Foreign Policy 101?

Foreign policy advice for a new president from Michael Totten makes for a bracing read. Here's the short version for those of you in a hurry:

In essence: Get real about Russia, finish off ISIS in Syria, back the Kurds to the hilt, downgrade relations with Turkey, repair our relations with Israel and crack down hard again on Iran. World peace won’t break out if you do these things, but we’ll be a lot better off than if you don’t.

All this advice is based on one simple principle—you reward your friends and punish your enemies. It’s the first rule of foreign policy, one that has been with us since antiquity and will survive until the end of time. Presidents who behave as though this rule doesn’t apply to them are as doomed to fail in foreign policy as rocket scientists who ignore gravity. Hubristically declaring that it would not do “stupid sh*t” like its predecessors, the Obama administration flipped this rule on its head over and over again—with Israel, with Russia, with Iran, and with Turkey—with disastrous results every time.

So turn things around. Again: Reward your friends and punish your enemies. Tattoo that rule on the back of your eyelids if you have to.

Quote of the Day: Self-Debunking Middle East Policy?

My colleague Alessandra called this long ago: Obama's Middle East foreign policy debacles would induce the Saudis and Israelis to work more and more closely, even flat out openly, against Iran.  A common fear of a regional nuclear hegemon makes strange bedfellows?  Desperate times call for desperate measures.

There's also this observation (my emphasis in boldface):

Obama came into office convinced that U.S. influence in the Middle East, as well as regional stability, revolved around one problem: the plight of the Palestinians. Resolving their conflict with Israel was the president’s top foreign policy from his first day in office. His belief that the U.S. was too close to Israel and that by establishing more daylight between the two allies, he could help broker an end to the long war between Jews and Arabs. To accomplish that goal, he picked fights with Israel, undermined its diplomatic position, and did his best to pressure the Israelis into making concessions that would please the Palestinians. The failure of this policy was foreordained since the Palestinians are still unable to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn.

But the events of the past six years have also shown that his focus on the Palestinians as the source of the problem was a disastrous mistake. The Arab spring, civil war in Syria, the rise of ISIS, and the Iranian nuclear threat proved that the Palestinians had little or nothing to do with the most serious problems in the region. Indeed, by forcing Israel and the Saudis to cooperate against Iran with little attention being paid to the dead end peace process with the Palestinians, Obama has effectively debunked the core idea at the heart of his foreign policy.

God Help Us All: the Iran Mess

You know, over the course of watching this entire absurdity happen, I've said more than once - granted, more as a curse than a prayer - God help us all.

So when I looked up the Pope's annual Urbi et Orbi Easter message, I couldn't help smiling just a little bitterly when I read this part of it:

"At the same time, in hope we entrust to the merciful Lord the framework recently agreed to in Lausanne, that it may be a definitive step toward a more secure and fraternal world."

Good luck with that!  Really, good luck with that.

Well, if we're going to be reduced to prayer, there's probably nobody better credentialed to offer one to the Almighty than the Pope, aka the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.  

Still, I can't resist quoting that old line: "Trust in God ... and keep your powder dry."

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll try to offset my pessimism and bitterness with sweet, sweet chocolate bunnies and cream-filled eggs.  When I'm in a sugar coma, I'm sure Iran will be the least of my worries.

Well-Known Right-Wing Rag Calls Iran Deal a Disaster

Call the deal what it is with a headline of "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals."  So, yeah, even by his own stated standards.  Compare and contrast.

By the way, I was being sarcastic in the post title.  Nowadays I can never tell if people understand what sarcasm is.  

Oh, and the Onion nailed it 2 whole years ago.

Thoughts on Bibi's Return and Its Ramifications

I ended up wanting to excerpt too much, so let me suggest that you read the whole thing as a jumping off point for analysis.  More off-the-cuff nonsense after the fold.

Quote of the Day: "Unprecedented Disarray"

Hope and change. Well, change, anyway:

If anything, the international situation Obama faced when he assumed the presidency was, in many respects, relatively auspicious. Despite the financial crisis and the recession that followed, never since John F. Kennedy has an American president assumed high office with so much global goodwill. The war in Iraq, which had done so much to bedevil Bush’s presidency, had been won thanks to a military strategy Obama had, as a senator, flatly opposed. For the war in Afghanistan, there was broad bipartisan support for large troop increases. Not even six months into his presidency, Obama was handed a potential strategic game changer when a stolen election in Iran led to a massive popular uprising that, had it succeeded, could have simultaneously ended the Islamic Republic and resolved the nuclear crisis. He was handed another would-be game changer in early 2011, when the initially peaceful uprising in Syria offered an opportunity, at relatively little cost to the U.S., to depose an anti-American dictator and sever the main link between Iran and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza.

