At least someone was listening

You_Suck_Comment

Sometimes when I do a radio segment, like the one on the Trump administration’s Iran policy this morning on the local drive-time news/talk station, I wonder what the audience is thinking about my comments.

Now I know, at least in one instance.

Below is the text of the email I received about an hour after my segment was over. I am reprinting it in its entirety (minus the emoji). My motivation comes from a comment by a former student who listened to the segment from the Republic of Georgia where he now lives and works, who suggested that maybe my blunt assessment might get some of the station’s conservative listeners to rethink their position.

images-9Fat chance.

The email is not particularly scathing, nor is it in any way offensive. But it is a window into the way that I suspect a lot of Trump supporters view his policies, how they see the world, and what they believe motivates his critics. (For the record, I support neither socialism in America nor the establishment of a one-world order communistic government.)

Anyway, here’s how this listener reacted:

I heard you on the radio this morning sir. I just want to say you couldn’t of been more wrong except for one thing. President Trump decided not to retaliate. You agreed with that, and so did I. But probably for different reasons. The Democrats set him up and tried to get him to strike, Which would appear reckless under the conditions. You said the president backed himself into a corner. I don’t think so. So far what he is doing is right on the money. You said it was wrong to get rid of the deal that Obama and John Kerry made. I disagree. Our Intel told us that they never stoped producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Our Intel told us that they were still supplying money and weapons to terrorist groups around the world. Till this day Kerry and Obama continue to work against the United States committing tyranny with regards to Iran. It would be best for the world if that regime was dismantled and replaced with a democracy. My guess is you want socialism for America or a one world order communistic type system for the United States. We the people are not going to let that happen. We are going to hold the deep state accountable for all the crimes they have committed. MAGA TRUMP 2020

Here’s a quick recap of the points I made that this listener took issue with:

  • The Iran nuclear agreement that the US walked out on in May 2018 was actually working and Iran was abiding by its restrictions.
  • The best course forward would be for the US to return to that agreement rather than continuing to pursue a policy of saber-rattling and sanctions that has failed to deliver for the last 40 years.
  • The additional sanctions against Iran announced yesterday by the White House will have no meaningful impact on Iranian policy.
  • Trump was right to cancel the military strike that he had previously ordered.
  • But, by taking such an aggressive line with Iran, Trump has backed himself into a corner.
  • If another US drone is shot down, which is entirely possible, Trump, given his tough talk, will find it very difficult if not impossible to avoid retaliatory military action.
  • This kind of escalation runs very real risks of getting out of hand, dragging both countries and the region down a path that no-one whose name isn’t John Bolton wants to tread.

If you’re hanging around a radio or a livestream tomorrow morning, you can catch me talking about Iran again on Detroit’s public radio station, WDET 101.9FM. I’ll be a guest on the Detroit Today show with Stephen Henderson. The show starts at 9 am with rebroadcast at 7 pm.

Pay attention to this unhinged threat

(Image: Daily Star)
(Image: Daily Star)

 

It used to be that we had to wait for the latest official statement from North Korea to experience the kind of unhinged threats that President Donald Trump vented toward Iran last night:

If you think I’m exaggerating the comparison, take a look at this handy collection of North Korean gems compiled last year by the Evening Standard:

  • “The four islands of the [Japanese] archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the nuclear bomb of Juche … Japan is no longer needed to exist near us.
  • The US should be “beaten to death like a rabid dog.”
  • “Let’s reduce the US mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite with mobilisation of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now.”
  • Pyongyang is ”ready to use a form of ultimate means” to punish the United States.
  • “The forthcoming measures by DPRK [the Democratic Republic of Korea] will make the US suffer the greatest pain it has ever experienced in its history.”
  • “If the US is stupid enough to shove its stinky face on this land again and keep brandishing its nuclear club despite our repeated warnings, the DPRK will teach the US some manners with the strategic nuclear force that it had so far shown to the world. Any form of military threat or blackmail by the US can never scare the DPRK. On the contrary, it will only redouble the resolve of the Korean army and people to annihilate the enemy.”

Honestly, compared to Kim Jong Un’s government, Trump’s efforts lack real flair or creativity. And generally speaking, Trump’s threats are just as believable.

