Suchergebnisse

American militarism has many authors. From lawmakers on Capitol Hill and policy makers in the executive branch to the defense industry and its army of lobbyists, many in Washington and beyond have an interest, whether political or financial (or both), in keeping the Pentagon's coffers overstuffed and the global U.S. military machine humming. Unfortunately America's fourth estate doesn't do a very good job of keeping an overly militaristic U.S. foreign policy in check. On the contrary, it too is a key pillar that buttresses America's dependence on aggression abroad. Looking back at much of the mainstream media's national security coverage this past year — from Ukraine and Gaza to China and the military industrial complex — 2023, with few exceptions, was no different.The War in UkraineMainstream media failures in covering the war in Ukraine this year ranged from seeming to downplay questions about who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline and ignoring key flashpoints that could have expanded the conflict into a direct U.S. war with Russia.But back in June, the New York Times' Paul Krugman provided a window into how many top journalists and pundits view U.S. foreign policy more broadly, and the war in Ukraine specifically: through the lens of American exceptionalism. Krugman used the D-Day anniversary this year to lament that Americans and other Western democracies weren't sufficiently supportive of Ukraine's war against Russia, saying then that if the country's counteroffensive fails (which by now it has), "it will be a disaster not just for Ukraine but for the world."As RS noted at the time, Krugman's argument "follows a problematic pattern among many in the media whose historical reference point will always be World War II and in turn believe the United States can apply that experience to any other world problem no matter how dissimilar or unrelated it is, or whether even a military solution is required." Of course there were many calling for a more diplomatic approach to ending the war then and the evidence six months later suggests they were right.A month before Krugman's article, the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and Anne Applebaum published a lengthy article running along the same themes. The piece was based largely on an uncritical relay of an interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that crescendos to a call for taking back Crimea — a maximalist military objective that most sober observers believe to be unachievable — and overthrowing Putin, all in the name of a global struggle between good and evil. Except, as QI's Anatol Lieven pointed out then, most of the rest of the world doesn't see it that way."It is not that people in these countries approve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine," Lieven wrote in RS. "It is that they do not perceive such a huge difference between the regional hegemonic ambitions and criminal actions of Russia and the global ones of the United States; and they are thoroughly sick of having their opinions and interests ignored by Washington in the name of an American moral superiority that actual U.S. policies in their parts of the world have repeatedly belied."The China boogeymanThis year kicked off with a turn-it-up-to-11 media hyperventilation about the infamous Chinese spy balloon that, according to the Pentagon at least, turned out to never have spied. But the incident was indicative of how Washington and the mainstream media generally deal with U.S. policy toward China: freak out first and maybe — just maybe — ask questions later.CBS's flagship news magazine 60 Minutes is a primary offender of this approach. Back in March, 60 Minutes ran a lengthy piece seemingly aimed at scaring Americans about the size of China's navy and about the U.S. is lagging behind — classic China threat inflation that is common in Washington. Except the navy officers 60 Minutes interviewed didn't see it that way, and neither did experts RS interviewed about the segment."The U.S. Navy appears to believe it's ready to take on China," RS reported then, adding, "[b]ut lawmakers who stand to benefit from hyping the China threat don't. And that in a nutshell is the military-industrial-complex, or in this case, the military-industrial-congressional-media-complex."Back in August, an NBC Nightly News segment perfectly illustrated how the mainstream media, perhaps inadvertently, builds public support for confrontation with China. The segment hyped a fairly routine, if even U.S. prompted, Russian and Chinese military exercise in international waters off the coast of Alaska. NBC News presented the event as a five-alarm fire. However, experts, and even the U.S. military, didn't think it was that big of a deal.The war in GazaIf anything can represent how mainstream U.S. media has, for the most part, covered the tragic Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 and Israel's response, it's this headline from CNN on December 6:

The "man in military fatigues" was of course an Israeli soldier, which CNN later acknowledged. But the episode is emblematic of a general problem of mainstream media leaning in on the Israeli narrative of the conflict, which prevents Americans more generally from getting a full understanding of the conflict, including not just legitimate Israeli claims but also Palestinian concerns about the occupation and the prospects of a future state. That in turn leads to the promotion of misguided notions like support for Palestinian rights equaling support for Hamas.Roots of the problemWe also saw many instances this year of why, in part, an American exceptionalist view of U.S. foreign policy tends to guide mainstream U.S. media coverage. First, news outlets often publish essays and opinion pieces arguing for a more militaristic American posture by writers who are funded by foreign governments or the defense industry. Most often — as was the case this year with the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Bloomberg, for example — those potential conflicts are not disclosed. Second, there are other media outlets that are openly underwritten by titans of the defense industry. And once again this year, we saw the potential impacts of those investments. For example, one particular November article in Politico — whose foreign policy coverage is sponsored in part by Lockheed Martin — uncritically relayed baseless concerns from the Pentagon that it was running out of money, a notion that one military spending expert told RS "doesn't hold water."***The examples above from this year are part of just a small sample of how mainstream media outlets generally cover U.S. foreign policy. There are exceptions of course but the incentives to feed the stream of militarism are far greater than the forces against it. Will 2024 be any different?

Americans give higher priority to countering the power and influence of Russia and China and finding a solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians than they did six years ago, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.Conversely, policies aimed at promoting human rights, protecting refugees, and strengthening the United Nations are not as compelling to many citizens as they were in 2018, according to the survey, which was conducted during the first week of April.At the same time, the survey of 3,600 adults found big differences of opinion between respondents who identified as Democrats and Republicans or as leaning toward either party, and between younger and older respondents of what they consider to be "top priorities" for long-term U.S. foreign policy aims.Democrats and younger participants in the survey were far more likely to rate climate change, defending human rights, and reducing U.S. military commitments overseas as "top priorities." Republicans and older voters, by contrast, were far more likely to rate containing China and Iran, supporting Israel, and "maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries" as "top priorities."At the same time, the survey found that foreign policy did not appear to be as important to the general public this year as it appeared five years ago. Asked which is "more important for President Biden to focus on," 83% of respondents identified "domestic policy" over "foreign policy" (14% ). Asked the same question with respect to former President Trump in July 2019, respondents favored "domestic policy" by a narrower margin – 74% to 23%. A second poll of the same respondents released by Pew Tuesday found that views of the United Nations have become somewhat more negative over the past year, with only a slight majority (52%) voicing an overall "favorable" opinion of the world body, down from 57% one year ago. As in the "priorities" survey, the poll found major differences in political and age differences in opinions about the U.N., with Democrats and Democratic-leaning and younger respondents having significantly more favorable views than their Republican and older counterparts. The poll also found that respondents with more education were also more likely to have a favorable opinion of the U.N. than less educated respondents, although the differences were not nearly as great as the partisan and age gaps.In the first survey, respondents were asked to rate a total of 22 long-range foreign policy goals by whether they should be considered "top priority," "some priority," and "no priority." Of the 22 goals listed this year, six had not been listed in previous surveys by Pew, so comparisons with past sentiment could not be made. Three of the new goals – "strengthening NATO," "supporting Israel," and "supporting Ukraine" – were directly relevant to ongoing conflicts that have dominated headlines but were far less salient three years ago when Pew last conducted a "priorities" poll.As in previous surveys of this kind, particularly since 9/11, two of the three goals that were rated "top priority" the most respondents were "taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks" (73%) and "preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction" (63%). "Reducing the flow of illegal drugs into our country" – a new goal not previously listed – was rated as a "top priority" by 64% of respondents (although only 34% of the youngest respondents (18-29 years old) agreed with that assessment).Other goals that were rated by a majority as a "top priority" included "maintaining the U.S. military advantage over all other countries" (53%), "reducing the spread of infectious diseases"(52%), "limiting the power and influence" of Russia (50%) and China (49%). The biggest differences between the latest "top priority" goals and those that Pew found in 2018 included containing China's influence and power, which rose from 32% six years ago to 49% ; finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict (from 18% to 29%); and containing Russia (from 42% to 50%). Support for maintaining U.S. military primacy also rose by a more modest 4% over the six years, although the goal of "getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order," also rose two points to 42%.The survey also bolstered the notion that younger Americans are significantly more idealistic than their older counterparts. Besides the goal of staunching the flow of illegal drugs, differences of 40 percentage points or more between the pool of respondents aged 18-29 and the oldest group (65 and older) were found with respect to containing China (28% versus 72%), "limiting the power and influence of Iran" (17% versus 61%), and maintaining U.S. military primacy (31% versus 71%). The youngest respondents were also considerably less concerned about containing Russia and North Korea, and "supporting Israel" was rated a "top priority" by only 7% of the youngest group.Partisan differences were often almost as great, although the 55-percentage point gap between Democrat- and Republican-inclined respondents over "dealing with climate change" as a "top priority" (70% versus 15%) was particularly dramatic. Gaps of 20% or more were found on "supporting Israel" (8% Democratic versus 39% Republican), reducing illegal drugs (51% versus 79%), maintaining military primacy (41% versus 68%, "supporting Ukraine" (37% versus 12%), aiding refugees (30% versus 7%), fighting diseases (63% versus 41%), defending human rights (36% versus 15%), getting other countries to bear costs of maintain world order (54% versus 33%), strengthening the UN (40% versus 20%), and containing Iran (29% versus 49%).

