New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

With Mitt Romney out of the picture (giving McCain a virtual lock on the Republican nomination), Obama and Clinton are left to duke it out in a prolonged struggle for the Democratic nomination that might very well end in a skirmish on the floor of the convention. Although both candidates are very intelligent and appealing, exit polls suggest that most young voters are leaning towards Senator Obama. But before we, the proud Democratic youth of America, get behind the charismatic, well-groomed superstar senator, it is imperative that we stop and consider the consequences of putting this guy behind the big desk.

As someone who voted for Barack Obama in the Connecticut Super Tuesday primary, it’s my duty, and the duty of my fellow Obama supporters, to remind ourselves what we’re getting into. “Change We Can Believe In,” and “Spread Hope” are taglines, not policies. And although these messages may sound positive, the ideas of Change and Hope are really negative campaigning and attack advertising at its finest. Obama isn’t here to talk about what change he is bringing to the White House, he’s talking about what we as a nation are looking to get away from: the Bush administration’s failed policies. Running against the backdrop of Bush’s presidency is a lot easier than running against the experience and hardened policies of either Hilary Clinton or, down the road, John McCain. But let’s face it, for a junior senator, this method is the smartest method, and perhaps the only way to win this political competition.

Obama’s got some good policies: his ideas about healthcare are more fiscally sound and realistic than Clinton’s, his populist tendencies and promises of a transparent government give the impression of a man with nothing to hide; his position on the war, while perhaps a little naive, still stands to be very appealing to Americans who have never felt that turning the Middle East into a love-fest of Western Thinking is possible, or even a good idea, and his background as a community leader gives him a strong moral high ground.

But regardless of his policies, any newly minted American president as inexperienced as Obama has a good chance of being put under the microscope, especially in the area of foreign policy. Nations who have not been so fond of American neo-imperialism, such as Russia and France, will undoubtedly issue litmus tests in one form or another. Outright hostile nations such as Iran and North Korea might test the new administration’s diplomatic skills through aggressive acts of escalation. Senator Obama’s calls for diplomacy, and offers to sit down with Iran and others, may well come back to haunt him, paralyzing the beginning of his presidency while he fends off one challenge after another. George Bush was tested a year into his presidency, and that test defined his two terms in office, which are now widely viewed as a failure. As Obama supporters, we must ask ourselves if his offers of diplomacy are so very different from Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s ideas that appeasement might achieve “peace for our time,” an irony that has echoed throughout history. Is the young Senator from Illinois too young and too naive to hear those echoes?

I believe he is not. Barack Obama is an “A” student, and despite a having a few sadsacks from the Carter administration hanging around his advisory room, I have confidence in his ability to stock the new ExComm with smart people to help him out with foreign policy. And though the proponents of radical Islam may issue a lot of ultimatums, in the end, I have to believe that there are people in Middle Eastern nations who are looking for a U.S. leader who will reach out to them, rather than cast them into the same lot with Al Qaeda, and chase them to the “gates of hell,” as John McCain has promised to do.

That’s putting a lot of “hope” into “change,” and if you don’t have that kind of faith to spare in Senator Obama’s abilities, then you should be voting for Senator Clinton, whose chances at winning a general election are slimmer, but whose foreign policy is well worn, and whose husband showed a good deal of competence concerning foreign affairs while in office.

This is Ben’s first post at New School Politics. To find out more about him, please visit the about page.

Popularity: 43% [?]

President Bush’s mideast tour was kicked off amidst unsetting news the other day, as Iranian Navy vessels seemed to come a bit too close to a US Navy battle group in the region. Al Jazeera has footage of the incident, released earlier in the day by the Department of Defense.

The United States responded harhsly to the incident, as they should have, and President Bush condemned the actions of the rogue Iranian speedboats as “threatening world peace.” The situation in Iran has intensified in recent weeks, after a recently announced NIE announced Iran had not seriously pursued nuclear weapons in several years [PDF]. US war games in the region have served as suitable provocation for Iran, and the Islamic Republic offers rebukes every time the United States participates in an exercise that seems to threaten their security.

Photographs of the Speedboats that Swarmed US Navy Vessels [Courtesy CNN/US Dept. of Defense]

The United States has treaded carefully, however, ensuring that they never get close enough to Iranian forces to provoke an attack. It doesn’t seem like the Iranians are being as careful. The recent “scare tactic” (if that’s what it can be termed) took us dangerously close to war with Iran. While the Iranian nation does not serve the interest of the United States in the region, toppling it would result in the implosion of American foreign policy. Nations that maintain friendly but cold relationships with the United States, like Russia, could quickly become our enemies, prompting a new Cold War or, worse yet, World War III. I’m the first to admit that Bush’s policy certainly doesn’t leave much room for action on the part of the Iranian government. Previous attempts at goodwill were rejected by the Bush Administration, which seems as eager to invade Iran as they were with Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s demagogue Prime Minister, always insists that it is the Bush Administration his country disapproves of, not the American people themselves. Rogue actions from his military, however, could further turn US public opinion against the Islamic Republic and result in an attack.

