Thomas Friedman, the renowned columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote an article entitled “Israel’s Goals in Gaza” in which he rightly questions whether Israel strives to educate or eradicate Hamas through its current military endeavors. While he asks the relevant question, he settles for an irrelevant conclusion.
As a consistent reader of Friedman’s op-eds I expected this outcome. Friedman has the incredible talent of identifying and encapsulating the issues that most intrigue the American public—his ability to evince key themes and questions place him in elite company, but he provides no more than an overview of the issues he finds most pressing. His books, The World is Flat and Hot, Flat, and Crowded, exemplify this premise by identifying the influence of globalization and encapsulating how these processes affects his readers. Yet, he ignores the vast majority of the world in his arguments, claiming that the world is “flat” when in reality the world is extremely rough for all but the most affluent people in the global core (De Blij, 2008). Similarly, when analyzing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in Gaza he arrives at the conclusion that most fits the ideals of his readers: the Western, more specifically American, public. Putting aside the wealth gap between much of the Western World and the rest of the globe, I cannot help but notice the extent to which Friedman’s line of reasoning follows the liberal ideology most associated with his demographic. When analyzing a global conflict, Friedman cannot limit their analyses to one portion of the world and expect the local conclusion to accurately depict a global question.
Friedman begins his article questioning circuitously whether the conflict is territorial or existential; he fails to answer this question. Asking such a question without attempting a response is criminal, especially in such a broad article. To briefly divulge into the question, I first acknowledge that the answer lies in the definition of the origin of the conflict. The most evident territorial aspect of the conflict lies in the “occupied” territories that Israel conquered in the 1967 war: the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. The Balfour Declaration led to the international designation of land to Jews for the creation of the state of Israel, which is often mistaken as a cause of the existential conflict. However, if the validity of the creation of Israel is in question, the validity of each of the countries in the former Ottoman territories would have to be in question as the British designated their lands in the same manner that they designated Israel. Thus, no territorial conflict lies in the creation of Israel, but instead lies in the British partition of the vast region previously occupied by the Ottoman Empire; because all the Ottoman land was under Arab control during the Empire’s long reign, Arab peoples believe that other peoples should not exist on their lands. Because Israel has not returned all of the territories obtained in the ’67 war to the Arab peoples, the conflict could be merely territorial. I argue that the conflict is territorial in symbolism alone. Initially the conflict was existential, but as the generation not of the Balfour Declaration, but instead of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, passes away, the conflict shifts from existentially-driven to prosperity-based. Israel has become the excuse for lack of modernization (not to be confused with liberalization) in Arab society while the relative modernity of Israel similarly fuels the impatience and resentment in Arab nations. The type of conflict reveals the motivations of Hamas and thus greatly affects the outcome of the central question of Friedman’s article: is Israel trying to educate or eradicate Hamas?
Friedman neglectfully concludes that the answer to this question is unknown, but through basic deduction the answer is actually quite apparent. Since the conflict is not territory-driven, as the transfer and ensuing management of the Gaza Strip has evidenced, I do not see Hamas’ intent in its rocket attacks the return of the occupied territories. Instead, Hamas seeks to inflict upon Israel the everyday dejection and disorganization experienced by too many people in Arab countries, as though the distress of Israelis is linked to the prosperity of Palestinians. Perhaps, therefore, if the Palestinians modernized they would end the conflict, but as long as they live excluded from the “flat” world that Friedman wrongly asserts is encompassing the entire globe, Hamas has a vested interest in prolonging the conflict. This point has additional relevance because America and other countries have labeled Hamas as only a terrorist organization, which, while factually true, excludes the more dangerous trait of Hamas: its core is insurgency, not terrorism--hence their victory in the Gaza Elections.
