In his first term, President Barack Obama’s vision for the Middle East failed to materialize. If he wants to make a lasting mark during his second term, he must ensure that U.S. policy in the region is no longer dictated by energy sources, friendly dictators, and Israel.
As many pundits have noted, if the rest of the world were voting in the U.S. presidential election, the third presidential debate would probably have proceeded differently. But since only about 200 million people on earth are eligible to vote for the man whose policies will impact all of us, the final stretch of the campaign has turned into a bipartisan exercise in imperial chest-thumping.
In the interest of keeping vital global issues in the discussion, Foreign Policy in Focus reached out to scholars at the Institute for Policy Studies—our institutional home—to sketch out progressive perspectives on the world issues we don’t expect to get fair treatment in the debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Without an informed citizenry, these crucial topics will always fall by the wayside. So read up, and share widely!
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute, while trotted out as a major rejection of the current administration’s approach to the Middle East, mostly just rehashed President Obama’s policies, albeit with more hawkish bravado. But Romney’s speech also included a host of faulty assumptions about Arabs and Muslims, indicating a potentially reckless misunderstanding of America’s relationship with the Muslim world.
In an election season consumed by the sluggish U.S. economy, foreign policy has been a more marginal issue than usual in the U.S. presidential race. But when they have ventured to attack President Barack Obama’s record on global affairs, GOP nominee Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan have avoided substantive issues in favor of tired talking points and dog whistles, chalking up a series of gaffes and exposing their own inexperience in the process.
“Blood and destruction,” “dreadful objects,” and “pity choked” was the Bard’s searing characterization of what war visits upon the living. It is a description that increasingly parallels the ongoing war in Syria, which is likely to worsen unless the protagonists step back and search for a diplomatic solution to the 17-month-old civil war.
There seems to be no way that Iran can retain its self-respect in talks with the U.S., Russia, China, U.K., France and Germany.
Almost 18 months after the onset of popular democratic protests, the Syrian revolution increasingly resembles a bloody marathon with no clear finish line on the horizon. But as Syrian society slowly disintegrates, non-aligned states from the developing world may show the way forward to a diplomatic resolution.
A commitment to nonproliferation can fuel calls for an attack on Iran just as liberal hawks supported invading Iraq to rid it of WMD and for humanitarian reasons.
Israel and the United States have waged a campaign of cyberwarfare and covert operations against Iran for the past several years. If Iran had taken similar actions toward Israel or the United States, we would have considered it a declaration of open war.