The Biden administration's foreign policy record in 2023 won't give the president much to boast about in next year's election. The U.S. is even more overstretched at the end of 2023 than it was at the beginning, and the president has had very few policy successes. For most of the year, there weren't any major debacles, but that changed over the last two months as the president gave the Israeli government a blank check to wage a brutal war in Gaza. The president committed Washington to support another foreign war in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel while the conflict in Ukraine settled into a stalemate. Even though the U.S. was under no obligation to support this war, the president made a point of turning it into one of his signature policies and linked it closely with support for Ukraine in his public rhetoric. Biden did not, and has not made a compelling case that unconditional support for Israel's campaign is in the best interests of the United States, and the costs of that support have been rising ever since. Furthermore, backing the war exposed U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria to renewed attacks from local militias, and it has also led to increasing risks for U.S. ships in the Red Sea as the Houthis have been launching attacks on commercial shipping to protest the war. The risks that the conflict could escalate and spread into other parts of the region have been growing, and so has the risk that the U.S. could become directly involved in a multi-front war. The president's instinct to back Israel to the hilt has made a wider war more likely and it has put U.S. forces in greater danger.U.S. support for Israel in Gaza has not only overshadowed the rest of Biden's foreign policy agenda, but it has also tied the U.S. to an indiscriminate bombing campaign and a punishing siege that is driving hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians into famine conditions. The Biden administration has not only torched whatever remained of Washington's credibility on human rights and international law, but it has closely associated the U.S. with the war crimes committed against Palestinian civilians.The damage to America's reputation has already been considerable, and the damage to American interests in the Middle East and beyond over the longer term will likely be significant.The setback for Biden's own agenda has been undeniable. The administration's biggest diplomatic initiative of 2023 — the ill-advised pursuit of Saudi-Israeli normalization — stalled when the war in Gaza showed the administration's understanding of the region to be fundamentally flawed. Having bought into the false assumption that U.S.-facilitated normalization agreements between Israel and Arab clients would stabilize the region, the administration failed to recognize how bad things were getting in occupied Palestine. Like their predecessors, the Biden administration did nothing to keep Netanyahu's coalition government in check as it pursued its creeping annexation of the West Bank. Believing that the Palestinians could be safely sidelined and that their grievances could be ignored, the administration was trying to find out what inducements it would take to get Mohammed bin Salman to endorse normalization. If they had been successful, it would have meant another security commitment and more costs for the United States, so it was just as well that this policy was derailed.It isn't clear how much of a factor the push for Saudi normalization was in contributing to Hamas' decision to attack, but it clearly wasn't helpful for the U.S. to waste so much effort on trying to entice the Saudis into a deal while tensions between Israel and the Palestinians was about to explode. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan's infamous line uttered shortly before the start of the war about how the region was quieter than it had been in decades reflected how much the administration had come to believe its own press releases. Support for the war has cost the U.S. a lot of goodwill in countries of the Global South, and the administration's stubborn opposition to a ceasefire has left the U.S. as deeply isolated at the United Nations as it has ever been on a major issue. The administration had earlier emphasized the importance of competing for influence with other major powers in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, but with its hardline position on Gaza it seems to have frittered away most of whatever gains it has made. Especially for an administration that constantly talks about the importance of America's leadership role, it has outdone itself in alienating and driving the rest of the world away from the U.S. on this issue.U.S. support for the war in Ukraine has been undermined by backing for the war in Gaza in two ways. First, it has diverted U.S. attention and resources away from Ukraine as the U.S. has turned its focus once again to the Middle East. It has also made a mockery of the administration's rhetoric in support of Ukraine. The U.S. spent the better part of two years extolling the importance of international law to rally support for Ukraine, and then demonstrated that the U.S. doesn't hold its own clients and partners to the same standard that it expects from other states. The Biden record this year wasn't all bad. On the plus side, the U.S. made some modest progress in stabilizing relations with China near the end of the year after months of deteriorating ties in the wake of the spy balloon incident in February. There was a small diplomatic breakthrough with Iran in the summer that led to the release of five Americans that had been wrongfully detained by the Iranian government. Unfortunately, the administration then reneged on releasing Iranian funds that had been frozen under "maximum pressure" sanctions because they didn't want to be seen as "rewarding" Iran following Hamas' attack.The administration also recently secured another prisoner release agreement with the Venezuelan government. While these were positive results, they were also hardly earth-shattering.The Biden administration had more success in working with established allies. They further developed the technology-sharing AUKUS arrangement with Australia and Britain, and they took advantage of a temporary improvement in relations between South Korea and Japan to strengthen ties with both. In both cases, the administration was pushing on an open door, and it is questionable whether either arrangement will endure, but they can at least point to these things as examples of advancing Biden's agenda. Even more than in previous years, the Biden administration's foreign policy in 2023 has been defined by too much reliance on military tools and too little effort put into diplomatic engagement. That may be one of the reasons why the public now broadly disapproves of Biden's handling of foreign policy. Both for his own sake and for the sake of U.S. interests, the president needs to make some major course changes in 2024 in Gaza and in his overall approach to the world.

Over the last decade, a new generation of foreign policy professionals has risen through the ranks in Washington. The post-9/11 world shaped its worldview, and despite diverse experiences and backgrounds, this cohort has developed shared values on issues ranging from global democratic norms to the need for changing the conversation on global terrorism. Many of us who belong to this cohort fundamentally believed that Washington's foreign policy institutions were evolving to be more inclusive and nuanced. But the U.S. response to the Hamas terror attack on Israel, Israel's disproportionate response, and the conversation dominating the Washington foreign policy elite, has shattered that illusion. It exposed the double standards — illustrated most vividly by the difference between discussions about the war in Ukraine and the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza — that dominate the so-called D.C. foreign policy blob.Living as a foreign policy professional in Washington over the last few months is reminiscent of what I often encounter in my home nation of Pakistan, where friends and family often tell me to speak in hushed tones in public when talking about blasphemy laws and violence against underprivileged communities.Many of us now find ourselves whispering our views on what is going on in Gaza, fearful of the impact that speaking out in public may have on our careers. One of my mentors who cut her teeth during the post-9/11 era told me to keep my head down and quietly work the system. Many of us know of examples of people who veered off the party line of commentary about Israel's attacks and found themselves shamed or, in extreme examples, fired.Things are changing, albeit slowly. Chuck Schumer's remarks on the floor of the Senate were described by Fareed Zakaria — a key establishment voice — as a "watershed moment". In addition, the Biden administration has placed sanctions on some Israeli settler outposts and increased its public criticism of the Nethanyahu government.But this is not happening because men like Biden and Schumer have somehow rediscovered their moral compass; they are in large part responding to the data which suggests that the White House's policies have put at risk Biden's reelection prospects. The growing domestic and global outcry about the civilian body count, destruction and famine in Gaza — and little prospect that Prime Minister Netanyahu is ever going to shift direction — have also contributed to the change in tone (though this has not prevented the administration from sending billions of dollars in new weapons, including 2,000-pound bombs and fighter jets, to Israel in recent days).The Biden administration may eventually abandon Nethanyahu, primarily guided by Biden's collapsing polling numbers among key constituencies. The Uncommitted Campaign, led by grassroots Arab-American organizers like Layla Elabed, has played a critical role by mobilizing hundreds of thousands of voters in places like Michigan and Minnesota.But the fear is that once the anger subsides, the current conflict winds down, and Israel elects a new leader, Washington will go back to its status quo policy of providing unconditional military aid to Israel, ignoring the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and paying lip service to a two-state solution.While things are changing, the mission to transform American foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine is only just getting started. Achieving greater influence to help shape better policies will take years, if not decades. The broader community will have to be patient, but forceful and uncompromising. It will have to work the levers of America's political system to develop a coterie of staffers on Capitol Hill, advisors in the National Security Council, and think tank scholars and academics who develop, shape, and influence American foreign policy for the better.While it is true that Joe Biden's embrace of Netanyahu's hard line government has cost him dearly, there are still things he can do to showcase that he is open to evolving his policies. To do so, Biden must not only call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, but also stop the illegal provision of offensive weapons to Israel, join the majority of the world's nations in recognizing the state of Palestine, and pursue a policy that punishes Israel for the continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian lands.Many of us who belong to this rising group of experts will not sit idly by in the face of stagnant, imbalanced U.S. foreign policy – much like our global contemporaries who reject status quo politics. The polls are now bearing this out: Americans do not approve of Israel's ongoing operations in Gaza. As a result, the Biden administration should not be supporting Israel further with weapons and military aid. President Biden and his advisors must recognize that Washington cannot continue dismissing the concerns and recommendations of their citizens and voters.