The US is all too wary of naval attacks since the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. In conventional warfare, a bigger ship bristles with more weapons and more firepower. In this era of terrorism and suicide attacks, a small vessel filled to the brim with explosives can sink a considerably larger ship like the USS Port Royal. The appearance of the flotilla of smaller boats was accompanied by threatening radio messages in English, “I am coming at you. You will blow up in a couple of minutes.” The threat of attack was all too present in this situation, and the commander of one of the US Navy vessels was seconds away from ordering an attack when the Iranian boats turned around. That order could have started a propaganda machine, fueled by the neoconservative hawks, similar to the one that erupted after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 that began the Vietnam War.

The USS Hopper at Sea, One of the Ships Surrounded by Iranian Navy Speedboats [Courtesy CNN/US Navy]

Neither party can afford war. The United States, bogged down in Iraq, has too many international obligations to sustain a winning war in Iran. The failure of US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan should act as an indicator that an invasion would not be the wisest idea. While things are looking up for the United States in Iraq, the war against the insurgency has not ended there. Inciting war in Iran could push Iraq to further turmoil and leave the United States with a Middle East that is heavily aligned against it. Iran seems not to want war either, and has pushed for peaceful reforms in the development of nuclear energy with Russia. The “Iran-Russia” axis has aligned against the United States, a power they see as capitalist and militarily invasive. While the new alliance could cause problems for the West, it’s in the best interest of both parties to pursue peaceful relations and continue economic development. Time Magazine went so far as to suggest that the action of Ahmadinejad’s forces was an attempt to force the United States Navy out of the region. I’m not in agreement with that statement, but it is in Ahmadinejad’s interests to have foreign powers out of his way while he builds relationships with other countries based on Iran’s oil industry.

The American people are being tested. In 1964, they gave into the demands of a warmongering president and ended up tangled in a twelve year conflict in Vietnam. In 2004, they were led into a baseless war by a president who manipulated their fears. There too, they ended up in a conflict that’s sure to last more than the twelve years the United States spent in Vietnam. In 2008, they should stand up for the democratic and diplomatic values of the United States and ensure a conflict with Iran is averted.

Update: Iran’s own “update” on the situation aired on state-owned television today and shows a far more peaceful and routine encounter. The US Navy admitted that the audio they merged with video seen on the above DoD video may not be from the same source. More to come as the conflict continues or becomes resolved…

Popularity: 28% [?]

When asked about the legal treatment of gays in Iran at Columbia University, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a one liner to remember–the best part is that he was serious:

In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.” [Laughter] “In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have this.”

Popularity: 54% [?]

I was pissed when I first saw this. From the NYT:

NEW YORK (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked permission to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site when he comes to New York City next week, but the request was denied, a police official said Wednesday.

Pardon my French, but what an asshole. Keep in mind that this is from the nation that was founded on the slogan “death to America,” behind terrorist attacks in ‘83 and ‘96 respectively that killed 243 and 16 Americans respectively, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and who is ordering the killings of many Americans in Iraq today. For years they have been the lead patron to many organizations who would have done anything to execute an attack such as the one that killed 3000 Americans. At least, however, we know that Iranian backed organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al. were jubilant on the day just over six years ago; and we have all the reason to believe that the Ahmadinejad was beside himself too.

Iran should have been taken down long ago; at least we should not allow them to mock our great national tragedy.

Popularity: 68% [?]

This is an article from todays Financial Times that I found very interesting.

“There has been a striking decline in support for terrorism in Muslim countries over the past five years, according to the annual take on world opinion by the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

Of the 16 majority Muslim countries included in the survey, 15 have shown waning enthusiasm for terrorism in general and suicide terrorism in particular, it says.”

You can see the whole article here

Popularity: 53% [?]

Foreign Policy magazine has a terrific article on the state of affairs in Iran:

“Iran’s radical president is sinking fast, and he knows it. Now, there’s only one man who can keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out of the unemployment line: George W. Bush.In Tehran, the mood is quickly shifting. And it’s easy to feel it every time you stop to buy a newspaper, have a coffee, or wait in line at the grocery store. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s star is fading fast.Since his election in June 2005, Iranians have had conflicted feelings about their president. At first, he evoked interest and curiosity. And there were great expectations from this humble man who was promising economic reform, an anticorruption campaign, and a rigid moral scheme for daily life. Then came fear—when Ahmadinejad began to destroy any chance of good relations with the outside world.But today in Iran, laughter is supplanting fear. Mocking the president has become a pastime not only for rebellious university students, but also members of the establishment and the government itself.”

continued…

Popularity: 41% [?]