Hamas’ actions match this assessment of its motivation. Because people are invested in the conflict, prospects of trading land for peace exist only when the clashing parties exhaust all other options: hence Arafat’s acknowledgement of the existence of Israel only when he and the PLO were penniless and backed in a corner. Since Hamas would trade peace only for prosperity, an outcome that cannot realistically develop in the short-term, Hamas has no reason to stop firing Qassams into Israel. All entities act in their self-interest, and Hamas is no exception. Because Gaza is not currently modernizing and because Hamas calculates its cause to exceed the worth of the lives of thousands of Palestinians, Hamas can only gain from attacking Israel. Recruiting poses no problem to Hamas, so the loss of a few leaders causes only a minor setback (Arens 2009). The key to this conflict, however, is the inability of the international community to prevent Hamas from taking the resources of the general public. Because Hamas siphons basic goods in an extrapolated situation from civilians, all of the civilians would perish before Hamas would. The well-intentioned international community will not let the people of Gaza die. Yet instead of looking at the issue rationally, the international continues to blame Israel for the deaths and horrible quality of life of the Palestinians in Gaza, and the pressure on Israel, provided the war continues, will augment until the international community hits Israel harshly with negative criticism. All Hamas has to do is wait for this moment and they will have achieved their short-term goal of distressing Israelis and hurting their relationships within the international community. Then, I predict any deterrence the Israelis has against the Palestinians will evaporate and Hamas will ramp up attacks. A ceasefire only postpones the inevitable. No matter what Israel does, no matter how strong the army, no matter how effective the siege, Hamas will always be in control because they are the unconventional, non-state actor in the most densely populated place in the world. Urban environments lead to the worst outcomes for foreigners, a category Israel fits into in this circumstance. As hard as Israel tries to gain the upper hand in the conflict, as they're obviously trying to do now, it won't happen. Not as long as the international community protects, as it should, the lives of Palestinians in Gaza...and especially not as long as Iran feeds the frenzy. Therefore, if Hamas views the war as an abyss into which Israel is falling further with each rocket attack, it will not cease firing—thus I directly address Friedman’s thesis that Israel should educate the Palestinians, not eradicate them.
If Hamas has no reason to end the conflict, Israel's choice between education and eradication is irrelevant. Friedman defines “educating” Hamas as hitting them hard enough only to motivate them not to further attack Israel. Yet if the extent to which Hamas is hit does not affect whether or not it attacks Israel, as my interpretation of Hamas’ motivations asserts, then the extent to which Israel would have to teach Hamas to “educate” them as Friedman suggests reaches the point at which the difference between “educating” Hamas and eradicating Hamas is negligible.
Israel, whether to educate or eradicate, strives to destroy Hamas. Friedman endorses Israel's "educating" Hamas but think that the cost of eradication would be horrific casualties and "Somali-like chaos." Thus I reach the relevant question: Mr. Friedman, if Israel's "educating" Hamas requires the consequences of eradication, would you endorse it?
Sarah Palin avoided every question; she mispronounced nuclear multiple times; she made many mischaracterizations and failed to make many of the distinctions from the Obama/Biden ticket that she needs to make if she wants a chance of being elected.
Yet she won the debate. She spoke in layman's terms that the average voter will view as speaking with them instead of to them. She was trained to look into the camera to further this effect, while Biden directed his answers at Ifill. Biden could have been perfect and I still don't think he would have won the debate. Palin's bar had been set so low--especially with the recent Couric interviews--that merely surviving until the end would have sufficed.
She far surpassed that. By redirecting each question she successfully used her talking points in a relatively natural manner. Biden repeatedly called her out on not answering the question asked and Palin did a masterful job of evading the trap.
As much as I disagree with Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, on most issues, I think he has posed the most accurate reaction to the Vice Presidential Debate: "It was match point against Sarah Palin and she kept the set alive."
Yet she won the debate. She spoke in layman's terms that the average voter will view as speaking with them instead of to them. She was trained to look into the camera to further this effect, while Biden directed his answers at Ifill. Biden could have been perfect and I still don't think he would have won the debate. Palin's bar had been set so low--especially with the recent Couric interviews--that merely surviving until the end would have sufficed.
She far surpassed that. By redirecting each question she successfully used her talking points in a relatively natural manner. Biden repeatedly called her out on not answering the question asked and Palin did a masterful job of evading the trap.
As much as I disagree with Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, on most issues, I think he has posed the most accurate reaction to the Vice Presidential Debate: "It was match point against Sarah Palin and she kept the set alive."
Both McCain's and Palin's speeches were very good. They were carefully worded and very effective--however they were only effective because they covered specific talking points that highlighted strengths and avoided weaknesses. This is only to be expected in a pep-rally-esqe arena like a convention and Obama was no different.
