When it comes to Nuclear Disarmament: Obama can't compete with Bush

Few will remember the Moscow Treaty, negotiated around 2002. At the time, the United States and Russia had about 6000-7000 deployed operational nuclear warheads. The treaty, negotiated between Bush and Putin required that both countries reduce the number of deployed, operational warheads to about 2200-2600 warheads.

Liberals and main-stream media did not talk about it, and when they did, they argued it was pointless considering Russia could take the warheads offline and put them in reserve, then just bring them back up to operational status if necessary. Bush could do the same. It did not require actual dismantling of weapons.

Well Bush went farther. He not only lowered the number of US operational warheads from 6000 to 2200, he also ordered the reserve warheads dismantled and eliminated. Wow, this from a President that was such a warmongeror!!!!

What does Obama accomplish this week? He will lower the number of US operational warheads from 2200 to 1500-1600. Wow, and the media and others all think this is such a ground-breaking agreement. Bush lowers our operational force by over 4000 warheads, Obama gets rid of 600. Bush gets Putin to reduce his operational force by 4000-5000 warheads. Obama is getting 600. Wow. What would we do about Russia if it weren't for Obama. We were on the path to confrontation clearly under that madman Bush.

Why is it that the most assertive and "warmongering" Presidents get the greatest results in terms of peace and disarmament? Reagan's election saw the release of hostages from Iran, and he placed tremendous pressure on the Soviet Union. His VP continued that pressure and we saw the end of the Soviet Union and the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

Under Clinton, India and Pakistan become nuclear powers. North Korea gets the uranium necessary to build their first nuclear weapon.

Under Carter, our ally, the Shah, fell and a radical fundamentalist regime took over. The new regime took hostages that Carter could not get released in over a year. Under Kennedy, the Soviet Union decides to put nuclear missiles in Cuba after meeting the man. Granted, Kennedy did a superb job in dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we got their because the Soviets perceived weakness.

A pattern has emerged. The main-strem media, as well as the liberal establishment knows nothing about actual disarmament and maintaining international peace.

President Obama has done nothing but take a teaspoon out of the bucket, while Bush almost empties it completely during his term. I did not know this until I read about it in the Weekly Standard. It is just more evidence that we need to go beyond the headlines to learn the truth.

Obama backs U.S. away from Israel: what it could mean

Obama's recent remarks and actions suggest the United States is trying to put some distance between itself and Israel in terms of their relationship. This is almost unprecedented. Obama, thus far, is the least friendly American President to Israel since Carter, a borderline anti-semite. Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to Israel and convened the Cabinet to figure out what to make of all this.

Imagine you are Prime Minister Netanyahu. You are the head of the Likud Party, the more nationalist and assertive party while your opposition is the more dovish and prefers a soft-handed approach. You got to power because of your record on security and tough rhetoric. You have been rebuffed by the American President, your closest ally and the most important foreign policy item. You have returned with no agreement, a behind closed doors meeting, which is a humiliation. To not have a public talk or a press conference alongside the American President demonstrates that Israel is no longer considered the close ally of the United States.

The settlements in Jerusalem is a central part of your domestic policy. There is no compromise on that, you cannot back down. Your own party would fire you if you agreed to Obama's demands that settlements stop being built in East Jersualem, your capital. So what do you do?

Israelis are upset there is no agreement. They are starting to question your abilities. Politically you have been weakened by this. What to do...How can a hawkish Prime Minister regain the support and respect of his people? Hmmm...

Netanyahu does not agree with Obama and politically cannot backdown on the settlement question. Netanyahu has to feel he cannot trust the United States to back Israel on any issue, in particular security. He has to think that it is likely that Israel may have to face security threats in the future alone, without US support and even face possible sanctions from the UN. The U.S. will not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, they can't even get sanctions. Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb and they have the missile technology to deliver. They have been talking about wiping Israel off the map for years.

You are a hawkish prime minister in need of some momentum and positive results, you could strike Iran first. No one else is going to stop Iran. the UN, the US, Russia or China. You know they want weapons and you know they are close, you cannot tolerate that. You must strike. It will cause international uproar and may lead to condemnation from President Obama and the US. But the US is no longer a reliable ally anyway...

You could try to persuade Obama and work with them to get the US back on your side. It didn't work this time but you could try again. That would be quite humbling considering how the last meeting went. He has nothing he can offer Obama and the US to get them back on his side. Is there a middle road? No. Obama and Netanyahu clearly are not on the same page and the likelihood of working together is low right now.