Are you looking for the perfect foreign policy book to start the New Year right? We spent the last few weeks asking our favorite thinkers what new titles they loved this year. Here are the seven books that stood out in 2023.Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy

By Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman"Underground Empire" tells the story of how America used the unipolar moment to create a vice grip on the international economy, making it impossible for most countries to do business with each other (or even exchange messages) without using U.S. payment systems or IT infrastructure. The world order, once defined by multiple dueling blocs, thus became synonymous with U.S. power.But empire isn't free. As Farrell and Newman note, Washington's constant use of sanctions and spying tools risks alienating other states and potentially bringing down the international system as we know it. Their book is a frightening reminder of the potential costs of overreach and a must-read for anyone interested in grand strategy and the future of global commerce. Ambitious readers may want to pair it with Chris Miller's "Chip War," a 2022 bestseller about America's quest to remain the kingpin of the world microchip industry.Grand Delusion: The Rise and Fall of American Ambition in the Middle East

By Steven SimonWhen observing the parlous state of the Middle East today, it's hard to avoid a fundamental question: How could well-meaning American policymakers have gotten the region so wrong? In "Grand Delusion," Simon argues that most of our missteps boil down to a mismatch between pie-in-the-sky ends and limited means, made worse by a conviction that "facts don't matter, only intentions." The biting and well-researched book is made all the more powerful by Simon's long background of government service, including top-level roles in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, where he argued in favor of many policies that he now badly regrets.Simon brings a palpable sense of anger at four decades of American overreach in the Middle East, dedicating a chapter to each of the last eight presidents, all of whom found their own unique ways to leave the region worse than it was when they took office. His book is a must-read for those who want to understand where U.S. policy went wrong — and how to do things better next time. (Simon, we should note, is a senior research analyst at the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS.)The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism

By Keyu JinThese days, most English-language books about China begin from a place of deep skepticism. Government statistics are taken as carefully crafted fictions, official statements as likely lies. What else would one expect as a new cold war dawns?"The New China Playbook" is different. Written by a London-based economist whose father is a prominent Chinese Communist Party official, the book offers a rigorous yet sympathetic view of Beijing's rise. Jin's work provides crucial insights into the complex and sometimes surprising balance that the Chinese economy has struck between different systems. By demystifying China's economy, she urges us to consider a future of cooperation instead of conflict.Some have argued that Jin glosses over the darker aspects of Beijing's government policies. Readers can decide for themselves. But one thing is certain: Her book offers a thoughtful point of view on China that you won't find anywhere else.Victory at Sea: Naval Power and the Transformation of the Global Order in World War II

By Paul KennedyCould any list of foreign policy must-reads be complete without a book about WWII? We certainly didn't think so. Enter "Victory at Sea," a wide-ranging yet page-turning look at the naval activities that defined last century's greatest war from an eminent military historian. Kennedy's book, which features new paintings from marine artist Ian Marshall, narrates the fall of old great powers and the rise of new ones, first and foremost led by the United States.Readers with a limited background in naval history shouldn't fear this book, which is less about the details of each individual battle than the broader trends in geopolitics playing out at the time. Some reviewers have noted minor factual errors emanating from some less-than-ideal sourcing, but all in all, "Victory at Sea" is a helpful and provocative overview of a vital moment in military history. (This one was technically published in 2022, but the paperback edition doesn't come out until next year, so we'll call it even.)A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy

By Nathan ThrallThe book starts with a living nightmare: A truck slams into a Jerusalem school bus carrying kindergartners, leaving one teacher and six children dead. Many survivors left the resulting fire with life-changing burns."A Day in the Life of Abed Salama" tells the story of the father of one of those children. Thrall narrates Salama's desperate efforts to find his son, an emotional struggle made all the more difficult by the fact that the life-long resident of Jerusalem could not legally enter Jewish-controlled parts of the city.The book expands on a 2021 essay in the New York Review of Books in which Thrall interlaces stories about the accident with a crash course in Jerusalem's history. The extra space allows Thrall to dive deeper into Salama's life, in which everything from his marriage to his child's education is shaped by the brutal realities of life under occupation. As war rages in Gaza, this book offers a moving testimony of the more mundane forms of violence that define life between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.Getting Russia Right

By Thomas GrahamSome books argue that the U.S. and Russia are natural enemies, doomed to fight until one side wins. Others blame one country or the other for a laundry list of sins that made cooperation impossible after the heady days of the 1990s. "Getting Russia Right," to its great credit, does neither.Graham combines a realist sensibility with the hard pragmatism of a long-time policymaker, drawing on a wealth of experience as in both government and academia. In his view, structural factors — chief among them the difference in how each side views Russia's rightful place in the world — combined with a series of impertinent decisions by both sides to leave bilateral relations in their current sorry state.By insisting on the agency of both Washington and Moscow, "Getting Russia Right" argues that better-informed decisions could actually lead to better outcomes. And Graham, in his typical style, lays out a clear and specific set of recommendations to encourage such a shift. His relatively short book is required reading for those who feel like one Cold War was more than enough.Beyond the Water's Edge: How Partisanship Corrupts U.S. Foreign Policy

By Paul PillarThere's an old truism that, while American politicians play partisan games over domestic problems, such petty squabbles give way to unity "at the water's edge." Pillar's book destroys this fiction, illuminating how party interests have all too often taken precedence over sober-minded analysis by patriotic bureaucrats. This phenomenon, in his telling, leads to unnecessarily long wars and corrodes our own democracy at home.While "Beyond the Water's Edge" largely focuses on the past three decades, Pillar sometimes reaches further back into U.S. history to demonstrate the ways in which officials have overcome this tendency. But Pillar, who is a former intelligence official and current non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, is far from pollyannaish: The book recommends myriad policies to reduce the influence of partisanship on foreign policy but deems their implementation highly unlikely. Little wonder that Francis Fukuyama described the slim treatise as an "ominous warning."

The year in foreign policy was marked by bloody conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and grief, plus political failures and missteps. Let's take a look at the most notable ones as we approach 2024.Losers in major conflicts and geopolitical shiftsUkraine: The bravery and endurance of the Ukrainian people and its military forces have been extolled time and again. But the failure of its counteroffensive in the spring and the summer of 2023 has led in part to a loss in confidence that the country can ever hope to expunge the Russians from all of its territories. This of course has been not only the goal of President Volodymyr Zelensky, but of his Western supporters. Many of those allies, including the mainstream press, are now suggesting that not only will Ukraine have to find a way to end the war diplomatically — which critics including contributors at RS and at the Quincy Institute have been saying all along — but may have to make territorial compromises.The goal of Ukrainian NATO membership seems like a faraway dream now, and as of the end of the year, the flood of weapons and money from Washington and Western capitals has slowed immensely. Zelensky, now being pegged as increasingly isolated and unrealistic, has seemingly fallen from grace. Unfortunately for him, this is not the first time in U.S. foreign policy history that Washington has turned its favor elsewhere, to the grave detriment of its former beneficiaries.Israel, and the Palestinian people: The government of Israel, blind-sighted by a brutal Hamas attack that left 1200 Israelis dead and 240 hostages whisked away on Oct. 7, has retaliated with such force in Gaza strip that it is squandering much of the rest of the world's goodwill and sympathy. Israelis, as wracked by grief and anger as they are, are not confident that their government has a plan for Gaza after the war, but are steadfast (at least according to polls) that the Netanyahu regime can destroy Hamas, and that care to avoid Palestinian civilian suffering should not be a consideration in executing that.Meanwhile, the Palestinian death toll in Gaza as of this week was well over 21,000. Israel claims to have killed 7,000 Hamas fighters but, according to the New York Times, does not explain how it came to that number. This has created a situation in which Israel (and its U.S. supporters) are increasingly isolated, whether it be at the United Nations or in public opinion across the globe. Furthermore, the Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from catastrophic hunger and a lack of healthcare (there are reportedly no functioning hospitals left in northern Gaza). Nearly 90% have been displaced due to Israeli military bombardments, and infectious diseases are ripping through the traumatized population.Joe Biden: The president of the United States has been backed into a corner on two major fronts this year. On Ukraine, his framing of the war as a Manichaean battle — and a struggle for freedom that will have global repercussions if America doesn't help Zelensky "for as along as it takes" — is coming back to bite his administration. Calls are increasing to begin diplomatic talks in earnest with a government that Washington had relegated to Hitler-like status. Meanwhile, Congress is pushing back on giving Ukraine the billions more in weapons and cash it needs to survive.Biden's team looks indecisive and vulnerable as it moves into what promises to be a brutal re-election. This has only been compounded by the administration's complete inability to rein in the military excesses of the Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank too. While supposedly making "it clear" to Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. wants civilians protected, Biden's administration did all it could to water down the UN Security Council ceasefire at the Israelis' behest, and even a resolution to institute humanitarian "pauses" has, as of this writing, not been put into effect.Biden has also greased the skids for all the weapons the Israelis have asked for, with American-made "dumb bombs" responsible for the multitude of deaths and property destruction in the Gaza strip today. Not only is Washington viewed as having no influence over the Israelis (despite the enormous sums of money and weapons sent there annually); it looks duplicitous when it comes to grand assertions about upholding the "rules-based order." Losers we might have missed ...The Armenian people: Every single Armenian — some 100,000 — was pushed out of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh territory by Azerbaijan in October. Earlier this year, Azerbaijan and Armenia had pledged to work toward peace after decades of conflict. But hopes waned as Azerbaijan continued a crushing blockade of goods and humanitarian aid to Armenians in the region. An Azeri military operation, launched in September, led to the ultimate takeover of the disputed land and the expulsion of Armenians within days back to Armenia.African coup and civil war victims: West Africa saw a continued rash of coups with two more in Niger and Gabon this year. In Niger, the military overthrew President Mohamed Bazoum in July and put him and his family in the palace basement where they remain today. Niger joins Burkino Faso and Mali as what Quincy Institute non-resident fellow Alex Thurston calls "the epicenter of mass violence and displacement in the region, and one of the worst conflict and humanitarian disaster zones in the world." The military seized power in Gabon in August, ousting President Ali Bongo after he had just won re-election. Meanwhile, a bloody civil war broke out in Sudan in April and soon became a proxy fight involving regional interests, with the Sudanese people, of course, caught in the crossfire. The conflict involves General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (himself a coup leader), pitted against his deputy and head of the Rapid Support Forces, General Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as Hemedti. By June, fighting in the capital city of Khartoum had left scores dead, massive property damage, and an exodus of some 100,000 to points abroad. Fighting not only continues, but is spreading, imperiling millions of civilians and throwing the entire country into a humanitarian disaster. The U.S appears to have little left, diplomatically, to offer.Sweden: The Northern European nation wants into NATO. But what seemed to be a no-brainer — its accession was linked to regional security and Western unity in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — has become a victim of cross-state politics and recrimination. Though as of this writing Sweden seems one step closer to joining Finland as a new member of the alliance, Turkey continues to use its leverage as a NATO member to get F-16s from the U.S. and force Sweden to amend its anti-terrorism laws. Hungary has been slow walking its vote too, accusing Sweden of telling "blatant lies" about the condition of Hungary's democracy.The American taxpayer: Before Congress left for the holidays, it passed $886 billion in defense spending as part of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These funding levels are the highest since World War II and, as the Quincy Institute's William Hartung points out, they are mostly directed toward "costly, dysfunctional weapons systems that are ill-suited to addressing current challenges."Aside from a pay increase for personnel, the 3% hike over last year represents a boon for the defense industry (which was accused this year in an important 60 Minutes report of gouging taxpayers) and the members of Congress who love them. As RS has reported many times, the defense budget does not reflect sound military strategy or even the national interest, but a wish list by contractors and politicians who benefit from funding expensive programs that in some cases, like the Osprey aircraft, put American troops in real danger. To make it worse, the Pentagon still can't pass an audit.And these guys ...Jake Sullivan: Biden's National Security Advisor penned a Foreign Affairs article entitled "The Sources of American Power," a 7,000-word attempt to put the best sheen on the Biden Administration's handling of current geopolitical events. Unfortunately, like much of the White House foreign policy approach over the last three years, it was out of step. Acknowledging "perennial challenges" in the Middle East, Sullivan said "the region is quieter than it has been for decades" and that "(we) have deescalated tensions in Gaza and restored direct diplomacy between the parties." The article was sent to print on Oct. 2, five days before the Hamas attacks on Israel. "Nobody can be expected to predict the future, but the essay offers a rare insight into how the United States misread an explosive situation in the Middle East," wrote the New York Times, which pointed out that the embarrassing comments were later scrubbed from the online edition of Foreign Affairs. However, Sullivan had been making public comments to the same effect all fall.American Generals: This year the retired generals and admirals who had been talking a big game about the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the failures of the Russian military have been forced to eat their words. Special attention should be given to all these four stars and flags (Petraeus, Stavridis, Keene, McCaffrey, Hodges, etc.) who make incessant rotations on major media and provide wrongheaded strategic assessments that are never corrected. They just pop up again in the next conflict.Malcolm Nance: One of the most visible pro-Ukraine commentators on major cable and on Twitter, the former Navy cryptologist left MSNBC in 2022 to help train the International Legion of foreign volunteers in Ukraine. His videos and tweets boasted his mission — as he was typically beefed up in uniform and weapons, ostensibly reporting from the combat zone — and drew a massive following of pro-Ukraine partisans.Then a New York Times expose dropped the bomb: Nance was enmeshed in a climate of petty squabbling and chaos and among those outsiders in Ukraine who were "fighting with themselves and undermining the war effort." He left the country and is still a commentator — on his paid subscription-only Substack. He's shifted to the Gaza War now, including a (week-long) visit to the Gulf States in October, penning posts like, "Ask Yourself, Are You Really for Palestine or Do You Just Hate Jews?" and, very much like his pro-Ukraine Twitter persona of 2022, accusing critics of Israel of "misguided ill informed myopia & latent antisemitism."

