Many of the commentators have been saying that the reason Obama did so poorly in the debate with Romney was that he has spent four years in the White House bubble, where everyone is a yes-man afraid to confront him. This overlooks the fact that Obama meets with foreign leaders who are not afraid to talk back to him, to demand things from him, to say that he is wrong. However, it was not a good sign when Obama refused to meet with any foreign leaders during the UN general assembly. Did he know that he was not up to it?
We usually don't see what actually happens when Obama meets with foreign leaders. There are usually only a few high level aides present. We got a glimpse when Obama and Netanyahu sparred during a photo session at the While House about a year ago. The consensus seemed to be the Netanyahu took Obama to the woodshed. That may be one reason Obama did not want to meet with Netanyahu again just before the debate.
We don't know how Obama does in bilateral meetings with foreign leaders, but we know that the has them. He may let Hillary Clinton take the lead. But in any case he does not live inside the "no-drama" Obama bubble all the time.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
MTCR Terms Changed for South Korea
The reports that South Korea has been granted special permission to build missiles that exceed the guidelines of the Missile Technology Control Regime are confusing. Reports in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal said that South Korea and the US had agreed to extend the range of missiles that South Korea would build. However, the MTCR is not an arms control treaty that limits the range of South Korean missiles; it is a suppliers agreement that limits the US and other members, who agree not to supply Korea with missiles or technology or parts for missiles beyond the agreed range. Thus, it appears that the violator of the MTCR is the United States, not Korea.
I assume that the US has gotten the agreement of the other 33 supplier-country members of the MTCR to this extension of range and payload. It should not be a bilateral decision when the US is a member of a suppliers' group.
I assume that the US has gotten the agreement of the other 33 supplier-country members of the MTCR to this extension of range and payload. It should not be a bilateral decision when the US is a member of a suppliers' group.
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Indian Nuclear Progam Was Bad Precedent for Iran
During the Bush administration, the US agreed to look the other way at India's development of nuclear weapons, despite the significant risk of a war between India and a nuclear-armed Pakistan. India developed nuclear weapons years ago to defend itself against China, which already had them. Then Pakistan developed nuclear weapons to defend itself against India. While all that may make sense from a strategic perspective, it was terrible from a nonproliferation perspective. We have basically said it is okay for India and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves against their enemies, or to have "mutual assured destruction," but we say that it is not okay for Iran to develop those same weapons to defend itself against its sworn enemy Israel, which already possesses nuclear weapons.
In its original form, the Non-Proliferation Treaty granted special status to countries that possessed nuclear weapons when the treaty was negotiated, but many of the non-nuclear states objected to this dual status. The NPT obligated the nuclear powers to disarm, but that has been a slow, almost non-existent process. I recent years there has been a wider acceptance of the NPT by some countries, Brazil and Argentina for example, but not by others, Israel and Iran in particular. Israel is in the position of forcing Iran to follow the NPT, which it adheres to, while Israel refuses to join it or follow it. Israel insists that Iran obey an international treaty that Israel refuses to obey.
Israel and India stand in somewhat similar positions, neither adhering to the NPT.. However, thanks to the US under Bush, India has been given a somewhat official pass, while everyone just agrees to look the other way regarding Israel's nuclear weapons. The bottom line is that the NPT, which was under attack from its very inception for having a double standard, now has a variety of standards.
As a result, although the NPT's verification mechanism, the International Atomic Energy Agency, monitors Iran's nuclear activities to some extent, since Iran is an NPT member, the IAEA is barred from Israel. Because of the breakdown of the NPT's mechanism, Israel and the US cannot rely on it. Thus, Iran's nuclear activities are removed the the UN's oversight and become the subject of bilateral threats to invade from Israel and the US. The UN continues to try to work with Iran, but thanks to all the loosening of the NPT regime, the UN has little legal or moral authority. By its past refusal to strictly enforce the NPT, the US has lost significant moral authority to restrict Iran's nuclear program. Having lost its moral authority, it must fall back on its threats of military force.