The election is a marketing war. If people act in the interests of their country, Obama is the better candidate when you look at his stances on the issues. The key issue is that when everything is broken down to underlying motives, people act in their self-interests. Therefore, people view lowering taxes as a good thing because it puts more money in their pockets; oil-drilling becomes good because they don't care if far-away Alaska gets ripped to shreds to fuel their hair-dryer; and people don't care if al Qaeda thrives in Afghanistan and Pakistan as long as its terrorists don't hurt our troops in Iraq.
Obama is at an intrinsic disadvantage because those who support him transcend their self-interests to put their (to steal a McCain catch-phrase) country first. McCain, in contrast, appeals to people's selfish sensibilities: more money? sure! win the war? yeah! more energy? of course!...
...as though Obama supporters want the US to crumble.
It may sound stupid to some, but the Republicans--and I guarantee this is mastermind Karl Rove's doing--have framed the argument brilliantly. They tell people to vote for McCain because McCain helps them achieve their selfish goals while convincing them that in doing so they are putting their country first.
Brilliant. And why I say McCain and Palin's speeches were very successful.
The election is a marketing war. If people act in the interests of their country, Obama is the better candidate when you look at his stances on the issues. The key issue is that when everything is broken down to underlying motives, people act in their self-interests. Therefore, people view lowering taxes as a good thing because it puts more money in their pockets; oil-drilling becomes good because they don't care if far-away Alaska gets ripped to shreds to fuel their hair-dryer; and people don't care if al Qaeda thrives in Afghanistan and Pakistan as long as its terrorists don't hurt our troops in Iraq.
Obama is at an intrinsic disadvantage because those who support him transcend their self-interests to put their (to steal a McCain catch-phrase) country first. McCain, in contrast, appeals to people's selfish sensibilities: more money? sure! win the war? yeah! more energy? of course!...
...as though Obama supporters want the US to crumble.
It may sound stupid to some, but the Republicans--and I guarantee this is mastermind Karl Rove's doing--have framed the argument brilliantly. They tell people to vote for McCain because McCain helps them achieve their selfish goals while convincing them that in doing so they are putting their country first.
Brilliant. And why I say McCain and Palin's speeches were very successful.
This is my fundamental problem with Palin on energy...
“I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices.”
-Sarah Palin
This is the exact problem I've been outlining for a while. Off-shore drilling is not a bad thing if done in an environmentally safe way (although on-shore in ANWR is different). What is bad is that people don't do the research and think that it's a solution when in fact it's a bridge to keep us afloat. She's a champion for opposing the "Bridge To Nowhere," yet supports adamantly an energy bridge to nowhere, which translates to exhausting all our domestic oil resources for little benefit and then having no alternative energy on which to transfer our energy needs. Drilling definitely cannot get us out of our problem. Drilling would take over 10 years to achieve any significant results, yet Palin says alternative energy is not the answer because it will take more than 10 years to be implemented. In addition, drilling would not lower gas prices significantly...the U.S. Department of Energy stated that drilling will not change prices for two decades, and even then the price will decline by a few pennies. Everything she wants to do energy related deals with oil oil oil (she brings profits to Alaska and her BP-employed husband) at the expense of our country. Now the fact that she wants to deal with oil companies is good, but exclusively and without investing in alternative energy is not a solution either for the short term or the long-term. This woman does not believe in human-enhanced global warming...she's out of touch with the mainland US, not to mention the rest of the world--and I guarantee McCain will change his stance on ANWR (he's already changed his stance at least twice on off-shore) just to match his Veep's views. And remember that energy is considered her strength. Her strength!...which implies...
...exactly.
“I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices.”