Netanyahu has to ask himself, does he have much to lose by striking Iran pre-emptively? Relations with US are already chilly, the Europeans and most of the UN doesn't like what Israel is doing now, Iran could strike back. That is really the only issue, if the strike succeeds can Israel defend itself from Iran. The U.S. would have to step in to avert a war. Wouldn't they?

That is what is likely being discussed. What happens after the initial strike? Can Israel do what it has done in Iraq and Syria? A quick strike, then back away. War did not erupt when Israel struck the nuclear facilities of those two countries. Will Iran be any different. Guessing from their crazy rhetoric, yes.

Iran will try to aggressively arm its proxy groups (Hezbollah and Hamas) but in the end they can't destroy Israel through conventional means. Is Netanyahu, a hawkish Prime Minister, willing to do something that could erupt an open and intense conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah, maybe even Iran itself? What will their neighbors do? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. They may condemn the attack but privately, will be happy to see their Iranian nuke program destroyed or at least set back. Syria could be the lone problem. But Israel bombed Syria a year or two ago and now is negotiating a peace treaty with them to settle the Golan Heights dispute. Would an Iran strike kill that? Would Syria honor their alliance and fight Israel over this?

My thoughts? A rift has been steadily growing between Syria and Iran. Syria appears more willing to join the more moderate Middle East and the more Sunni. In Iraq, Syria and Iran are on opposite sides of the political developments there. Odds of Syria declaring war or joining Iran? Moderate to low. Odds of Iran invading Israel? Very low. Odds of a war with Hamas and Hezbollah? Very high. Would Netanyahu, a hawkish leader with his strength in security, be willing to start a war to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? The answer is yes.

In my mind, Netanyahu would have to argue that unless the United States can end the Iranian nuclear weapons program and allow him to use it as a morale booster, he will need to move soon on his own. A strike on Iran is becoming a more practical option for him. This spat with Obama has only increased its practicality.

Obama's desire to pull the U.S. away from the Middle East will leave the countries in that region to solve their own security problems. Their solutions are not as nice and peaceful as ours. By pulling back, Obama is potentially encouraging countries in that region to act unilaterally to protect themselves. Not a good idea.

International Security and Obama's Folly

"It is undeniable that if everyone really desired a "world-state" or "collective security". . . it would easily be attained; and the student of international politics may be forgiven if he begins by supposing that his task is to make everyone desire it. It takes him some time to understand that no progress is likely to be made along this path and that no political utopia will achieve even the most limited success unless it grows out of political reality."

-Edward Carr


There is a naivety prevalent in the Obama administration in regard to its foreign policy. The U.S. approach has seen little structural or substantive change in the past year, instead Obama has appeared centrally focused on changing the subjective posture to one of more empathy and soft persuasion. His speeches have promised to change our foreign policy to a more egalitarian, fair, and accommodating approach that will help persuade the world of our pure intentions and the virtues of our vision of international peace & security. So far, this resulted in the U.S. withdrawal of the missile defense shield from Eastern Europe, a re-run of pointless diplomatic discussions with Iran that have again led to nothing.

What are the positives for the United States? The people of Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East now have a more favorable opinion of the United States. This is exactly what Obama and the liberal democrats wanted to achieve with the new administration. What has it achieved substantively? Absolutely nothing, in fact it is giving aggressive and tyrannical states more room to manuever. The public opinions in foreign countries have almost no impact on international relations.

Obama has made the primary mistake described by Carr: he believes it is his role to make everyone desire a world state or collective security system. The problem is obvious: he can't and a good part of the world still doesn't want it. Iran is still working towards enriched uranium and eventually nuclear weapons. Russia still is doing business with them and China has indicated a lack of interest in sanctions; the most popular bullet of the current collective security regime. Venezuela still openly anti-American. Al Qaeda is still trying to attack the United States. China is still in the midst of a major defense spending spree. Ukraine has switched from pro-NATO to pro-Russia.

The United States is getting weaker relative to our closest rivals: China, India, and to a lesser extent Russia. They are all adjusting their policies in preparation for a world where the U.S. is not the lone superpower. Given the events of the past two years, this is probably prudent. But as Americans this should cause a healthy level of alarm.

But what will happen in 2012? When American troops are mostly out of Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan, should any other problems arise, do you think Obama will meet the challenge or seize the opportunity to get out of both countries? What if there is another flashpoint in the world where we currently have no troops? Will Obama actually use military force if necessary? Or will he continue the U.S. pullback from the world and continue to cut into defense spending.

