The All Too Familiar Presidential Question

A Familiar Presidential Question – once again, an American President will have to decide the role intervention and preemption play in American foreign policy

-Christopher Carroll

 

This year, President Obama will have to do exactly what he seems to heartily dislike. Soon he will have to re-examine the role America and the America military are going to play in the Syrian conflict. In doing so, he will once again signal the place intervention and preemptive action hold in American foreign policy. The results will have far reaching implications for Syria, Iran and the entire Middle East.

Just two days ago in off-record remarks made to Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), John McCain (R – A.Z.) and about a dozen members of Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry voiced skepticism that the Obama administrations Syria policy is working.

In what Jennifer Psaki, Secretary of State Kerry’s spokesman, deemed a “mischaracterization” of Kerry’s remarks, Senators McCain and Graham welcomed Mr. Kerry’s determination that chemical weapons removal was being “slow-rolled.” The two Senators have long been frustrated with the Obama foreign policy in Syria and believe that an increased military presence is required to bring an end to the ongoing humanitarian crises.

Kerry’s statements, explains Ms. Psaki, are in line with administration policy. “No one in this administration thinks we’re doing enough until the humanitarian crisis has been solved and the civil war ended.”

 The Geneva negotiations have as of yet proved fruitless. “We haven’t achieved anything,” explained U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. The stakes, however, are high. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 100,000 people have been killed, with nine million Syrians forced to flee from their homes and a recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggests that regions in the country are becoming a center of radical extremism and a potential threat” to the United States.

****

President Obama’s policy has been widely criticized since pronouncing two and a half years ago that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Now, with his Secretary of State, prominent members of the Senate, and senior members of the national intelligence community raising the alarm, Mr. Obama could soon be forced to make new decisions.

In 2014, an American President will once again be forced to decide the role intervention and preemption will play in American foreign policy. Syrian  rebels, President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin  will wait as the future of American intervention is determined. Meanwhile, Iran and the Middle East will watch for signs of the future of American pre-emptive action.

Will President Obama’s aversion for the neo-conservative policies of the Bush administration, coupled with his seeming preference for Jeffersonian foreign policy, give way to calls for action from members of his own Cabinet and Senate? Time will tell.

Killin’em Softly – a breakthrough in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program could change the international calculus in the Middle East

Killin’em Softly – a breakthrough in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program could change the international calculus in the Middle East  

 -Christopher Carroll

It seems that a team of international and Iranian negotiators are nearing a breakthrough in talks to temporarily halt Iran’s nuclear development program. For some, the news has been received with cautious optimism. For others, including some in Congress and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, the news foretells a bad future for American Middle-East policy.

However, if a deal can be reached and some sanctions lifted, Iranian relations with the world and with the United States may finally begin to improve. “For the first time in nearly a decade,” an administration official told the New York Times, “we are getting close to a first step that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from advancing and roll it back in key areas.”

Talks between Iran and what is now known as the P5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N Security Council plus Germany, are scheduled to resume next week in Geneva where a possible compromise to temporarily halt Iran’s nuclear program will be discussed. The hope is that a six month freeze of the Iranian program would grant international negotiators additional time to reach a permanent agreement with Tehran.

Talks will certainly revolve around Iranian insistence that the international community acknowledge their right to enrich uranium, a right that the United States asserts does not exist. Furthermore, any deal to relax economic sanctions would have to be accompanied by Iranian compliance with strict restrictions upon their program. Benyamin Netanyahu and Congress, however, fear that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are giving up too much.

Congressmen on both sides of the isle, including Senator Robert Menendez (D. – NJ), the Democratic Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham (R. – S.C), have expressed doubt over the President’s progress and desire to impose new sanctions on Iran.

As Senator Menendez explains in an Op.-Ed. for USA Today, rather than reduce sanctions, some in congress believe that “tougher sanctions will serve as an incentive for Iran to verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is similarly upset, charging that the potential deal being brokered by U.S  negotiators is “a bad and dangerous deal,” that will bring trouble “to a theater near you,” presumably the United States.

However, the potential benefits of a deal cannot be overlooked and both Congress and the Israeli government are choosing the status quo over a potential Iranian resolution.

****

While sometimes effective, economic sanctions can only take American and international policy so far. As Joseph Nye explains in his book, The Future of Power, economic sanctions are generally only effective when “economic relations were great, sanctions were heavy, and the duration was limited.”

While the sanctions have certainly been heavy (a vast majority of the $100 billion of Iranian reserves are inaccessible due to international sanctions and the country’s oil exports have been slashed by over 50 percent) the negative repercussions of long-term economic sanctions will outweigh the benefits.

“Soft” power, a vague and overused term in academic political discussion, is becoming increasingly important in international politics. Military power does not hold the political sway it did in decades and centuries past. America must weigh the political costs of imposing its will in coercive military and economic manners. If the Iranian government is crippled as a result of international, and mainly U.S, sanctions, the people will grow to increasingly resent Americans and the West. This will only foster stronger Iranian desire to obtain nuclear weaponry, regardless of the havoc such desire wreaks on the economy.

