fatal flaw of the JCPOA, and real limits on missile reconstitution. A rolling ceasefire with a U.S. blockade and intense sanctions enforcement hurts Iran more than us. Their economy collapses before ours deteriorates. It’s a matter of political will, not capability. The real issue isn’t headlines or TruthSocial theatrics — it’s whether Iran keeps enriched uranium, missile production, and a path back to breakout. 7. Iran didn’t “survive regime change” because regime change hasn’t been tried. What exists now is a rare opening: maximum economic pressure, maximum regime fracture, maximum support for the Iranian people. Trump seems committed to the first two. The question is whether he joins Israel and Iranians on the third. More below…

English
0
0
0
23
Frank McCormick
Frank McCormick@CBHeresy·
My politics are whatever this is.
Frank McCormick tweet media
English
186
449
3.7K
68.9K
Daniel Sorek retweetledi
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
This is a possible (maybe low probability) scenario that comes to my mind: Blockade -> declining revenue -> inability to control / pay IRGC -> degraded control over the population -> concessions because of desire to maintain regime control OR chaos in Iran that leads to regime change. What do you think?
English
0
0
0
209
David Shor
David Shor@DYShor·
The blockade is great. But the idea that it’ll lead to the regime surrendering its nuclear program is crazy.
English
4
1
9
6.2K
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
@McFaul Very cool of you to share. Look forward to reading.
English
0
0
0
86
Michael McFaul
Michael McFaul@McFaul·
In case you missed it, I posted the syllabus for my seminar on great power competition earlier this week, covering the texts, ideas, and debates shaping the course. My book Autocrats vs. Democrats anchors the syllabus if you’re looking for a place to start! michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/great-power-…
Michael McFaul tweet media
English
12
37
171
17K
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
@chenweihua @McFaul Piece of advice for you that we got growing up: sometimes if you don’t have anything nice to say, keep it to yourself. Where’s your book with a cool title?
English
0
0
0
10
Daniel Sorek
Daniel Sorek@DanSorek·
@stephjackson200 @havivrettiggur Also to be clear it sounds like he was invited at the request of a club. It’s that club’s prerogative to use its members’ fees and other budget resources how it wants but crazy to think that this is what passes as valuable on a college campus.
English
1
0
0
9