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year galvanised the West against not only the Kremlin, but also other rivals, especially an increasingly assertive China. But last month, French President Emmanuel Macron headed to Beijing, where ...

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis attempted to revitalize his flagging presidential campaign with a major foreign policy speech at the Heritage Foundation on Friday. Casting his foreign policy vision as the desirable middle ground between "post-9/11 neoconservatism" and the supposed fecklessness of Obama, DeSantis presented a familiar playbook of much higher military spending and hardline posturing mixed with some rhetoric aimed at appealing to Americans weary of constant foreign wars. Promising to make the 21st century an "American century," the governor endorsed a costly and dangerous China policy that would put the U.S. on course for a ruinous conflict in the Pacific.The governor gave the impression that he wanted nothing to do with Bush era foreign policy with his denunciation of "Wilsonian abstractions" and his criticism of nation-building projects, but when it came to the larger "war on terror" that Bush launched he had no substantive objections. He had nothing to say about reforming or repealing the 2001 AUMF, and he explicitly mentioned the Iraq war only once when he referred to his own service in it. He spoke in general terms about avoiding "murky missions" and "misguided agendas," but he chose not to identify examples of these things.The governor took his usual shots at Biden's foreign policy, predictably accusing it of being "rudderless" and "weak." This is a standard attack that hawkish opponents of an incumbent president make, and in DeSantis's case it reflects his instinct to take the more hardline position on almost every issue. He also faults Biden's foreign policy for being "solicitous" of adversaries, but this is based on a caricature of Biden's record that makes it much harder to take the rest of DeSantis's speech seriously.Among other things, he claimed that Biden "empowered Iran with sanctions relief." This is a cruel joke to anyone who has paid close attention to what the president's Iran policy has been. Far from granting sanctions relief, the administration won't even honor the terms of the prisoner exchange agreement that it reached with Iran earlier this year.The $6 billion of Iran's own money that was supposed to be released via a Qatari bank is still inaccessible in response to Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel. There is no evidence that Iran "orchestrated" the attack, but DeSantis stated this as if it were certain. Pretending that non-existent sanctions relief "fueled" the Hamas attack on Israel is another one of DeSantis's false claims.On Ukraine, DeSantis repeated his previous criticisms of Biden for alleged "weakness" that "invited" the Russian invasion. He added a new twist by pretending that non-existent sanctions relief for Iran is somehow going towards funding the Russian side of the war.DeSantis boasted about his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, which he somewhat misleadingly called the "Obama-Khamenei Iran nuclear deal." The JCPOA wasn't just a bargain between the U.S. and Iran or their respective leaders, but rather involved all permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. It was the most extensive and successful nonproliferation agreement to have ever been negotiated, and it substantially and verifiably restricted Iran's nuclear program more effectively than anything before or since. DeSantis's knee-jerk hostility to the deal and to diplomacy with Iran isn't news, but the fact that he still thinks opposing the agreement is something to be proud of tells us that his foreign policy judgment remains quite poor.DeSantis is nothing if not a China hawk, and the second half of his speech was dedicated to hyping the threat from China and making every other problem seem like an extension of that purported threat. The governor said China has "grand ambitions" and "seek[s] to be the dominant power in the entire world." This is a common claim from China hawks, but it is one that has remarkably little evidence to back it up. It's more of an article of faith among supporters of rivalry and containment than a well-founded assessment of Chinese goals.The governor assumes that the Chinese government wants to export its political system to other parts of the world, but there is scant evidence that the Chinese are intent on reproducing their system elsewhere. While the Chinese government does try to expand its political and economic influence, this is no different from how any other major power has operated. Treating China as if it were the Soviet Union 2.0 in terms of its ideological goals is a serious mistake that exaggerates the threat to U.S. and allied security.Because he believes that the Chinese government is "marshalling" its society to pursue these ambitions, DeSantis proposes that the U.S. should have a "whole of society" approach in response. That suggests a degree of mobilization and regimentation in American life that would make Americans less free. It would certainly require pouring huge resources into the military-industrial complex and the national security state.Like the China hawks that have been advising him, DeSantis insists that the U.S. should prioritize the "Indo-Pacific" above all else and allocate resources accordingly. DeSantis argues that deterring China will be achieved simply through strength and that Beijing will respect strength, "especially strength in their region."It doesn't seem to occur to the governor that increasing U.S. military power in China's vicinity will be viewed as a growing threat and will cause China to grow its military to keep pace. He has nothing to say about reassuring the Chinese government about U.S. intentions, but instead he focuses entirely on trying to intimidate them. That is a guaranteed path to an arms race and puts our countries on track for war.It is true that resources are scarce, as he says, but that makes the decision to squander those resources on a massive military buildup that U.S. security does not require all the more foolish. The huge surge in shipbuilding he proposes to create, first a 355-ship, and eventually a 600-ship navy would be very expensive and unnecessary. This "four-ocean navy" would be an extravagant waste of national wealth, and it is no surprise that the governor didn't tell the audience how he would pay for it.Copying a line of Reagan, DeSantis defines the end of U.S.-China rivalry in simplistic terms: "We win and they lose." If we take DeSantis at his word, that implies either regime collapse or forcible regime change, but the governor didn't bother to spell out how that might happen or what the dangers of such an outcome might be. He proposes pursuing an intense great power rivalry with a nuclear-armed opponent, and he defines that rivalry in zero-sum terms. That is a recipe for a major war that would have catastrophic effects on America, China, and the rest of the world.DeSantis talks a good game about not wanting the U.S. to enter "into any ill-defined or unnecessary conflicts," but his China policy would put the U.S. on a collision course for the biggest unnecessary conflict of all.Finally, the governor says that Americans must "arrest our country's decline," but embracing militarized rivalry against China is one of the surest ways of hastening it.