In today’s world, where communication, culture and commerce can be exchanged instantaneously, the soft power a nation wields is as important as it’s military might. Convincing world powers that they want to do your bidding, rather than are made to do your bidding, is a much more effective form of power.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and the United States Congress are right to be cautious regarding Iran. We have been down this road before. Additionally, Prime Minister Netanyahu not only fears a nuclear-armed Iran, but another powerful economic and strategic competitor in the region. However, a potential diplomatic agreement cannot be ignored.

It will be up to international negotiators to ensure that appropriate enforceable restrictions are in place. However, until then, Congress and the international community should be careful with their public posturing. The fact that simply halting the Iranian program for six months is a priority and a potential breakthrough cannot be overlooked. They must be getting close to something.

Could a Phone Call Lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

The Power of a Phone Call: Could it lead to Progress in U.S-Iranian Relations?

-Christopher Carroll

Though the country has grown accustomed to political conflict, strife and anger, conversation between foes is still possible; just not between domestic politicians.

It has been a tough time in Washington D.C. The government shutdown is entering it’s second week. The debt limit is expected to be reached October 17. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is widely known, has opened it’s insurance exchanges with a limp. Lost in the beavy of bad news in Washington, has been the progress seen in one of the most important international issues of the past decade. For the first time since the Carter administration, the Presidents of the United States of America and Iran spoke to each other.

The September 27th conversation took place by phone, President Obama from the Oval Office and President Hassan Rouhani from his car on the way to the airport following the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. It marked the first time since the 444 day Tehran Hostage crises three decades ago that leaders of the two countries had spoken to one another.

The conversation, which lasted fifteen minutes, included discussion of the most contentious divisions in Iranian-U.S relations. The two leaders, writes Peter Baker of the New York Times, agreed to accelerate talks “aimed at defusing the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.”  Presidents Obama and Rouhani also expressed their hope that a rapprochement between the two nations would transform the Middle East.

President Obama, in a statement to reporters after the call with President Rouhani, expressed cautious optimism, hoping that resolution of the nuclear issue, “obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual respect.”

The call came after a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif proved constructive. While President Obama had expressed a willingness to meet the Iranian President at a General Assembly luncheon, the Rouhani skipped the event, preferring to interact by phone to avoid political backlash at home. The fear that Islamic hardliners in Iran would provide political trouble in Iran seemed to fulfilled yesterday, when Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed his disapproval of the conversation.

Here in America, the news has had a mixed reception. Advocates for closer relations are excited, believing, as Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund explains, that “it helped fundamentally change the course of Iranian – U.S relations.” Others are less optimistic, believing that rather than a shift in U.S – Iranian relations, it is rather a result of the economic sanctions placed on Iran. “The economic pain now is sufficient to oblige a telephone call, though not a face-to-face meeting,” explained Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to the Times

What cannot be denied, however, is that this news is a welcome change in America.

****

While the talks between the two leaders certainly worries Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the willingness two converse is a good, and obviously important, step towards addressing serious concerns in relations between Iran and the U.S. The President who rode into the White House preaching the importance of conversation and compromise with allies and enemies alike, is exhibiting the foreign policy he called for. While his strategies have largely failed in the realm of domestic politics, it will hopefully lead to real progress in international politics. By being willing to engage in conversation with the international community, the President might yet again show a surprising deftness of hand in foreign policy; one he seems to lack in domestically.

The President should be cautious about the way he moves forward from here. He must not be willing to sell the farm too early and give too much in negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. Doing so would not only allow a volatile country to arm itself with catastrophic weaponry, but would also undermine relations with Israel, still one of our most important allies, and could compromise moderate Iranian politicians in the Middle East, crippling any potential progress in negotiations. However, pursuing genuine conversation with Iran will send a message to the entire world that America is no longer going force it’s will on the world in back rooms, with the lights off and night vision goggles on. America is going to talk to it’s enemies and it’s allies, it’s neighbors, friends, and competitors, and work to not only ameliorate threats to American interests, but resolve the issues that face the worldwide community.

Americans that have grown used to political competition and conflict should take heart in the President’s actions and American politicians would do well to look toward the President’s example. Conversation between foes can become a conversation between colleagues.

The Path not Recently Traveled

The Path not Recently Traveled – Under President Obama’s leadership, American foreign policy is rejecting recent habits

-Christopher Carroll

As we delve deeper into President Obama’s second term, his vision for American military involvement abroad becomes more distinct. Following Saturday’s developments in the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations, it is clear the President Obama is leading America toward more restrained military involvement in American foreign policy.

Though it has been a back and forth month for Obama, it has been one consistently restrained in style. Just weeks ago, the President called on Congress to vote to approve military action against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons caché, a move that threw past presidential practice to the wind. Just days later, after it seemed clear that Congress would not approve such action, Russia and Syria suggested the possibility of putting the weapons under international control. These negotiations prompted Obama to ask Congress to delay the vote, fearful that Congressional refusal of military action would permanently cripple Secretary of State John Kerry in talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On Saturday, Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement that could bring Syrian chemical weapons under control and even begin destroying them in 2014. The diplomatic solution trumped the threat of military intervention.