The actions of the British sailors and marines who were captured by the Iranians and recently released were despicable. There is no soldier in the US Military that would have placed such shame upon their country and their own honor.

Not only did the British sailors not resist, but their lack of preparation and protection shows the pathetic nature of the British Navy and brings their military capabilities into question. To put it simply, the conduct of the British sailors was unacceptable from start to finish.

Not only did the British not provide proper air and sea support to protect the sailors conducting the search of the vessel in question, but there also was no effort by the British Military to stop the Iranian forces. When the British saw the Iranians entering international water against the UN mandate they immediately should have fired warning shots across the bows of the Iranian vessels. The fact that the British surrendered themselves without offering any resistance has made the Royal Navy the laughingstock of the international community.

If the Iranian videos of the British sailors are a tell about the British navy it is that the men in the Royal Navy look like back stabbing euro trash and that the British navy has an affinity for recruiting over weight women to conduct military operations (a contrast to the US Navy Seals).

In addition, the British should have explicitly stated that they had military options on the table. The biggest mistake made by Jimmy Carter (one reason he should be tried for treason) was that not only did he not respond to an open declaration of war on the United States, but he also publicly stated that the United States would not engage the Iranians militarily. It is by the pure grace of the Iranians that the sailors were released and will now be used as a huge propaganda device by the Iranian regime.

As soon as the British sailors were taken hostage, Tony Blair should have announced that the Iranians had fifteen days to release the sailors or that they would face severe consequences. Some of these consequences could have included raids by US and British soldiers against Iranian oil and natural gas facilities in the Persian Gulf. In addition, the Iranian Embassy in England could have been seized, and the EU could have banned the entry of any new Iranians into any country in the European Union.

The Iranians have declared war on America multiple times, and they have consistently been met without a response. The failure by the international community to respond to the inappropriate actions by Iran not only signals to Iran that they can get away with anything, but also informs other rogue nations that there are not consequences for their actions. In addition, by allowing the British sailors to go unpunished for their un-soldierly conduct, we demonstrate to Islamic extremists that we no longer have any resolve. I have to wonder if anyone in office has the gall to fight Islamic extremists.

Editor’s Note: Some spelling and punctuation fixed at 6PM EST 4/8/07.

Popularity: 45% [?]

Aside from Rosie O’Donnell and Mahmoud Admadinejad, most of the world is aware of that it is Iran who has been provoking the West in recent days. I remember reading two Fridays ago about the seizure of the fifteen British sailors and marines before any American media began reporting it. Indeed, it seems that as I predicted the situation has escalated. Aside from historical pretense, it seems that Iran is preparing for a longer standoff.

During the embassy crisis, America had one advantage prior to conducting its failed rescue attempt; the hostages were in one location. The Iranians have learned their lesson and they have apparently scattered the British sailors throughout the country, or at least in multiple locations within Tehran. This makes any British rescue attempt much more difficult. At the same time, the British cannot allow the sailors to be brought to trial, as it will be a propaganda disaster.

The Iranians are hoping that the British will be forced to the negotiating table with the Russians. It is clear that neither America, nor Britain will consider making prisoner exchanges (which would also be a disaster and an incentive for hostage taking in the future). However, there are military options that the United States and Britain could take with the full support of the international community that would give them the upper hand in the negotiating table and it would also demonstrate that such blatant disregard of international law will not be tolerated.

One idea that was considered by the US military during the Iranian hostage crisis was to use naval and sea power to secure several Iranian Islands in the Persian Gulf and to then exchange the Islands for the hostages. Jimmy Carter committed to a failed rescue attempt, but it does not mean such a proposal would not work during this crisis. Britain should immediately begin a massive PR campaign at the United Nations, in the EU, with members of the Arab League, and with the media to use all of their available intelligence to prove that the British sailors were in international waters and kidnapped illegally. Additionally, in a statement to the Security Council and to Iran, Britain should make it clear that Iran will face harsh consequences if the British soldiers are not freed within ten days, or if they are brought to trial.

If the British sailors are not released or if they are brought to trail, American and British naval forces in the Persian Gulf should seize several Iranian islands that provide economic and political significance. This should of course correspond with a total naval blockade of all Iranian ports in the gulf. England could then use this territory to get an upper hand in the negotiating table and offer an exchange of the British sailors for the Iranian Islands.

If the sailors or marines are harmed in any way, coalition air and sea power should decimate all Iranian government and military assets along with using precision air strikes to cripple the Iranian nuclear program. In any case, US soldiers in Iraq should be protected against any Iranian retaliation as all American forces were given proper equipment prior to the invasion incase Saddam used biological, nuclear, or chemical warfare in his defense.

As I write this another news story about growing tensions with Iran seems to be breaking, and I am sure that when I awake tomorrow the situation will be different than when I went to bed. Out of all of this, the most disturbing fact may be the lack of appearance by Iranian President Mahmoud Admadinejad, which may suggest that the country is now in total control of the hard liners and clerics.