Obama is ignoring the political reality of the world today, replaced with the Jeffersonian notion that the U.S. should not be active abroad and should set a "good example" of popular government, human rights, and peace. He is also irritated at the fact that his extreme domestic agenda of shifting us toward a more socialist system is being hampered by foreign wars and the associated costs.

The United States can only afford this naive and misguided approach for so long.

American Realism

Realism Defined
Realism has a number of meanings, the one I am referring to is the political theory of realism. It has a couple key principles. First, Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. Second, all interest is defined in terms of power. Interest can mean variety of things as well, there is no fixed thing such as money, guns, etc. Third, moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in abstract or relativistic form. Finally, the political sphere is different from all other spheres, any attempt to apply concepts from other areas to politics is a waste of time. So trying to apply sociological theories is pointless.

Machiavelli was a realist along with famous people like Julius Caesar, Augustus, and more recently Alexander Hamilton. Even FDR was part-realist. Moral principles are irrelevant in judging the wisdom of particular policies in politics. Just because you mean well does not guarantee a good result. When you take moral judgment out, you become objective and dispassionate, the traits of a knuckle-dragging, greedy and racist republican. Unfortunately for the left, history strongly supports the effectiveness of realism and the problematic record of liberal theories. Liberalism tends to envision the world as it ought to be then begins to act as if that world already exists. The problem is that it does not and may never come to be. Realists act based on what "is" now.

American Style
American realism is very distinct. American statesmen have usually judged economic interests and international trade as top interests for the country. The U.S. military and its diplomacy were fairly isolationist and weak until World War 1. We have never desired the largest military, established colonies, or the brutal use of force to subjugate our enemies. The American populace do not value these things as in their interest. Commerce is king.

What is in our commercial interest?
Free trade has certainly been very beneficial. For partisan reasons Obama and others stand in the way of free trade with South Korea, Columbia, and other countries - all negotiated and approved by Bush. The current international regime built around the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank have successfully promoted open trade in most of the world. It has also given the U.S. dollar supremacy. That is rapidly coming to an end and our big credit card might soon be maxed out. There is also serious concerns that the WTO may fall.

Many states have reason to doubt that having close economic ties with us will pay off. Many countries that export to the United States are harmed severely by the economic recession here. No one there buys their goods. A small group of rogue states are arguing that doing business with the U.S. is against national interests and that we are just like any other empire, securing our propserity at the expense of others.

China and India are steadily moving themselves toward economic independence and trying to slowly move away from dependence on trade with us or on our political influence. Russia has been doing this for a long time anyway but now has more incentive to do business in areas that we do not (Venezuela, Iran, North Korea). In short, everyone is trying to find new business opportunities because they are not so sure the United States, Japan, and the EU will come out of this.

We are losing power and influence in the world. This provides opportunity for ambitious powers to move in. China and India are already trying. It doesn't matter that the U.S. is now more popular with the people of the world (Obama-mania), it won't make them do things that will hurt their bottom line. They will do what is in their interest in the end. It doesn't matter how charismatic, eloquent and smooth Obama is. He has changed course so that it is now a more attractive option for countries to seek their own means of prosperity and security.

Iran
Iran is only the beginning. Even now Russia, China, and other countries are doing plenty of business with Iran and allowing them to work around U.S. sanctions. They believe that they are far better equipped to persuade Iran to not actually build nuclear weapons but won't interefere with their efforts to enrich uranium and have the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

How do we convince other countries to NOT do business with Iran? That is a big question. Also, will economic sanctions alone get Iran to stop? How can we make it in the interest of Iran to not build nuclear weapons?

Here are some of my crackpot ideas

• Military Option for precision strikes must be on the table.
• Give an ultimatum regarding negotiations. If no deal is reached, all negotiations cease and aggressively pursue new sanctions. No extensions, no more stalling.
• Openly support anti-government forces in Iran under the guise of political freedom and liberty.
• Negotiate directly with Russia and China on sanctions, appeal to their self-interest. No more arguments about international security and proliferation. Clearly they don't care enough about that.
• Drop hints that the U.S. would not condemn Israel should it decide to strike Iran, try to gather support for it in the Arab World, allow them to publicly condemn the attack but privately applaud it.
• Extend missile shield and nuclear deterrent to Israel. Openly announce that any missile attack on Israel will be met with retaliation from the United States, without specifying whether it would be conventional or nuclear.
• Begin large scale military exercises in the Gulf and Indian Ocean, keep moving resources in and out to make them nervous. Start air exercises. Move stealth bombers if they are not already there.