This article was co-published with the Guardian.Top Republican donor and TikTok investor Jeff Yass is connected to over $16 million in funding to anti-Muslim and pro-Israel groups that have advocated for a U.S. war with Iran and other militaristic policies in the Middle East, according to an investigation by the Guardian and Responsible Statecraft.Media reports on Yass, the billionaire co-founder of Susquehanna International Group, a trading and technology firm, have focused on his outsized role in the Republican Party, to which he is now the largest political donor in the 2024 election cycle, contributing more than $46 million thus far.Yass has also emerged as the biggest funder of a group targeting progressive representative Summer Lee (Pa.) in her primary race, suggesting an interest in influencing Democratic primary outcomes, not just in boosting Republicans.But little has been reported about his involvement in funding groups advocating a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy, hawkish U.S. policies in the Middle East and support for theorists whom experts described as extreme anti-Muslim conspiracists.Leading Yass's philanthropy in the foreign policy space is $7.9 million contributed to Jerusalem Online University between 2014 and 2019 by a grant-making group at which he once served as one of three directors.A Jewish Daily Forward investigation into the group in 2011 found that the website promotes itself as a source of educational materials about the Middle East and Israel, but the website's actual message is far more biased, the Forward found."On its website and its promotional materials, Jerusalem Online U hardly portrays itself as a center for neutral academic inquiry," the Forward wrote. "In fact, it boasts an explicitly pro-Israel mission that seems distinctly at odds with academic principles. In one advertisement for its services, the Jerusalem Online U site's blog features a video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling Congress last May that 'Israel is what is right' about the Middle East. The words 'Be a Part of What's Right' appear on screen as he speaks."The contributions came from the Claws Foundation, an entity at which Yass served as a director alongside Arthur Dantchik, a co-founder of Susquehanna and attorney Alan P Dye. Dye did not return calls for comment. The Kids Connect Charitable Fund — which does not list Yass or Dantchik as directors but listed the Claws Foundation as a "related tax-exempt organization" in an IRS filing and was identified as an arm of both men's philanthropy by Haaretz — contributed another $3.48 million to Jerusalem Online University's parent organization, Imagination Productions.The Claws Foundation also issued a $10,000 grant to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces in 2011 and $35,000 in grants, between 2010 and 2011, to the Center for Security Policy, an anti-Muslim and conspiracy theory-promoting group founded by Frank Gaffney, whom the Southern Policy Law Center describes as "one of America's most notorious Islamophobes" and the Anti-Defamation League describes as a chief promulgator of the conspiracy theory "that the US government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and that a number of political figures have actual ties to the group." The Center for Security Policy vice-president, Clare Lopez, has said: "When Muslims follow their doctrine they become jihadists."In 2013 to 2014, the Claws Foundation sent $250,000 to the David Horowitz Freedom Center, another central promoter of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. Horowitz, whom the group is named after and who serves as its president, once complained that Muslims are a "protected species in this country" and said he's "wait[ing] for the day when the good Muslims step forward," at a Brooklyn College event in 2011."The fact Yass is donating to Gaffney and Horowitz's organizations shows how extreme his politics are," said Tommy Vietor, former National Security Council spokesperson under President Obama. "They are beyond Trump. They are OG conspiracy theorists. Gaffney in particular."The Claws Foundation also donated $100,000 to the Central Fund of Israel in 2014, a group that the New York Times described as a "clearinghouse" for settlement development in the Israeli-occupied West Bank."The Claws Foundation has contributed more than $300 million, overwhelmingly to children's hospitals, adult healthcare, education and the arts in the United States, and has never sought to influence U.S. foreign policy," said a spokesperson for Yass and Dantchik. "Moreover, $31 million of Claws contributions went to the Shalom Hartman Institute, one of whose important apolitical initiatives is building bridges between Jewish and Muslim communities. Focusing on a few de minimis contributions promotes a false narrative that fits a biased agenda."Yass's philanthropy also appears to bring Yass into close contact with efforts to influence U.S.-Israel and U.S.-Iran relations via advocacy and lobbying campaigns. A non-profit group, QXZ Inc, is the largest identifiable source of funding for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) efforts to obstruct the White House's nuclear diplomacy with Iran during Barack Obama's second presidential term.In 2015, QXZ Inc contributed $1.5 million to Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, AIPAC's advocacy group opposing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement between the five permanent members of the U.N. Security council plus Germany and Iran to impose restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for Iran receiving some relief from nuclear-related sanctions.Vietor was dismissive of AIPAC's work opposing the Obama-era JCPOA but suggested that electing and influencing Trump became a goal of some Iran-deal opponents."[Funders of the anti-JCPOA campaign] lit that money on fire in 2015. They were incapable of beating Obama politically in terms of defeating the JCPOA in Congress so they changed tactics and went all in for Trump," said Vietor. "Trump chose to pull out of the JCPOA despite many of his advisers saying it would be a disaster and it has been. Iran is closer than ever to getting a nuclear weapon."Yass's ties to a group providing significant financial support to AIPAC's effort were unreported until now. QXZ's links to Yass were revealed when Strong Economy for Growth, a Massachusetts-based group, spent $1.2 million supporting a failed 2016 ballot question regarding lifting caps on charter schools. State campaign finance officials required the group to disclose the identity of its donors. Yass, via QXZ, was the largest funder of Strong Economy for Growth.QXZ's involvement in well-concealed funding of foreign policy advocacy continued in 2015 with a $250,000 contribution to neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol's Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a group that ran ads attacking Obama as "caving to Iran" with the JCPOA.The New Yorker's Connie Bruck profiled the group's strategies and reported that the ECI "sought to intimidate critics of Netanyahu, and Israel's most powerful American backers, for the escalating drive to war with Iran, and to damage Obama."Underscoring QXZ's commitment to the most militaristic and pro-Israel wings of the Republican party, the group contributed $1.05 million between 2018 and 2019 to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a club of hawkishly pro-Israel megadonors.A spokesperson for Yass did not comment on Yass's ties to QXZ but denied Yass's involvement in donations to the Emergency Committee for Israel, the Republican Jewish Coalition or Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran."Jeff Yass has never directed QXZ to fund any such groups and any statement otherwise is false," said the spokesperson.Yass has said nothing about his foreign policy agenda in public remarks but the timeline of his meeting with Trump and Trump's subsequent reversal of his position on banning TikTok offers an early indication that Yass may already be an influential figure for the Republican nominee for the presidency.Trump has a track record of shifting positions on Israel and Iran to align with political megadonors. Only after securing the nomination in 2016 did Trump pivot to more militaristic positions in the Middle East — committing to withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and supporting an unconditionally pro-Israel U.S. approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — positions in lockstep with his biggest political patrons in the general election, the late Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam.Yass's spokesperson denied that Yass seeks influence with Trump on foreign policy matters."Jeff Yass has never discussed foreign policy with Donald Trump, has never contributed to Mr. Trump and has no plans to do so," said the spokesperson. "Mr. Yass's philanthropy is largely focused on school choice and has nothing to do with foreign policy.""As a libertarian, Jeff generally opposes American involvement in foreign affairs as evidenced by his support for Rand Paul and Thomas Massie," the spokesperson said.