Popularity: 40% [?]

This summer, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization operating out of Lebanon, kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed several others. After days of scrutinizing the reasoning and organizations behind the attack, Israel decided to authorize a “severe” response against Lebanon, the country harboring Hezbollah. After the world condemned both countries, Israel continued bombing Lebanon, at one point commencing in a ground campaign aimed at the destruction of Hezbollah. The US tried to remain impartial but couldn’t help but get involved on the side of the Israelis. The “war,” as Israel has just officially declared it, caused grave public relations disasters for both countries throughout the world as images of dead children were broadcast throughout the world by international news agencies. Weeks after intense rocket barrages, Israel decided to end the war even after they didn’t achieve their goals. The conflict should have served as an example to countries around the world about the risks of keeping enemy soldiers as POWs.

Fast forward to March 23, 2007. After British Navy soldiers from the HMS Cornwall boarded a boat in Iraqi waters to search it, they were captured by Iranian Revolutionary Guard soldiers. Britain has tried to resolve the conflict amicably, but Tony Blair has continually chastised Iran for what he calls an “unjustified and wrong” act. Recent UN sanctions have put Iran under pressure to eliminate their nuclear program. As usual, however, Iran has stood firm, calling the sanctions “unlawful” and “unjustifiable.” With the sanctions adding more fuel to the fire, one must wonder how far Iran plans to go. Will the UK, like Israel, react to the Iranian conflict with force? Senator John McCain suggested that the UK take “very decisive action” against Iran while the US provides “moral support.”
Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 66% [?]

The news is beginning to splash across the blogosphere and the AP wire that an agreement has been reached with North Korea about its nuclear programs.  Years of negotiations have failed to yield an agreement. After talks fell suspect to failure earlier in the week, noone expected an agreement in the coming days.  Negotiators have, however, proved skeptics wrong.  Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill notes his jubilance at the agreement, claiming that he’s “encouraged by this that we were able to take a step forward on the denuclearization issue.” 

The end of a 16-hour day full of negotiations has delivered an agreement.  The mainstream media has sparse details on the agreement, and news agencies like CNN are calling the agreement tentative.  Chinese Foreign ministry Spokesman Qin Gang followed up with a little bit more information, detailing that the parties “still have to make further consultation discussions so as to confirm the progress we made.”  Negotiations begin again tomorrow at 10:30AM Korean time, which equates to 9:30PM Monday ET. 

The initial enthusiasm may be short lived, however.  Several of the nations involved in the talks, including Japan, expressed doubt at the agreement.  Kenichiro Sasae, chief envoy from Japan, said it was “too early to tell” if the agreement was one that would be satisfactory to all parties.  North Korea’s demands were viewed as slightly excessive by South Korea and Japan.  It will be interesting to see how much of a compromise North Korea has made in order to reach this agreement.  The Arms Control Associaton provides a concise history of the conflict.  Previous negotiations with North Korea have resulted in successful agreements that broke apart because of North Korean noncompliance.  The original “Agreed Framework” can also be viewed courtesy of the ACA.  The agreement broke down in late 2002 after North Korea admitted to a nuclear program after being confronted with evidence by the US. 

Needless to say, any sort of agreement with the North Koreans is big news for the American people and for the entire world.  The dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program leaves one country left on the US “Axis of Evil”: Iran.  News about North Korea’s nuclear program died down after their claimed underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006.  Tensions with Iran were high this week as the US accused the country of arming insurgents in Iraq.  Newsweek did a special on the looming conflict with Iran, with a cover touting “America’s Hidden War with Iran.”  The Guardian, meanwhile, cited examples of US provocations.  A second US battle group was sent to the Gulf in anticipation of a conflict with Iran.  The report concluded that the “present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring.”  Iran has vehemently dismissed American accusations and the Washington Post reports today that Bush has “softened his rhetoric on Iranian relations.”  In the report, Ahmadinejad calls for peace,

“We shy away from any kind of conflict, any kind of bloodshed,” Ahmadinejad told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “As we have said repeatedly, we think that the world problems can be solved through dialogue, through the use of logic and a sense of friendship. There is no need for the use of force.”

Bush Softens Rhetoric on Iran Relations - washingtonpost.com

While the conflict with Iran seems far from reconciliation, the North Korean problem appears to have been solved, if only for a brief period of time.  The American people should expect to hear a lot about Christopher Hill’s success in North Korea, as it’s one of the few diplomatic successes the US government has had abroad in recent years.  We’ll be back with more commentary as more news is available.

Avid readers can watch for news from the wires, papers, blogs, and more at Breitbart.

technorati tags:iran, northkorea, christopherhill, kimjongil, us, nuclear, nuke

Popularity: 29% [?]