-Sarah Palin
This is the exact problem I've been outlining for a while. Off-shore drilling is not a bad thing if done in an environmentally safe way (although on-shore in ANWR is different). What is bad is that people don't do the research and think that it's a solution when in fact it's a bridge to keep us afloat. She's a champion for opposing the "Bridge To Nowhere," yet supports adamantly an energy bridge to nowhere, which translates to exhausting all our domestic oil resources for little benefit and then having no alternative energy on which to transfer our energy needs. Drilling definitely cannot get us out of our problem. Drilling would take over 10 years to achieve any significant results, yet Palin says alternative energy is not the answer because it will take more than 10 years to be implemented. In addition, drilling would not lower gas prices significantly...the U.S. Department of Energy stated that drilling will not change prices for two decades, and even then the price will decline by a few pennies. Everything she wants to do energy related deals with oil oil oil (she brings profits to Alaska and her BP-employed husband) at the expense of our country. Now the fact that she wants to deal with oil companies is good, but exclusively and without investing in alternative energy is not a solution either for the short term or the long-term. This woman does not believe in human-enhanced global warming...she's out of touch with the mainland US, not to mention the rest of the world--and I guarantee McCain will change his stance on ANWR (he's already changed his stance at least twice on off-shore) just to match his Veep's views. And remember that energy is considered her strength. Her strength!...which implies...
...exactly.
A friend sent me a few articles today in response to a debate we had on McCain's proposed League of Democracies and I have published links to these articles followed by my response:
Article 1:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Article 2:
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000035
I read this and the other article and they both make valid points, although none of them are new points. Namely, the UN is failing and cannot pass anything significant. McCain sees the commonality of ideals amongst democracies and strives to create an organization of these states (although on April 11th he changed his stance and said the League "would not be a formal organization" which makes this debate less relevant) and believes that American needs an organization that can, frankly, get stuff done. And we do need an organization that can do just that. Yet, providing McCain does still want to create a League of Democracies despite his statement that probably had campaign manager written all over it, here is why the League is a bad idea:
Take your statement the other day that the Democrats in Congress won't pass anything because they are waiting for the next administration and Congressional elections. Now say that these Democrats represent Russia, China, and other countries that do not cooperate with U.S. efforts in international institutions. The League of Democracies are those fed up with the Democrats, and is an organization proposed to group countries by ideological differences, so the League of Democracies would then become the Republicans in Congress (and probably Joe Lieberman...although this analogy in no way intends to suggest that the League is a Republican idea since for the most part only McCain and a few Democrats support the League) who separate themselves from Congress and form their "New Congress." This New Congress of Republicans imposes its ideologies on America. Therefore, they ban abortion and gay unions around the country. Guns are legal, taxes are low, government is small, etc...a major generalization but you get my fundamental point.
What does this mean? Instantly there is polarization in the United States. Every form of bipartisanship is abolished. The Democrats (representing Russia, China, etc) are beyond pissed off--the checks are balances system has been compromised and to regain their rightful place in society the Democrats wage war with the Republicans. Cold War #2? It's a stretch, but not an impracticality, especially considering the threats Russia is making over the United States's attempt to put anti-ballistic missiles in Poland as well as over Bush's continuing violation of the SALT treaties.
Now what happens to the current Congress in that scenario? It crumbles. Similarly, if McCain forms the League of Democracies, the United Nations is entirely undermined and will too crumble. Additionally, given the United States's current reputation around the world and the strong desire by our allies for the United Nations to work, I doubt many countries would want to join the League of Democracies. The leaders of America, England, France, Italy, and Germany, have nearly, if not the worst, approval ratings in history. If McCain created the League of Democracies and Iran stood a day from obtaining nuclear weapons, how many of those countries would support a U.S. plan to invade Iran? Israel, maybe England...beyond that obtaining Ferris Bueller's support would be a stretch. Who exactly wants to join the unpopular leaders and re-divide the world between East and West and further provoke Russia and China? Certainly not the citizens of America and the EU countries that would be in the League--that's why McCain had to retract his statement and say it wouldn't be a formal organization.
McCain is being naive in his argument for the League of Democracies. He underestimates the power of Russia, China, Venezuela, Brazil, Iran, etc; he oversimplifies the relationships between democracies as well as between democratic countries' ties with non-democracies; and he supports separating the world based on ideology as opposed to interests, making his plan impractical and feeding the negative criticism of America as a country that believes its way is right and everyone elses is wrong. Furthermore, the League of Democracies concept exemplifies McCain's neoconservative tendencies.
The worst thing the United States can do is create its own organization of allies. The League of Democracies would not become an equivalent to the prospering European Union, especially if member country voting does not occur in a democratic fashion--something McCain has not proposed. Instead, the United States needs to reengage with the United Nations and NATO because both organizations have been most successful when the United States plays a large role. I do not assume that the United Nations will significantly improve when the United States reengages, but I strongly believe, the reasons for which I have just outlined, that a group of idealists organized as McCain has proposed will not provoke significant tangible results and will instead cause intangible global setbacks.