If all goes according to plan, this is a victory for President Obama. Not only will Syrian weapons be accounted for and destroyed, but the Obama administration finds itself able to save face while not getting too close to the conflict. However, cancelling the Congressional vote on military action came at a cost; allowing members of Congress to avoid ownership of their opinions and making it nearly impossible to change course and use military force. The latter was a cost the President seems more than willing to pay. The former, is a shame.

****

Delaying the vote on Syrian action effectively made it impossible for President Obama to deploy American force if the deal is not adhered too.  Without a doubt, delaying the vote prevented the damage that would have been done if Congress rejected military action, however it did not preserve the President’s ability to deploy military personnel, a power he effectively abdicated to Congress. To do so, he would have to withstand seriously damaging himself domestically and the benefits the President gained by turning to Congress last week have now been entirely undercut before reaching their full potential.

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 -Christopher Carroll

A new age is dawning in American foreign policy. As Congress’ summer recess comes to a close, groundbreaking decisions can’t be made in Washington. President Obama’s decision to involve Congress in any military operations in Syria, is one with profound implications for Syria and one that will reverberate for generations in American policy.

****

A year after Obama’s famous “red-line” comments, the administration is now citing evidence that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons on their own people.

The announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry was immediately followed by wide speculation about the nature of U.S involvement in the conflict. Conjecture on the scope of military involvement ran rampant, especially given the United State’s shady intervention record recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and the David Cameron’s announcement that the parliament of the United Kingdom had voted down the possibility of U.K military involvement in Syria. Would Obama commit the United States’ military to difficult operations in an excruciatingly complex revolution without concrete goals and clear cut, comprehensive results? 

Obama, in an atypically shrewd act of political navigation, has relieved himself of enforcing his naive “red-line” comments. He has given Congress exactly what they are always clamoring for, more power and the final say in military efforts while simultaneously finding himself able to argue that he isn’t backing down. The President has saved himself from the attacks that surely were to follow his decision regardless of what is decided while providing Congress with what they have traditionally claimed they deserve.

President Obama has already received the support for military action. House Speaker Boehner (R. – OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. – Va), and the Senate Foreign relations committee have all approved of combat operations. This does not mean that it’s passage in the House is a sure thing. Members of Congress will have to publicly state their positions on the Syrian conflict, something that many politicians have been hesitant to do. Some congressmen, fearful of war-weary public repercussions, are likely to buck their party leadership. Others, more fearful of how history will judge them if they don’t take action in Syria, are more likely to approve the limited U.S military engagement. President Obama, meanwhile, is sitting back in political safety, letting the chips fall where they may.

Obama’s decision to turn to congress has major consequences in the international arena both inside and outside Syria. French President Francois Hollande, who, in France, does not need parliamentary approval to use the military and who has already expressed his willingness to follow the U.S into military action, may find that he has few options following the U.K and U.S precedents, forcing him to allow French parliamentary involvement (a major decision given the poor support military intervention has among the French public) in decisions regarding French military engagement. Additionally, Israel and Iran are closely watching this new congressional trend in American military action. While Iran watches to see if a new American military paradigm has been born, Israel looks upon President Obama’s action with apprehension, fearing that this new trend may negatively influence American willingness to help them in potential conflicts over Iran’s nuclear power program. A potentially new trend in American military use will certainly change the playing field between these two countries as both wonder whether or not Americans will continue to readily expend blood and treasure on foreign soil.

****

The President’s decision has immense long term repercussions on the future of American foreign policy.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was meant to check the President’s ability to commit American military forces to armed conflict. Presidents are granted 60 days of military engagement plus 30 days of withdrawal from any action without Congressional approval. Unauthorized use of military personnel is technically against the law. However, that law has frequently been circumvented and even entirely ignored by presidents, making it now an accepted part of the “imperial presidency” that some feel endangers American structural integrity.

President Obama’s rejection of such action is shocking, all the more so given the lack of worldwide support for the Syrian opposition and worldwide pressure to act. Does this mean that there will never again be a Vietnam conflict or Iraq War disaster? Probably not. Does this mean the Iran/Contra affairs of the future will never again come to fruition? Hopefully. Will America, by deferring all military action to Congress, cease acting unilaterally in international crises? Doubtful. But rather than being remembered for budget and debt debates, Summer 2013 may be remembered for a shifting of government structure in Washington D.C.

Time will tell if we are indeed nearing the end of an era marked by American presidential military action. If this trend holds true, it will without a doubt be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Having entered office a constitutional lawyer and professor, the President has followed long, winding road through Nobel laurels and Wilsonian ideals. But, as he nears the close of his presidency, he seems to be becoming a Jeffersonian. The country and the world would best take note. American foreign policy is entering a new era.