In its original form, the Non-Proliferation Treaty granted special status to countries that possessed nuclear weapons when the treaty was negotiated, but many of the non-nuclear states objected to this dual status. The NPT obligated the nuclear powers to disarm, but that has been a slow, almost non-existent process. I recent years there has been a wider acceptance of the NPT by some countries, Brazil and Argentina for example, but not by others, Israel and Iran in particular. Israel is in the position of forcing Iran to follow the NPT, which it adheres to, while Israel refuses to join it or follow it. Israel insists that Iran obey an international treaty that Israel refuses to obey.
Israel and India stand in somewhat similar positions, neither adhering to the NPT.. However, thanks to the US under Bush, India has been given a somewhat official pass, while everyone just agrees to look the other way regarding Israel's nuclear weapons. The bottom line is that the NPT, which was under attack from its very inception for having a double standard, now has a variety of standards.
As a result, although the NPT's verification mechanism, the International Atomic Energy Agency, monitors Iran's nuclear activities to some extent, since Iran is an NPT member, the IAEA is barred from Israel. Because of the breakdown of the NPT's mechanism, Israel and the US cannot rely on it. Thus, Iran's nuclear activities are removed the the UN's oversight and become the subject of bilateral threats to invade from Israel and the US. The UN continues to try to work with Iran, but thanks to all the loosening of the NPT regime, the UN has little legal or moral authority. By its past refusal to strictly enforce the NPT, the US has lost significant moral authority to restrict Iran's nuclear program. Having lost its moral authority, it must fall back on its threats of military force.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Do Americans Have to Die for Israel?
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's attempt to get President Obama to join him in drawing a "red line" for the Iranian nuclear program amounts to having Obama issue an ultimatum to Iran that the US will invade if Iran crosses it. Netanyahu's idea is apparently that Iran nuclear facilities can be knocked out by an air strike, but how badly would an air strike damage Iran's nuclear program and how would Iran retaliate. If an air strike failed to do serious damage to the program, would the US and Israel send in ground troops? Iran appears to be a more formidable opponent than either Iraq or Afghanistan. If the US invaded, it would be more expensive in lives and treasure than either of those two wars.
Unlike Israel, America does not appear to be directly threatened in the short term by an Iranian nuclear bomb. It would be much more difficult for Iran to hit the US with a nuclear warhead than Israel, which is much closer. Therefore, a US attack on Iran would be almost entirely for Israel's benefit.
Israel is a close ally, but a somewhat unusual one. The closest comparison is probably to America and Great Britain in World War II, still sometimes referred to as a "special relationship." In the 1940s, America was pretty much an Anglo, English-speaking nation, although there had been waves of immigrants, mainly from other European countries -- Germany, Italy, Poland, Scandinavia -- with lesser influxes from Asia. Our President, Franklin Roosevelt, was of Anglo background and clearly wanted to help England and Churchill as they came under attack from Germany,but he felt he could not do much because of a lack of public support for going to war. Lend-lease was a start, but one that kept the US out of the conflict. The decisive event was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought America into the war. Arguably there was still no reason to go to war in Europe, since Germany had not attacked the US, but it suited Roosevelt, and most of the population of the US, to go to war in Europe, actually first in North Africa, while the US moved more gradually across the Pacific towards Japan. Ironically, England had gone to war with Germany because of Germany's invasion of Poland, but Poland ended up being lost to the Soviet Union.
Now we have Netanyahu trying to force the US into a war with Iran, by drawing a "red line," issuing an ultimatum to Iran that if it does X, e.g. produces 225 kg of uranium hexafluoride enriched to 20%, then the US will attack it. Should the US really do this for Israel? The US does not like Iran; Iran held the staff of the US embassy there hostage for 444 days, until the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in to replace Jimmy Carter. But if we really wanted to destroy the Iranian government, wouldn't we just invade Iran the way we invaded Iraq? If it is in our national interest, we should do it. In this case, the invasion called for by Netanyahu seems to be in Israel's interest, not necessarily ours. An Iranian nuclear attack may be an existential threat for Israel, but not for the US. It is a lot easier for Iran to reach Israel with a nuclear armed missile than the US, and the US is a lot bigger. The explosion of one rudimentary nuclear weapon in the US would be terrible, but it would not be an existential threat to the nation.