Article 1:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Article 2:
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000035
I read this and the other article and they both make valid points, although none of them are new points. Namely, the UN is failing and cannot pass anything significant. McCain sees the commonality of ideals amongst democracies and strives to create an organization of these states (although on April 11th he changed his stance and said the League "would not be a formal organization" which makes this debate less relevant) and believes that American needs an organization that can, frankly, get stuff done. And we do need an organization that can do just that. Yet, providing McCain does still want to create a League of Democracies despite his statement that probably had campaign manager written all over it, here is why the League is a bad idea:
Take your statement the other day that the Democrats in Congress won't pass anything because they are waiting for the next administration and Congressional elections. Now say that these Democrats represent Russia, China, and other countries that do not cooperate with U.S. efforts in international institutions. The League of Democracies are those fed up with the Democrats, and is an organization proposed to group countries by ideological differences, so the League of Democracies would then become the Republicans in Congress (and probably Joe Lieberman...although this analogy in no way intends to suggest that the League is a Republican idea since for the most part only McCain and a few Democrats support the League) who separate themselves from Congress and form their "New Congress." This New Congress of Republicans imposes its ideologies on America. Therefore, they ban abortion and gay unions around the country. Guns are legal, taxes are low, government is small, etc...a major generalization but you get my fundamental point.
What does this mean? Instantly there is polarization in the United States. Every form of bipartisanship is abolished. The Democrats (representing Russia, China, etc) are beyond pissed off--the checks are balances system has been compromised and to regain their rightful place in society the Democrats wage war with the Republicans. Cold War #2? It's a stretch, but not an impracticality, especially considering the threats Russia is making over the United States's attempt to put anti-ballistic missiles in Poland as well as over Bush's continuing violation of the SALT treaties.
Now what happens to the current Congress in that scenario? It crumbles. Similarly, if McCain forms the League of Democracies, the United Nations is entirely undermined and will too crumble. Additionally, given the United States's current reputation around the world and the strong desire by our allies for the United Nations to work, I doubt many countries would want to join the League of Democracies. The leaders of America, England, France, Italy, and Germany, have nearly, if not the worst, approval ratings in history. If McCain created the League of Democracies and Iran stood a day from obtaining nuclear weapons, how many of those countries would support a U.S. plan to invade Iran? Israel, maybe England...beyond that obtaining Ferris Bueller's support would be a stretch. Who exactly wants to join the unpopular leaders and re-divide the world between East and West and further provoke Russia and China? Certainly not the citizens of America and the EU countries that would be in the League--that's why McCain had to retract his statement and say it wouldn't be a formal organization.
McCain is being naive in his argument for the League of Democracies. He underestimates the power of Russia, China, Venezuela, Brazil, Iran, etc; he oversimplifies the relationships between democracies as well as between democratic countries' ties with non-democracies; and he supports separating the world based on ideology as opposed to interests, making his plan impractical and feeding the negative criticism of America as a country that believes its way is right and everyone elses is wrong. Furthermore, the League of Democracies concept exemplifies McCain's neoconservative tendencies.
The worst thing the United States can do is create its own organization of allies. The League of Democracies would not become an equivalent to the prospering European Union, especially if member country voting does not occur in a democratic fashion--something McCain has not proposed. Instead, the United States needs to reengage with the United Nations and NATO because both organizations have been most successful when the United States plays a large role. I do not assume that the United Nations will significantly improve when the United States reengages, but I strongly believe, the reasons for which I have just outlined, that a group of idealists organized as McCain has proposed will not provoke significant tangible results and will instead cause intangible global setbacks.
As White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton recently declared, either Iran develops nuclear weapons capabilities or the world wages war on Iran. The Bush Administration seeks to create a middle ground through which incentives and disincentives cause Iran to act in its national interests and disband its nuclear program. This middle ground approach is not simple, nor is it new. In fact, since 1979 sanctions have been imposed on Iran and have been ratcheted up gradually with a few large-scales impositions such as in 2003 and 2006. Iranian leadership has worked around any sanctions imposed upon their country, narrowing the parameters for achieving middle-ground solutions. The big question, therefore, is simple; yet it reflect many nuances that makes dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran significantly more difficult than dealing with Libya or North Korea: How should the United States, Iran, and other countries act to achieve such a solution?