With a whirlwind of dramatic events gripping the world's attention, it can be easy to forget that we are now less than one year away from the 2024 presidential election.Despite their expected focus on domestic issues, candidates will have a lot to answer for this cycle when it comes to foreign policy as the war in Ukraine drags on and U.S.-China relations continue to deteriorate.The Democratic Party has chosen not to hold debates despite growing concerns about President Joe Biden's chances next year. With only a couple of months to go before the primaries start, the Quincy Institute decided that it would be useful to survey Biden's challengers from the left on how they would handle a range of foreign policy issues if elected.The candidates' responses show interesting differences on a range of questions, from a potential Israeli-Saudi normalization deal to the possibility of using military force to fight the cartels in Mexico. The questionnaire went out before the October 7 Hamas attacks against Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, but we pulled together candidates' reactions to the events where possible.We received responses from Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson as well as independent candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West. Biden's campaign declined to participate, so we have aggregated relevant quotes and information about the president's stances where possible. We did the same for Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who entered the race in late October and has not responded to our requests. We will update this page if we receive further responses.Biggest challenges to U.S. security; how to avoid war with China; potential negotiations to end the war in Ukraine; U.S. role in Saudi-Israeli normalization; withdrawing troops from Middle East; military force and the Mexican cartels; Israel-Hamas warWhat, in your view, are the three most pressing challenges to U.S. national security?Joe Biden (D)While President Biden has not directly addressed this question, his national security adviser said the following about the White House's 2022 National Security Strategy: "Our strategy proceeds from the premise that the two strategic challenges — geopolitical competition and shared transnational threats — are intertwined. We cannot build the broad coalitions we need to out-compete our rivals, if we sideline the issues that most directly impact the lives of billions of people." He further argued that "this is a decisive decade for shaping the terms of competition, especially with the PRC [China]. This is a decisive decade for getting ahead of the great global challenges — from climate to disease to emerging technology."Marianne Williamson (D)"The three most pressing challenges to U.S. national security are the nuclear threat, climate change, and our inability to go beyond the adversarial positioning in which countries view each other. We are closer to nuclear war than we've been in a long time. We must move towards a nuclear-free world, and we must begin by adopting a no first use policy. Once we adopt this policy, it will be much easier for us to get other nuclear-armed countries to do the same. There is no threat I am more concerned about than climate change. We are living through the last few years where we have a chance to save humanity. We must immediately undergo a just transition from a dirty fossil fueled economy to a clean renewable economy, and create millions of good jobs in the process. The time for incrementalism on climate is over. If we only view other countries through an adversarial lens, in terms of how they can harm or serve our interests, then we cannot deal with these crucial issues that challenge the security of all of us. We must work together with the international community for the common interest so that we can begin to deal with climate change, nuclear weapons, pandemics, and other threats."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"The most pressing challenges are the ones we have created ourselves. First is the risk of nuclear war, which belligerent and provocative U.S. policy has elevated to levels not seen since the Cold War.The second is the bankrupting of America's wealth, the result of decades of elevated military spending. The trillions spent on armaments could have gone toward building modern infrastructure, feeding and housing people, tackling chronic disease, and nourishing a thriving domestic economy.A third threat to national security is the epidemic of violence in our streets and in our homes. When we wage endless wars abroad, their mirror image afflicts us at home. Realistically, our nation is not threatened by an armed invasion by a foreign power. We have to broaden what we mean by 'national security' to include the things that actually make Americans feel insecure."Cornel West (I)"Climate Change: Climate change is not an endpoint that awaits us in the distant future, it is among us right now and impacting lives across the country and the entire world, especially the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged populations here in the U.S. — Black, Brown, Indigenous, and the poor. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), climate change-related damages cost the United States an estimated $165 Billion in 2022, Hurricane Ida, a Category 4 storm that massacred communities in Florida, including the loss of 150 lives, cost taxpayers approximately $112.9 Billion alone. Moreover, NOAA estimates that in the last 40 years, 341 storms exacerbated by climate change have cost the nation more than $2.5 Trillion. To put that into perspective, that's $80 Billion more than the national deficit of approximately $1.7 Trillion, thus far, for Fiscal Year 2023, and 1.5 percent of the national debt that stands at $161.7 trillion and counting. A nation already in massive debt, coupled with the astronomical costs of a growing climate crisis is the direct antithesis of national security. It's undeniable that more calamities associated with the climate crisis, including more powerful weather incidents that induce extreme flooding, extreme heat, and other environmental stressors, are inevitable. These events will have profound impacts on myriad systems and institutions that are necessary to maintain a livable society including, but not limited to, the production of food, access to clean water sources, the quality and availability of housing, transportation, education, and healthcare. The collapse of these systems could reasonably engender massive social unrest that would result in the massive displacement and forced migration of people as we are already witnessing with the United Houma Nation, Pointe-au Chien Indian Tribe, and Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw of present-day Louisiana, who are the first federally recognized climate migrants, whose land is literally sinking due to oil and gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, which has rendered their land susceptible to the impacts of climate change. In fact, the United Nations Office of the High Commissions for Refugees has predicted that more than 200 million people, globally, will be forced to relocate due to climate change, including 40% of United Statesians who currently reside in coastal areas. From the atrocities of Hurricane Katrina to the current situation at the United States border with Mexico, we have already witnessed the consequences of climate-related breakdowns of social, economic, and other systems necessary to maintain quality of life and life itself breakdown all coupled with mass migration of innocent people seeking refuge.Increased Militarism: The United States is the single biggest military spender in the world with an annual budget roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets combined. According to records kept by the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), in any given year, military spending accounts for over half of the federal government's annual discretionary budget. The U.S. military's bloated budget is utilized to build weapons and warcraft, which are in turn utilized to threaten other nations and demand their cooperation with the perceived U.S. military hegemony or offered to cooperative nations as part of military alliances. In FY 2023 alone, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, $1.1 trillion – or 62 percent – was for militarized programs. On top of war and weapons for the Pentagon, these expenditures include domestic militarism for police departments across the country and mass incarceration, as well as increased detentions and deportation, which represent direct threats to the security of Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor people in the United States. As we are witnessing right now, the current administration is complicit in thousands of civilian deaths by giving Israel military aid at $3.8 billion this year, half of which goes to Israel's missile system. They are now requesting a combined supplemental aid package at $106 billion for Israel along with Ukraine, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region, and US immigration enforcement at the US-Mexico southern border. To put this in perspective, combined with the estimated $113 billion in military aid the US has already sent to Ukraine, should the Congress grant President Biden's additional $105 billion package to Ukraine and Israel, this would represent almost 60% of the initially estimated $379 billion in climate change expenditures over 10 years included as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Further, the $105 billion military aid package to Israel and Ukraine is one hundred times the paltry $1 billion that the US pledged to the Green Climate Fund earlier this year, to fund climate mitigation and adaptation in the formerly colonized countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific. Our friends at IPS also indicate that the U.S. could safely redirect at least $350 billion from the Pentagon's current spending per year and achieve true security by ending wars, reducing our aggressive posture overseas, and reining in military contracts that drain public coffers for private gain - all measures that would actually increase national security, while making resources available for critical domestic needs including, but not limited to, increased access to healthcare, improving the nation's broken education system - including an iniquitous student loan debt crisis, and real action to address the climate crisis. With the largest military in the world, the US is the single largest greenhouse gas emitting institution and consumer of fossil fuels on the entire planet, with a carbon footprint bigger than 140 other countries. The environmental and climate impacts of global militarism and war are staggering. Militarization continues to increase greenhouse gas emissions and pollute and poison land, water and air through weapons production, storage, and use, which is ironic Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, himself recently declared, 'There is little about what the Defense Department does to defend the American people that is not affected by climate change. It is a national security issue, and we must treat it as such.'Rising White Supremacy and Nationalism: We have already observed how the interlinked crises of the calamities associated with climate change, which push those disproportionately impacted further to the margins and thereby increasing the militarization of the southern border, urban areas, and throughout the world to address associated entropy of social systems and infrastructure tends to increase sentiments that beguile far too many U.S. residents to embrace elements of white supremacy ideology, thereby increasing instances of violence and acceptance of authoritarian and fascist paradigms that represent clear and present dangers to national security – no one knows this better than the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2001, Attorney General, Merrick Garland admonished the Senate Appropriations Committee stating, in part, "Domestic violent extremists pose an elevated threat in 2021 and in the FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race." This salient issue has the potential to literally tear our nation asunder. A nation this divided is itself a national security risk that can be taken advantage of by nations hostile to the U.S. due to imperialist and interventionist past and present foreign policies of our country and their lasting impacts to [a] marked number of nations across the globe. Dismantling growing white supremacy and nationalism will require a multifaceted and intersectional approach that seeks to deracinate the root causes of this epidemic that prevents the U.S. from living up to its best self while also remaining a seemingly indelible threat. This will require tying requisite economic relief from an oligarchic approach to wealth accumulation and redistribution that exacerbates the white supremacy ideology ensconced in the fabric of this nation in such a way that has been negatively radicalizing poor white folk who may not even realize how the capitalist domination system upheld by the political duopoly extract from them as much as non-white people they are bamboozled to hate and stigmatize. I am confident that my Economic Justice prescriptions that include establishing a federal Universal Basic Income commission, wealth tax on all billionaire holdings and transaction, ending all tax loopholes for the oligarchy, and establishing a national $27 minimum wage, with special considerations for specific geographies where $27/hour would not be a family-sustaining wage, will be key steps in eviscerating the rise of white supremacy and nationalism in our nation that hurts the people perpetrated against as much as the people doing the perpetrating."As president, what would you do to avoid a direct military confrontation with China?Joe Biden (D)Biden has not directly addressed this question since becoming president, but a White House readout from his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping last year gives a good summary of his administration's stated approach to relations with China. "President Biden explained that the United States will continue to compete vigorously with the PRC, including by investing in sources of strength at home and aligning efforts with allies and partners around the world. He reiterated that this competition should not veer into conflict and underscored that the United States and China must manage the competition responsibly and maintain open lines of communication. The two leaders discussed the importance of developing principles that would advance these goals and tasked their teams to discuss them further. President Biden underscored that the United States and China must work together to address transnational challenges – such as climate change, global macroeconomic stability including debt relief, health security, and global food security – because that is what the international community expects."Marianne Williamson (D)"We absolutely cannot have a direct military confrontation with China, which would be one step away from World War III and nuclear Armageddon. The U.S. must accept that we are in a multipolar world. While I am deeply concerned about China's authoritarianism and serious violations of human rights, I do not think that China is interested in invading the U.S. or in starting a war with us. While we should do what we can through peaceful diplomacy to lessen Chinese human rights violations, we cannot start World War III between two nuclear-armed countries. Our military must stop trying to encircle China in the South China Sea. Instead, we must talk to China and seek peaceful coexistence."