That said, there are good, and worrying, reasons why we shouldn’t just brush this off, as former National Security Council official Jeffrey Prescott has outlined. The risks here come more from the very real dangers of misstep, blunder, and accidental escalation than they do from a carefully calculated policy of coercion.

Since walking out on the international agreement which had very successfully put a brake on Iran’s nuclear arms program, the United States has failed to offer a viable diplomatic alternative to getting greater cooperation from Tehran. Instead we’ve reverted to the kinds of threats and economic pressure that were proven failures in terms of reining in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

This led to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warning Trump in a speech Sunday not to raise tensions further. Trump’s bedtime all-cap threat-tweet was his carefully considered reply.

While the United States has unilaterally reimposed sanctions on Iran, our partners in the original agreement have not followed suit. As a consequence, the Trump administration is trying to put pressure on other countries to stop buying Iranian oil. The Iranians have responded by reminding us, and the rest of the world, that they can easily choke off the flow of Middle East oil and natural gas by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which those supplies must pass to reach international markets.

Unsurprisingly then, this increased pressure from the United States has increased tension with Iran, raising the possibilities of further escalation, deliberate or otherwise. To this mix, add the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with advisors – specifically National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – who have long pressed for regime change in Iran.

At the same time, Trump probably believes that his “maximum pressure” approach to North Korea brought that country to the Singapore summit, which, while producing great optics for Trump, delivered nothing in terms of a North Korean commitment to denuclearize. This is something the president himself has apparently come to realize even as he refuses to say so in public.

So keep an eye on this one. Because war with Iran would be catastrophic, for everyone.

North Korea’s the weird kid

dprk nuke

This afternoon I’m talking to my intro International Relations students about nuclear proliferation, arms races, deterrence, preemptive use of force, and other feel-good topics.

And with North Korea once again flexing its nascent nuclear muscles, while Iran does it’s own probing of the new Trump administration’s resolve, this is a particularly apt time to introduce these issues to my students.

Normally I’d just lecture on this. But instead, I’ll lead off with this very excellent documentary. Enjoy!

Syria solved!

3825

After five years of brutal civil war in Syria, an agreement has finally been reached on peace talks with the aim of establishing a nationwide ceasefire. The United Nations will oversee the rewriting of Syria’s constitution and then new elections that will presumably mark the end of the Assad family’s dictatorial rule.

There’s only one problem.

None of the parties doing the actual fighting were part of the negotiations in Vienna.

Assad wasn’t invited, and, as the New York Times reports, it is “unclear” whether either he or any of the constellation of rebel groups will agree to the deal.  The uncertainties don’t end there:

There was no target date or deadline for either the cease-fire or a new constitution and election that would follow.

Even the language used to describe what was decided after the final seven hours of heated talks between the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, along with additional European, Arab, and Gulf states, 17 countries in all, was obscure and vague. As Secretary of State John Kerry explained, the parties have agreed to “explore the modalities of a nationwide cease-fire” on the way to a new political arrangement for Syria.

So what was the point of all this? A couple of things come to mind.

First, the ceasefire plan specifically does not apply to combat against ISIS. This suggests that the US and Russia might finally end up on the same side here rather than working at cross purposes. With Obama’s announcement today that the US will deploy Special Operations forces into Kurdish-controlled territories in northern Syria, that Russia and the US might finally be fighting the same enemy is particularly welcome news.

Second, the agreement to seek a new constitution and elections for Syria signals that Assad’s allies, Russia and Iran, are willing to see him go, which further suggests that they can see a way to secure their own separate interests in any post-Assad dispensation. This is important because, as I noted in a post several weeks ago, Russian military intervention to date can be seen to be creating conditions on the ground in which the US (and everyone) else would be forced to choose between a Syria under Assad and a Syria which falls to ISIS.

Third, it offers some semblance of hope that with both Iran and Saudi Arabia at the table together, the proxy war aspect of the Syrian situation may start to ratchet down in intensity.

Whether any of this bears actual fruit remains to be seen. The negotiations will reconvene in a few weeks to try to iron out details. And at some point someone will have to try and bring the forces on the ground into the discussions as well. That will be challenging enough.

Until then, this is the first sign of progress on the political front in a very long time. That’s worth something. Exactly how much it means we will have to wait to find out.