The United States has already imposed nearly every meaningful unilateral sanction in its arsenal. It has had no diplomatic ties with the Republic since it first imposed sanctions in 1979 and therefore has no meaningful relationship with influential members of the Iranian government and very few speakers of Farsi to aid with diplomatic ties. Therefore, the odds of successful negotiation with Iran are very slim unless significant carrots and sticks are used to coerce Iran into making a deal. In contrast, a vital aspect of dealing with Iran and the Middle East in the future relies on the United States restoring ties with Iran, training diplomats in Farsi and Iranian history, and developing relationships with the Iranian leaders in power (which obviously implies avoiding figureheads such as Achmedinejad and continuing America’s policy of not negotiating with terrorists such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard).
A new Iranian Sanctions Act is on the Congressional floors that would freeze assets of the Central Bank of Iran and cut oil ties with Iran. The former sanction is meaningful as it prevents Iranian leaders from accessing money that goes into their nuclear program. The latter is arguably more meaningful as it prevents the influx of oil to a country that, while naturally oil rich, imports 40% of its oil due to a lack of refining capabilities. An argument against the Act states that both sanctions would hurt an already impoverished populace unnecessarily, but the reality is that the United States will do everything in its power to make these sanctions pointed at leaders supporting the nuclear program, and that Iran has done incredibly little to improve its infrastructure in decades, so the sacrifice of slightly worsening a terrible economy to dramatically improve it should Iran stop its nuclear program may yield more benefits than costs.
Currently the U.S. government, through its 3rd ranking diplomat Burns, is seeking a freeze-for-freeze agreement; simply stated the United States lifts sanctions and Iran stops enriching uranium and building centrifuges. Obviously this plan is merely a plan to turn time on the side of the United States and likeminded countries since time is on Iran’s side as long as they continue to further its nuclear program. Iran has around 3,800 active centrifuges (although Achmedinejad claims it has 6,000), it plans on building about 51,000 more, and Iran is within a year (although more practically a few years) from having a nuclear weapon capable of reaching any country in the Middle East and slightly further.
The answer does not lie in whether or not to use the remaining meaningful sanctions the United States and European Union have in their arsenals (China and Russia are unlikely to assist and frequently veto UN Security Council measures and most other countries are reluctant to become involved). The imposition of these sanctions is necessary if the world wants Iran to give up its powerful bargaining chip. The answer instead lies in when these sanctions are used.
One might argue that all sanctions should be imposed immediately. This action would directly hurt Iran and would likely move Iran to agree to the freeze-for-freeze proposal. Iran and the United States would then engage in more meaningful negotiations and the timetable for Iran to develop nuclear weaponry would shift in the world’s favor. So why isn’t everyone on board? Aside from the relatively invalid argument that it would cripple Iranian citizens (this implies that their government has not already crippled them—although if imposed at once the populace would probably be hurt relatively more than if sanctions were imposed gradually), many politicians understand that the freeze-for-freeze does not resolve any problems. No doubt exists as to the importance of implementing the freeze-for-freeze plan ASAP. However, in imposing each remaining meaningful sanction at once the United States and the EU have no further bargaining chips, whereas the Iranians stall negotiations for the freeze-for-freeze timeframe (I believe the timeframe will be 6 months), and then continues to build its monstrous bargaining chip knowing that the Western World has no more diplomatic options and the United States, its biggest threat, cannot afford to engage in even more military endeavors overseas.
And thus I come full circle. I have no idea what the United States and the EU should do aside from provoking Russia and China to embrace our cause—a serious impracticality. Frankly, I do not think anyone knows what to do. In the meantime the timeline before Iran has nuclear weaponry is constantly shrinking, as are the parameters for a middle ground solution. The United States and the EU should continue their current policy and hope for a positive change in the status quo, but unless one comes soon, Josh Bolton’s options seem to be the realistic outcomes: a nuclear Iran or war.