Incredibly, Obama squandered every single one of these opportunities. 

Squandered or, in some cases, "threw away with both hands."

The Middle East Friendship Chart

Obviously it's reductive and imperfect (where is Jordan?  I didn't see Lebanon either), but this chart is an interesting attempt to begin to think about the complexity of relationships in the Middle East.  I kind of want to add "Frenemies" as another relationship option and "Kurds/Kurdistan" as another player.  Note, though, how ISIS is pretty much hated by everybody.

Quote of the Day on ISIS

No good choices:

It is fine to pit Assad and Maliki plus Iran and Russia against ISIS, except under the following circumstances: Either side wins or, alternatively, there is a draw.

ISIS, the Caliphate, and the War On History

So ISIS (or ISIL or you say tomayto, I say tomahto, you say bloody-minded extremist, I say violent jihadist) has renamed itself IS (Islamic State) and declared a caliphate.  Bold and risky move.  See too the role of history, mangled and otherwise.  While we're on the topic,  don't forget this:

By formally abolishing the Syrian-Iraqi border ISIS doubtless hopes to evoke memories of the Ottoman era before supposedly artificial states were constructed for the convenience of European powers—a time when frontiers were porous and the ways of Islam were universally observed. The fatal flaw in this utopian vision—apart from its obvious historical inaccuracy—is its failure to recognize the division between Sunnism and Shiism that long predated Western interventions in Iraq and Syria. ...

However much the leaders of ISIS seek to draw on the imagery of an international Arab jihad rolling back a century of Western imperialism, the growth of ISIS feeds on these sectarian tensions that have been reanimated across the region. Politically, the jihadists have gained support from the widespread hatred of the Shiite cronyism of the Maliki regime, which replaced the cronyism of Saddam Hussein’s, as well as from the brutality of its counterpart in Damascus. And to the extent that foreign powers are driving the situation, the underlying dynamic flows less from the West than from the rivalry between the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf on one side and Shiite Iran on the other. 

Quote of the Day: Nation-Building In Iraq

Yes. THIS:

"The problem in Iraq isn't that we tried to impose democracy by the point of the figurative bayonet, but that we stopped trying to do that too soon."

I'm a historian.  One major problem is that too many people trying to say/do things about Iraq don't know much (anything?) about history, let alone much (anything?) about playing the long game.  I find it absolutely incredible that anybody can seriously think we can just leave after a mere decade and think it's all going to be OK.  That's barely any time at all in the historical perspective.  (Remember Germany?  Japan?)  But hey, who cares about this stuff when your main concern is political optics at home?

Quote of the Weekend on Iraq

From the Wall Street Journal's blistering editorial:

The possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator for terrorism and destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it. "Now the jihadists have descended by the thousands on Syria," we noted last May. "They are also moving men and weapons to and from Iraq, which is increasingly sinking back into Sunni-Shiite civil war. . . . If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly look to Iran to help him stay in power." 

We don't quote ourselves to boast of prescience but to wonder why the Administration did nothing to avert the clearly looming disaster. 

Iran: 6 Arrested For Dancing to Pharrell's "Happy"

Apparently the young Iranians were also forced to repent publicly for making this (delightful) video: 

Unhappy in Tehran

Pharrell himself had this to say on Twitter:

It's beyond sad these kids were arrested for trying to spread happiness http://t.co/XV1VAAJeYI
— Pharrell Williams (@Pharrell) May 21, 2014

Potemkin (Olympic) Village

A friend sent this link: Sochi, $50 billion and perhaps the most corrupt Games ever.  You know, for spending $50 billion you'd think Sochi would have doors that worked and bathroom taps with water that isn't toxic when there even is water.  Just sayin'.