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"We believe that China has no desire for military confrontation. We will therefore ratchet down the tensions and cease the provocations in the South China Sea and elsewhere. We will adopt a posture that does not see China as an 'adversary,' and begin to negotiate arms control treaties in good faith so that both countries can reduce military spending to better the lives of their citizens."Cornel West (I)"We all know where a direct military confrontation with the People's Republic of China (PRC) will lead — irreparable nuclear holocaust that will lead to the loss and alteration of hundreds of millions of innocent lives over a conflict engendered by two so-called superpowers. We need to be honest with the people of the world, the U.S. and PRC are currently in a cold war that must be thawed to save lives and a global economy both hanging in the balance. The first step in thawing the current cold war will require a cessation to the myriad proxy wars that use nations like Ukraine, Taiwan, and numerous global south nations from Africa to Southeast Asia, to Latin America as pawns in an arms and resource extraction race. As president I will cease the saber rattling and chest beating that are doing nothing but instigating the PRC with military war games in waterways of Southeast Asia such as the Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea, East China Sea and others. I am confident this will open pathways for diplomacy that leads to cooperation in lieu of competition with the PRC. I agree with the Quincy Institute's assessment that the current administration's rhetoric of competition with the PRC is a feckless attempt to marginalize and exclude the nation from the global community, which in turn pushes them to form alliances with nations the U.S. also finds itself in a contemporary cold war with including, but not limited to, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia. One area where I believe we should especially be cooperating rather than competing with the PRC is the climate crisis. While it's true that the PRC is the largest emitter in the world, the U.S. remains the largest historic emitter despite only representing five percent of the world's population. Planetary survival literally requires less finger pointing at who is most responsible for the climate crisis and more finger pointing towards mutual and cooperative solutions. And rather than compete with the PRC for requisite critical resources to develop the infrastructure for renewable energy and regenerative economies, we must cooperate with them such that we don't render the need to address the climate crisis into a rationalization for casus belli over possession critical resources that will also drag global south nations into proxy wars they want no part of. The PRC, the U.S., and the entire world has a collective interest in protecting lives and the planet from the impacts of climate change. As president, my first step in avoiding a military confrontation with the PRC would be to invite and work with them to be a leading partner in addressing the climate crisis by exchanging ideas, resources, and technologies that can rapidly emancipate both nations from reliance on fossil fuels, which will improve relations, cooperation, and the habitability of the planet at once, while also preventing a military confrontation that will take more lives than the climate crisis."Is it in the U.S. national interest for the president to convene negotiations in an effort to end the war in Ukraine?Joe Biden (D)Biden generally emphasizes that Ukraine should be the driving force behind any peace negotiations and has argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin has not shown signs that he is ready to negotiate. He has, however, helped to convene several international conferences to discuss a diplomatic path forward, one of which reportedly included discussions about concessions that Ukraine may make in exchange for peace. (The administration denied these reports.)Marianne Williamson (D)"Firstly, this question is framed in terms of the 'U.S. national interest,' but I think it's time we start concerning ourselves more with the interests of humanity as a whole than the interests of the American government or American corporations, which is usually what is meant by 'U.S. national interest.'Yes, I think the U.S. should convene negotiations with Russia and Ukraine. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a despicable crime, and we should support Ukraine and their autonomy. However, we need to do what we can to bring about a just but realistic peace. It seems extremely unlikely that either side in this conflict will have a complete victory over the other anytime soon, so if we don't want to let this draw out for two decades like our war in Afghanistan, then we should press for negotiations. I think that the withdrawn letter by progressive Congress members from last year that urged negotiations was a good and reasonable letter, and they should not have buckled to pressure and withdrawn it."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Yes. Current U.S. strategic thinking is that the war serves the national interest by weakening Russia. That thinking is faulty on two counts. First, it is not weakening Russia. Second, a weak and unstable Russia would make us much less secure, not more secure. The United States and the world will be best served when Russia knows that we are not out to destroy her."Cornel West (I)"The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is not going to be ameliorated by military means. With $113 billion of taxpayer dollars already sent to Ukraine leading to no more than an endless war of attrition, as well as poll numbers indicating dithering support for a series of blank checks to continue it, it's clear the people of the United States have had enough. It's not just in the national interest for a diplomatic solution to this conflict, it's the duty of the President of the United States to lead this process with our global partners in Europe, Asia, and Africa. As president, I will give Ukraine no other choice but to enter a diplomatic process as part of my commitment to cease all war funding and weapons to Ukraine and instead invest in peacemaking."If Saudi Arabia agreed to normalize relations with Israel but requested a guarantee from the United States to defend the Kingdom militarily in exchange, would you seek to ratify a treaty making that commitment?Joe Biden (D)President Biden has not directly commented on this proposal, but his administration has led the initiative to negotiate a defense commitment in exchange for normalization.Rep. Dean Phillips (D)Phillips has endorsed the Biden administration's approach. "Never did we imagine it possible in our lifetimes to see the possible normalization of relations between the Saudis and Israelis. It's an extraordinary and historic opportunity not just for these two countries, but for the entire world," he told NPR. "The United States plays a significant role relative to a defense pact with the Saudis equipment and materiel relative to their military and potentially a civilian nuclear program as well. If those things can be met and also meeting some of the needs of the Palestinians, this could be an extraordinary legacy at a time the world surely needs it." Marianne Williamson (D)"No. The U.S. cannot get involved in another war in the Middle East – especially not in order to defend Saudi Arabia, arguably the worst human rights violator in the region. It is time the U.S. stops aiding Saudi Arabia and Israel in their egregious human rights violations."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"We think the premise of this question to be unlikely. Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth and has no need of such a guarantee. As it has good relations with most other nations, its [only] plausible national security threat is Iran. However, much of the Sunni-Shiite conflict in the past arose from U.S. geopolitical maneuvering that elevated tensions throughout the region."Cornel West (I)"I wouldn't even qualify this request as a treaty as it would be more of a death sentence for innocent civilians in the region and more service members, too many who have already been lost due to U.S. empire building in the Middle East, mainly to protect oil profits of fossil fuel cartels both domestically and globally. We need less iron domes and a more iron-clad diplomatic process that leads to lasting peace and mutual dignity for all people in the Middle East. To this end, as president I would insist that any normalization of relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel include immediate steps to liberate Palestinian people from occupation and a wanton cycle of violence that's killing precious Palestinian and Israeli lives alike."As Commander-in-Chief, would you bring home the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq and Syria?Joe Biden (D)While Biden has not directly addressed this question, a senior Pentagon official recently said the U.S. "has no intent to withdraw in the near future" from Syria.Marianne Williamson (D)"Yes I would, but in Syria, I would first negotiate an agreement that ensures the Kurds will not be harmed before withdrawing the troops that are protecting them."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Yes. Those nations do not want our troops there. I will instigate bold peace initiatives in places where there are still military tensions, in some cases replacing troops with international peacekeepers."Cornel West (I)"As indicated in my Policy Pillars Rooted in a Movement of Truth, Justice, and Love, as president I would immediately embark on a responsible and expeditious closure of global U.S. military bases as part of a larger initiative to cease and desist U.S. empire building and maintenance and slash the bloated military budget, including the disbanding of NATO, such that we can reinvest those funds in myriad social and economic justice programs domestically. As tensions in the Middle East associated with the crisis in Palestine/Israel grow, the U.S. presence is only exacerbating an already incendiary situation while putting brave service people in harm's way for no other reason than to maintain U.S. empire and a military hegemony in a region that needs less bullets and rockets and more diplomacy. To this end, as president, I would bring those troops home immediately, honor them for their service and ensure a Just Transition so that they can use the skills they gained in the military and put them to use for beneficial services to the people of the U.S."If elected, would you request an authorization from Congress to use military force against drug cartels in Mexico?Joe Biden (D)Biden has not commented directly on calls to authorize military force against the cartels, but a National Security Council spokesperson said in April that the administration "is not considering military action in Mexico.""Designating these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations would not grant us any additional authorities that we don't already have," the spokesperson added.Marianne Williamson (D)"No. The U.S. has invaded and militarily intervened in Latin America time after time, and it has only brought violence and misery and fueled the immigration that we now complain about. It is time we reject the imperialist Monroe Doctrine, which declared Latin America our backyard. It is time we respect our neighbors to the south and stop invading their countries."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Absolutely not. The Mexicans have the power to overcome the drug cartels themselves. We can aid them by sharing intelligence, by shutting down the illegal weapons trade, by cracking down on money laundering activities of US banks, and by prosecuting the cartels' collaborators in this country."Cornel West (I)"Absolutely not. To be clear, asking the Congress for authorization to use military force in Mexico would essentially be asking Congress to approve a military invasion through a declaration of war against Mexico. The so-called war against drugs in the United States has been and continues to be an abject failure. This 50-year war has been used as a rationalization for crimes against humanity, especially those most marginalized by failed drug policies - Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor people, who have been subjected to a racialized and classist mass incarceration pogrom that has needlessly locked up over 400,000 people for non-violent drug-related crimes between 1980 and 1997 alone. A failed domestic drug war should not be an impetus to start a foreign drug war in the sovereign territory of one of our North American partners. It should instead be an impetus to enact efficacious policies that treat addiction as a national threat to public health. Instead of increasing militarism and launching a foreign war, we should declare war against the lack of access to healthcare and the lack of economic opportunities that contribute to drug use. Reducing and decriminalizing drug use in the United States will directly reduce the amount of drugs that are smuggled across the border, thereby reducing revenues for drug cartels in Mexico. This is less an issue of militarism and more an issue of addiction driven by supply and demand."Reactions to Israel-Hamas warJoe Biden (D)In a speech on Oct. 20, Biden said: "In Israel, we must make sure that they have what they need to protect their people today and always.The security package I'm sending to Congress and asking Congress to do is an unprecedented commitment to Israel's security that will sharpen Israel's qualitative military edge, which we've committed to — the qualitative military edge.We're going to make sure Iron Dome continues to guard the skies over Israel. We're going to make sure other hostile actors in the region know that Israel is stronger than ever and prevent this conflict from spreading.Look, at the same time, [Prime Minister] Netanyahu and I discussed again yesterday the critical need for Israel to operate by the laws of war. That means protecting civilians in combat as best as they can. The people of Gaza urgently need food, water, and medicine."Rep. Dean Phillips (D)In a long tweet, Phillips said, "The destruction of Hamas is necessary, but the military campaign must follow international law and conventions of civilized nations. [...]I support a pause in hostilities and the immediate safe passage of civilians from Gaza into temporary shelters in Egypt and/or Jordan and the largest humanitarian relief effort in world history.I am pro-Israeli and anti the Netanyahu government — and [its] enabling of settlements on Palestinian land. [...]Israel has a right to exist, defend itself, and ensure the terror and butchering of Oct 7 never happens again.Palestinians have a right to a nation of their own, and that begins with a free and fair election for the first time since 2006 in which a choice can be made; peace or war.Israelis must also be afforded the same right to choose peace or war."Marianne Williamson (D)Williamson tweeted: "For Israel to prosecute an all out war on Gaza is already a catastrophe for the people of Gaza. It can easily become a catastrophe for the people of Israel as well. There's no end game there, for them or for the rest of the world, that doesn't multiply the horror. The United States should join an international consortium — Egypt, Jordan and others — in efforts to secure release of the hostages and cessation of the bombing."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)On Oct. 7, Kennedy said the following in a statement: "This ignominious, unprovoked, and barbaric attack on Israel must be met with world condemnation and unequivocal support for the Jewish state's right to self-defense. We must provide Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself — now. As President, I'll make sure that our policy is unambiguous so that the enemies of Israel will think long and hard before attempting aggression of any kind.I applaud the strong statements of support from the Biden White House for Israel in her hour of need. However, the scale of these attacks means it is likely that Israel will need to wage a sustained military campaign to protect its citizens. Statements of support are fine, but we must follow through with unwavering, resolute, and practical action. America must stand by our ally throughout this operation and beyond as it exercises its sovereign right to self-defense."Kennedy later warned against using the attacks and subsequent war as a justification for war with Iran. "It didn't take long for the neocons in Washington to spin the Hamas terror attacks to advance their agenda of war against Iran," he tweeted on Oct. 27. "If President Biden doesn't resist them, they might get their wish."Cornel West (I)