The United States has already imposed nearly every meaningful unilateral sanction in its arsenal. It has had no diplomatic ties with the Republic since it first imposed sanctions in 1979 and therefore has no meaningful relationship with influential members of the Iranian government and very few speakers of Farsi to aid with diplomatic ties. Therefore, the odds of successful negotiation with Iran are very slim unless significant carrots and sticks are used to coerce Iran into making a deal. In contrast, a vital aspect of dealing with Iran and the Middle East in the future relies on the United States restoring ties with Iran, training diplomats in Farsi and Iranian history, and developing relationships with the Iranian leaders in power (which obviously implies avoiding figureheads such as Achmedinejad and continuing America’s policy of not negotiating with terrorists such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard).
A new Iranian Sanctions Act is on the Congressional floors that would freeze assets of the Central Bank of Iran and cut oil ties with Iran. The former sanction is meaningful as it prevents Iranian leaders from accessing money that goes into their nuclear program. The latter is arguably more meaningful as it prevents the influx of oil to a country that, while naturally oil rich, imports 40% of its oil due to a lack of refining capabilities. An argument against the Act states that both sanctions would hurt an already impoverished populace unnecessarily, but the reality is that the United States will do everything in its power to make these sanctions pointed at leaders supporting the nuclear program, and that Iran has done incredibly little to improve its infrastructure in decades, so the sacrifice of slightly worsening a terrible economy to dramatically improve it should Iran stop its nuclear program may yield more benefits than costs.
Currently the U.S. government, through its 3rd ranking diplomat Burns, is seeking a freeze-for-freeze agreement; simply stated the United States lifts sanctions and Iran stops enriching uranium and building centrifuges. Obviously this plan is merely a plan to turn time on the side of the United States and likeminded countries since time is on Iran’s side as long as they continue to further its nuclear program. Iran has around 3,800 active centrifuges (although Achmedinejad claims it has 6,000), it plans on building about 51,000 more, and Iran is within a year (although more practically a few years) from having a nuclear weapon capable of reaching any country in the Middle East and slightly further.
The answer does not lie in whether or not to use the remaining meaningful sanctions the United States and European Union have in their arsenals (China and Russia are unlikely to assist and frequently veto UN Security Council measures and most other countries are reluctant to become involved). The imposition of these sanctions is necessary if the world wants Iran to give up its powerful bargaining chip. The answer instead lies in when these sanctions are used.
One might argue that all sanctions should be imposed immediately. This action would directly hurt Iran and would likely move Iran to agree to the freeze-for-freeze proposal. Iran and the United States would then engage in more meaningful negotiations and the timetable for Iran to develop nuclear weaponry would shift in the world’s favor. So why isn’t everyone on board? Aside from the relatively invalid argument that it would cripple Iranian citizens (this implies that their government has not already crippled them—although if imposed at once the populace would probably be hurt relatively more than if sanctions were imposed gradually), many politicians understand that the freeze-for-freeze does not resolve any problems. No doubt exists as to the importance of implementing the freeze-for-freeze plan ASAP. However, in imposing each remaining meaningful sanction at once the United States and the EU have no further bargaining chips, whereas the Iranians stall negotiations for the freeze-for-freeze timeframe (I believe the timeframe will be 6 months), and then continues to build its monstrous bargaining chip knowing that the Western World has no more diplomatic options and the United States, its biggest threat, cannot afford to engage in even more military endeavors overseas.
And thus I come full circle. I have no idea what the United States and the EU should do aside from provoking Russia and China to embrace our cause—a serious impracticality. Frankly, I do not think anyone knows what to do. In the meantime the timeline before Iran has nuclear weaponry is constantly shrinking, as are the parameters for a middle ground solution. The United States and the EU should continue their current policy and hope for a positive change in the status quo, but unless one comes soon, Josh Bolton’s options seem to be the realistic outcomes: a nuclear Iran or war.
Off-shore oil drilling has become a national issue recently in the wake of President Bush's decision to overturn the long-standing ban on such drilling. The proper rationalization of this policy change argues that off-shore oil drilling is an environmentally safe manner of increasing U.S. oil supply as a means of bridging the gap between the current U.S. dependence on oil and the future of energy in the United States. The argument acknowledges that the U.S. will not be independent of oil for a minimum of 50 years and recognizes the need for the U.S. to decrease, and to ultimately eliminate, it's dependence on foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela for energy. Additionally, oil companies such as Exxon-Mobil would pay for the drilling and no off-shore oil drilling would be performed within eye-sight of land, a horizon of about 25 miles from the coast.