Possibly more annoying/distressing: some of my friends are turning into actual Sochi apologists, arguing that we shouldn't judge Sochi facilities by "Western" standards and that we're being nasty for doing so.  Uhhh ... NO.  Excuse you, but if Sochi wanted the Games so badly for a two-week-long Putin-a-Palooza to impress the world, then it's clearly doing it wrong.  If you put yourself out there on purpose on the world stage, then you should bloody well expect people to judge you by pretty high standards.  The Sochi apologists should try staying in one of the wretched hotels for a while themselves.  Then again, some people never miss a chance to parade their own preening moral superiority.

If you're going to use the Sochi Games to put up a 2014 version of a Potemkin village, then perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with just what a Potemkin village is.

OK, OK, so there's also going to be an argument about how Russia is unfairly judged, how journalists can be subject to biases and preconceptions, etc.  Maybe.  But there is plenty of fodder for legitimate complaint without dipping into old-school prejudices that Russia is a cold, backward, vodka-drenched, lawless wasteland populated by people who drive like lunatics or whatever.   We don't even have to go there.  You don't want to judge the facilities and creature comforts?  Fine.  Let's just judge Russia's political leadership, then.  Is that less touchy for you?  All we have to do is look at Putin.  Should we say "Iran"? "Syria"? "P*ssy Riot"?  How about the ugly legal assault on the rights of gay Russians?  Come on.  Come on.  

And NO, the fact that you're hosting the Games doesn't mean that you're immune from criticism.  I lambasted Beijing relentlessly during those Games, and I think in part I did it because I could tell some Western journalists were holding back (fears of being called racist?).  You know, you can tell people are holding back now too.  Screw the apologists.  SCREW 'EM.

2013's Biggest Winners and Losers in Foreign Policy

Winners and losers.  No surprises.

Top 3 winners:

1. Vladimir Putin and Russia
2. Iran
3. Assad

Top 3 losers:

1. The Muslim Brotherhood and democratic Islamism
2. The EU
3. The Obama Administration

The Year In Middle East Foreign Policy: The Biggest Losers

Out of a very crowded field, this piece picks three: the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (an Iranian resistance group), the Syrian rebels, and (of course) Israel. 

The quote of the day comes from the article too:

"The lesson there is, when the United States says it has your back, don't listen."

How damning.  As for "smart power," this feckless Administration makes it look dumber all the time.

Short Version: "Your Foreign Policy Sucks"

You know, when the Saudi ambassador calls you out in the New York Times, that's probably not a good sign, hmmmm?

And yet rather than challenging the Syrian and Iranian governments, some of our Western partners have refused to take much-needed action against them. The West has allowed one regime to survive and the other to continue its program for uranium enrichment, with all the consequent dangers of weaponization.

Hope, Change, and the Iran Deal

Dignified Rant considers the deal.  The conclusion?  "We are so screwed."  I concur.

PS: Peace in our time, yo! Sarcasm, aside, though, consider this, which gives us the quote of the day:

 This Administration in its record on the Middle East appears to have a unique ability not to see the approach of danger. 

You don't say!  Well, none are as blind as those who refuse to see.  I repeat this previously voiced sentiment.  Oh, and keep your eye on the Israelis, who are disgusted with this deal "historic mistake," and I can't blame them.  Ummm ... dude?

A Tale of Two Speeches at the UN

It's obvious who's living in a perilous fantasyland and who's living in grim reality.  Here's a piece of Netanyahu's speech.  

Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map.  Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.  I want there to be no confusion on this point: Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.  If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone.  Yet in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.

Such clarity is rare indeed nowadays.  I can only wish our own wretched leadership were capable of it.  (Video of Netanyahu's entire speech here.) 

Syria Analysis: Assad Is "Fortunate In His Enemies"

Hey, with enemies like these, who needs friends?  Ahem:

[Sarkis] Naoum {a Lebanese journalist} says that Assad has been singularly fortunate in his enemies: a fragmented Syrian opposition, divided Arab countries, and a Turkish government whose reach exceeds its grasp. 

"He is fortunate because he has Iran, which is willing to go all the way to support him, while there isn't a single Arab country that has this kind of determination to enter the battlefield on the side of the opposition", Naoum said. 

"He is also fortunate because there is an American president who has no appetite for war and because Russia wants to settle its scores with America (via Syria)".

US and Israel on Assad

US's new Assad policy: "OK, you can stay if you promise to play nicely."
Israel's new Assad policy: "GTFO."

Surprise, surprise, Israel thinks the current idiocy over Syria will encourage Iran.