My concern is that American Jews and some American gentiles have divided loyalties. They are more concerned about Israel than about the United States. They are willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb that poses little threat to the US. Unlike Anglo Americans during World War II, Jews constitute a relatively small percentage of the US population, yet they are very influential politically and economically. They may have the political power to force the US to go to war for Israel. Many young, relatively poor, conservative redneck Americans would probably go willingly, although the majority of the US population probably would have serious reservations about going to war again in the Middle East, especially after the war in Iraq strengthened the hand of Iran. We would have fought the Iraq war to strengthen Iran by installing a Shiite regime, and then fought a new war with Iran to weaken Iran, to undo what we did in Iraq.
If Roosevelt had difficulty coming to the aid of England during World War II, despite America's close ties with her, I hope that we will have at least as much difficulty going to war with Iran when there is a much smaller group of Israel-loving Jews pressing for it.
Unlike Israel, America does not appear to be directly threatened in the short term by an Iranian nuclear bomb. It would be much more difficult for Iran to hit the US with a nuclear warhead than Israel, which is much closer. Therefore, a US attack on Iran would be almost entirely for Israel's benefit.
Israel is a close ally, but a somewhat unusual one. The closest comparison is probably to America and Great Britain in World War II, still sometimes referred to as a "special relationship." In the 1940s, America was pretty much an Anglo, English-speaking nation, although there had been waves of immigrants, mainly from other European countries -- Germany, Italy, Poland, Scandinavia -- with lesser influxes from Asia. Our President, Franklin Roosevelt, was of Anglo background and clearly wanted to help England and Churchill as they came under attack from Germany,but he felt he could not do much because of a lack of public support for going to war. Lend-lease was a start, but one that kept the US out of the conflict. The decisive event was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought America into the war. Arguably there was still no reason to go to war in Europe, since Germany had not attacked the US, but it suited Roosevelt, and most of the population of the US, to go to war in Europe, actually first in North Africa, while the US moved more gradually across the Pacific towards Japan. Ironically, England had gone to war with Germany because of Germany's invasion of Poland, but Poland ended up being lost to the Soviet Union.
Now we have Netanyahu trying to force the US into a war with Iran, by drawing a "red line," issuing an ultimatum to Iran that if it does X, e.g. produces 225 kg of uranium hexafluoride enriched to 20%, then the US will attack it. Should the US really do this for Israel? The US does not like Iran; Iran held the staff of the US embassy there hostage for 444 days, until the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in to replace Jimmy Carter. But if we really wanted to destroy the Iranian government, wouldn't we just invade Iran the way we invaded Iraq? If it is in our national interest, we should do it. In this case, the invasion called for by Netanyahu seems to be in Israel's interest, not necessarily ours. An Iranian nuclear attack may be an existential threat for Israel, but not for the US. It is a lot easier for Iran to reach Israel with a nuclear armed missile than the US, and the US is a lot bigger. The explosion of one rudimentary nuclear weapon in the US would be terrible, but it would not be an existential threat to the nation.
My concern is that American Jews and some American gentiles have divided loyalties. They are more concerned about Israel than about the United States. They are willing to sacrifice thousands of American lives to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb that poses little threat to the US. Unlike Anglo Americans during World War II, Jews constitute a relatively small percentage of the US population, yet they are very influential politically and economically. They may have the political power to force the US to go to war for Israel. Many young, relatively poor, conservative redneck Americans would probably go willingly, although the majority of the US population probably would have serious reservations about going to war again in the Middle East, especially after the war in Iraq strengthened the hand of Iran. We would have fought the Iraq war to strengthen Iran by installing a Shiite regime, and then fought a new war with Iran to weaken Iran, to undo what we did in Iraq.
If Roosevelt had difficulty coming to the aid of England during World War II, despite America's close ties with her, I hope that we will have at least as much difficulty going to war with Iran when there is a much smaller group of Israel-loving Jews pressing for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)