Under a McCain administration, the legality of this form of harnessing energy would be in the hands of individual states. While oil-drilling as described previously seems like a good idea and represents the Republican perspective and the majority of Americans support off-shore oil drilling, very few people either understand the potential environmental implications and lack of specifications, or believe that the act is either environmentally safe or will positively affect the U.S. economy. Currently no provisions exist to keep drilling 25 miles off-shore, no provisions exist to ensure the environmental safety of drilling, and no guarantee exists that the drilling would produce any increase in oil supply within the next 10 years, not to mention a significant increase no matter the timeframe.
Furthermore, many people in accordance with their representatives' support of off-shore drilling fail to understand the drilling is not a solution to the United States's attempt to uncover and put into place the future of energy. Oil is oil, meaning that energy efficiency will not be increased, and at best there will be only marginally more oil. Since supply will not significantly increase, oil independence will not significantly increase, and oil prices will not decrease in relation to the implementation of off-shore drilling. Increased oil drilling is not a replacement for alternative forms of energy. Again, the Republican Congressmen supporting the President's decision view drilling as a bridge instead of a solution, but many of their constituents fail to recognize this key distinction.
Another factor to consider is that Congress has had a moratorium of off-shore drilling voting in place for a couple decades. Therefore, Bush's decision may simply be a moot-point decision designed to help salvage his legacy. The decision represents a proactive side of the President that has been all but non-existent until recently save for his anti-terrorism initiatives.
So should the United States engage in off-shore oil drilling? Drilling has little upside, but likewise has little downside. If the government were to be responsible for the drilling, I would advise against oil drilling. However, since corporations such as Exxon-Mobil would supply the funding, do the drilling, and be liable for any wrongdoing (presumably including environmental damage), providing that each company abides by and promotes the stipulations and ideologies, respectively, outlined in the opening paragraph, the answer becomes simple: why not?
Realisticly though, how confident are you that Exxon-Mobil and the like will conduct off-shore drilling within those parameters?
Under a McCain administration, the legality of this form of harnessing energy would be in the hands of individual states. While oil-drilling as described previously seems like a good idea and represents the Republican perspective and the majority of Americans support off-shore oil drilling, very few people either understand the potential environmental implications and lack of specifications, or believe that the act is either environmentally safe or will positively affect the U.S. economy. Currently no provisions exist to keep drilling 25 miles off-shore, no provisions exist to ensure the environmental safety of drilling, and no guarantee exists that the drilling would produce any increase in oil supply within the next 10 years, not to mention a significant increase no matter the timeframe.
Furthermore, many people in accordance with their representatives' support of off-shore drilling fail to understand the drilling is not a solution to the United States's attempt to uncover and put into place the future of energy. Oil is oil, meaning that energy efficiency will not be increased, and at best there will be only marginally more oil. Since supply will not significantly increase, oil independence will not significantly increase, and oil prices will not decrease in relation to the implementation of off-shore drilling. Increased oil drilling is not a replacement for alternative forms of energy. Again, the Republican Congressmen supporting the President's decision view drilling as a bridge instead of a solution, but many of their constituents fail to recognize this key distinction.
Another factor to consider is that Congress has had a moratorium of off-shore drilling voting in place for a couple decades. Therefore, Bush's decision may simply be a moot-point decision designed to help salvage his legacy. The decision represents a proactive side of the President that has been all but non-existent until recently save for his anti-terrorism initiatives.
So should the United States engage in off-shore oil drilling? Drilling has little upside, but likewise has little downside. If the government were to be responsible for the drilling, I would advise against oil drilling. However, since corporations such as Exxon-Mobil would supply the funding, do the drilling, and be liable for any wrongdoing (presumably including environmental damage), providing that each company abides by and promotes the stipulations and ideologies, respectively, outlined in the opening paragraph, the answer becomes simple: why not?
Realisticly though, how confident are you that Exxon-Mobil and the like will conduct off-shore drilling within those parameters?