Articles

Far from robust, the federation is facing implosion

Don’t let Russia’s recent attempts to play peacemaker on Syria fool you — U.S.-Russian relations are still on the rocks. A range of issues — from Russia’s stubborn support for the Iranian regime to the Kremlin’s very public snub of the White House in granting asylum to fugitive whistleblower Edward Snowden — have cast a profound pall over bilateral ties. In the process, they have sounded the death knell for the vaunted “reset” of relations with Russia that President Obama made a centerpiece of his foreign-policy agenda during his first term in office.

Don’t let Vladimir Putin fool you. Russia’s president may be cutting an imposing figure on the world stage these days, but his country faces a daunting future

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s charm offensive has already changed the global dynamics over Iran’s nuclear pursuit to Tehran’s advantage, with the West easing its pressure and Israel now positioned as a stubborn outlier.

Also to Tehran’s benefit, Rouhani’s efforts have opened a clearer fissure between Washington and Jerusalem. Not only is U.S. President Barack Obama clearly banking on diplomatic success while a skeptical Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterates his threats of an Israeli military strike, but Obama also seems more likely to take a deal with Tehran that Netanyahu would find hard to swallow.

If you grew up any time in the last half-century, chances are you have fond memories of Charles Schulz’s iconic “Peanuts” comic strip and its hard-luck protagonist, Charlie Brown. Each week brought a new misfortune for the unhappy Charlie, but never more so than when his crafty friend Lucy offered to play football — a game that, no matter how many times it was attempted, invariably ended with Charlie flat on his back.

The British historian AJP Taylor believed that in Germany, classical liberalism always fails in the competition of political ideas. For over six decades, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) has tried to prove Taylor wrong. The FDP—which calls itself “Die Liberalen”—champions free-market economics and protection of civil liberties, while remaining the most “Atlanticist” of the German political parties.

The implications were chilling. In the summer of 2012, as murder and mayhem reigned on both sides of Syria’s civil war, someone—likely from the opposition—released a list of 32 names on Facebook. These weren’t people invited to a wedding; they weren’t members of the Syrian national soccer team; and they weren’t guests for a weekend jaunt to a fancy seaside resort in Latakia. These were people someone wanted dead.

On the surface, Russia seems to be a nation on the march. Last week, Russia's larger-than-life president, Vladimir Putin, strong-armed the United States into accepting his plan for dealing with Syria's chemical weapons. There are signs Putin is preparing to expand Russia's role in Iran and its nuclear program, which successive American administrations have failed to shut down.

India has launched a bold initiative to bolster its influence throughout Southeast and Central Asia. The Indian government is investing significant capital in Iran’s Chabahar free-trade zone and the surrounding infrastructure to secure its economic interests throughout the region, reduce Pakistan’s sphere of influence and compete with China. While this policy seems attractive in the short term, this course of action is fraught with unanticipated dangers. Investing in Chabahar not only allows Iran’s rogue regime to fill its coffers with the hard currency it needs to repress its people and facilitate terrorism, but may also harm India’s strategic relationship with one of its most important allies, the United States

Whatever happened to the war on terror? Unless you've been paying close attention, you could be forgiven for thinking that America's struggle against radical Islam is largely a thing of the past.

Barack Obama owes Vladimir Putin. Big time. That's the only conclusion one can draw from the president's nationally televised address on Syria on Tuesday evening. In it, Obama talked tough, highlighting the need to hold the Assad regime to account for its atrocities. But he also made clear that plans for U.S. military action have been deferred, perhaps even tabled, pending the results of Russia's plan to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control — a proposal that Damascus has hastily accepted.

As the White House considers taking military action against Syria for its use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians, the president has turned to Congress to authorize airstrikes. Lawmakers weighing their decision on the most consequential policy vote since the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq should encourage the President to also consider using an additional tool to force the Syrian regime to change course: stepping up economic warfare against Syrian banks and institutions that do business with them.

The ability to recognise and respond to threats just over the horizon is justifiably considered part of the collective job description of US defence planners and members of Congress. However, all too often US defence planning falls short of anticipating strategic trends, let alone crafting clear and comprehensive policies to address them.

The congressional debate over whether to support President Barack Obama's call for military action against Syria will revolve around the issue of "U.S. credibility," but here's the sobering fact: U.S. credibility around the world has already taken a huge hit due to White House actions of recent weeks.

You may have missed it, but on Aug. 14 Russia fired an economic shot across the bow of Ukraine. On that day, Russia’s customs office ordered intensive checks on all Ukrainian goods entering Russia, effectively imposing a de facto ban. This could have ended up costing Ukraine as much as $2.5 billion in lost trade by the end of the year.

Today, the U.S. and Moscow share few common interests

The fate of controversial National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, who was recently granted asylum by the Kremlin, is of little importance. His case, however, shines a revealing spotlight on the true state of U.S.-Russian relations, and on the sorry state of American policy toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Among long-time observers of Middle East politics, the sorry state of Israeli hasbara, as the country's foreign image-building is called in Hebrew, is something akin to the stuff of legend. Time and again over the years, Israeli messaging — on everything from its strategic intentions, to relations with the Palestinians, to foreign policy toward the Arab world — has fallen flat or received a cold shoulder from unsympathetic international audiences. This has been the case despite consistent, heavy investments from the Israeli government in the use of television, radio, print media and the Internet to win hearts and minds.

In 2012, amid the ongoing ferment of the so-called “Arab Spring,” officials throughout the Israeli government were expressing deep concern about their country's strategic position, and the potential for conflict on a multitude of fronts. Today, by contrast, Israel's security establishment can best be described as cautiously optimistic about its geopolitical situation, and with good reason.

Last summer, when the so-called “Arab Spring” was in full bloom, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey was riding high.

In his quest for a pure autocracy, Russian president Vladimir Putin and his government have improved upon Joseph Stalin's epic achievements.

In the March 23, 1983, address that formally unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), President Ronald Reagan famously outlined a vision that challenged the “balance of terror” that governed relations between the U.S. and USSR. Reagan proposed an alternative to continuing to live with the imminent threat of thermonuclear war: the development and deployment of defensive capabilities able to eliminate nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.