In a recent statement, West said, "US taxpayers want no part in funding the Israeli war machine that is committing genocidal war crimes in Gaza. We need stronger, clearer headed representation like this within our highest levels of government." He has also said, "We want a ceasefire. We want an end of the siege. We want an end of occupation. We want equal rights, equal dignity, and equal access for Palestinians and Jews."

Argentina is opening domestic air travel to foreign airlines for the first time. The same trick has worked wonders for Europe.

Maybe the problem isn't that scholars don't know how to speak to U.S. foreign-policy makers, but rather that U.S foreign-policy makers don't know how to engage with scholarship?

"America was ready for renewal. The world was there to remake. There were at least two more years to get it done."So concludes Alex Ward's recent book "The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy after Trump," a detailed account of President Joe Biden's first two years in office. Ward's deeply reported narrative ends in late April of 2023, with national security adviser Jake Sullivan delivering a speech at the Brookings Institution that symbolically brought the neoliberal era to an end.The story that Ward — national security reporter at Politico — tells is a compelling one. Biden's foreign policy team — led by consummate DC insiders who dubbed themselves "the A-team" — understood their mandate as working to bring Washington out of the abyss of the Trump years. Watching Donald Trump win the White House had led to a soul-searching moment for Democrats in the foreign policy establishment, pushing those who eventually became Biden's braintrust to embrace a new paradigm. "Sullivan had changed during the Trump years after working to define a progressive foreign policy, one that would appeal to denizens of the heartland as well as the well-heeled and well-intentioned urban elites," writes Ward. "The Democratic candidate, having watched his opponent in the Oval Office and the campaign trail, had also come to the conclusion that the usual message on foreign policy needed a first-page rewrite." The party would work to overturn what they perceived as the ills of Trumpism by re-embracing international allies and partners, and restoring American global leadership of the global "rules-based order." But, Ward writes, "force would be used only when the foundations of the world that the United State had helped build since 1945 were at risk. Otherwise, the guns would be holstered." The theme that Sullivan and others settled on to define Biden's foreign policy was "a foreign policy for the middle class." At times, Ward treats this approach with a critical eye, pointing to a number of inconsistencies in administration policy. But the ultimate narrative arc in the book is more clean: After a rocky start, with the nadir being the courageous but poorly managed conclusion to the United States' two-decade war in Afghanistan, the Biden administration recovered its mojo with its response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.Despite some bumps in the road, Biden and his team had begun to rebuild U.S. foreign policy, with a renewed focus on working with allies, upholding democratic norms, and protecting the so-called rules-based international order.That story has changed dramatically since the book's conclusion, which brings the reader up to April 2023, nearly a year ago. A lot has happened since then, and not so much in favor of Ward's narrative arc. If it were a classic VH-1 Face the Music episode, this is the exact point where the clouds roll in on our A-Team and everything goes careening off track, perhaps forever.And so, the response to the war in Ukraine is presented by Ward as a success. The methodical and comprehensive preparations in the months leading up to the invasion serve as a foil to the haphazard approach that marked the withdrawal from Afghanistan. According to Ward, the Biden team prepared for many possible contingencies, even though the political leadership in Ukraine was doubtful of U.S. intelligence that suggested an invasion was likely.The final chapter of "The Internationalists," before the epilogue that lays out Sullivan's speech at Brookings, features Biden's triumphant visit to Kyiv. During his address in the Ukrainian capital, says Ward, the president "wanted to prove that Bidenism worked — and the world just needed more of it." For Biden, Russia's invasion had served as a global test of democracy, and democracy had prevailed. Over the last year, however, the war has reached a "stalemate" — others say a war of attrition, with Moscow winning it. Despite these changing realities, the Biden administration has proven unwilling and unable to shift its strategy or messaging away from an understanding of the war as a fight for democracy that can only be won through military means. The message is losing favor in Washington, particularly among congressional Republicans, and politics in Washington have moved slowly against continued aid for Ukraine.Meanwhile, in its reaction to the Hamas incursion into Israel on October 7, the Biden administration has squandered any global legitimacy and consistency it had built in its first two-plus years in power, and undermined its message on the war in Ukraine. In just over five months, the White House has laid bare the hypocrisy and inconsistency of its stated commitment to human rights and the international order and left Washington isolated on the world stage. Things were different in May 2021 when war broke out in Gaza. Just like today, Biden chose to fully back Israel's war publicly while reportedly pressuring the Israeli prime minister behind closed doors. Biden chose to negotiate "methodically and quietly" with Benjamin Netanyahu and opted against playing a significant public role. The White House, according to Ward, welcomed the pressure from their left flank that played a role in the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, reached after 11 days of conflict. It was, according to the author, indicative of Biden's broader foreign policy vision: "Core issues that challenge the world order or America's leadership get his full effort. Everything else, the United States will help if it can."The response to that war is treated by the administration as a success, as it helped keep the conflict relatively short and contained. The opposite has resulted from that strategy today. Biden continues to publicly back Israel's war, both rhetorically and materially. Despite a breathless string of reports that Washington has privately expressed its "frustration" or "concern" with Tel Aviv, Israel's war continues seemingly without restriction as the Palestinian death toll surpasses 30,000. The White House has been largely dismissive of progressives calling for a sustainable ceasefire, and the risk of a regional conflagration persists.The Biden administration's response to what is happening in Gaza has also blatantly betrayed any ostensible commitment to human rights and international law, which had been so important to the White House when it came to Ukraine. "The reason the administration was set to dive headfirst into intense preparations was to defend the rules-based international order," Ward writes about Biden's mindset after receiving intelligence that Russia might go into Ukraine in late 2021. "If Putin succeeded in wiping Ukraine off the map, the world America helped build would crumble on this administration's watch." The White House has consistently made the case that the stakes of Russia's invasion of Ukraine are the future of democracy itself. The Biden administration has lambasted Moscow's violations of international law. In April 2022, Biden even accused Vladimir Putin of committing genocide in Ukraine. Yet when the International Court of Justice ruled earlier this year that it was "plausible" that Israel was carrying out a genocide in Gaza, the White House called the accusation "unfounded." Administration officials have consistently refused to condemn alleged Israeli war crimes, including the bombing of hospitals and the forced displacement and starvation of the civilian population. Instead of pushing for a ceasefire, the U.S. has continued to support Israel's war. Biden himself often ties the wars in Ukraine and Gaza into one larger, global project, including the ongoing effort to pass a spending package that combines $60 billion in aid for Kyiv with $17 billion for Tel Aviv.In addition to Joe Biden's campaign slogan of "a foreign policy for the middle class," Ward tries to tack on a few more principles that could define the president's approach. "He had developed a doctrine of sorts over two years in office," Ward writes. "Stand true with allies. Defend democracy. Avoid escalatory conflict. Preserve the rules-based order." On almost every count, he has failed to live up to those lofty goals.

A recent conspiracy about U.S. troops points to the wider problem of unregulated media in Iraq's polarized political environment.

Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary in the Blair government from 2001 to 2006. His five years at the Foreign Office saw him grappling with every conflict zone from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, the accession of ten new states to the EU, the failed accession bid from Turkey, the bombing of the Twin Towers on 9/11, and the Allied invasion of Iraq, led by the United States. At this seminar he will reflect on the role of Foreign Secretary with Sir David Manning, foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair from 2001 to 2003, and at the time of the invasion of Iraq, British Ambassador to the US.