Is A New U.S. Strategy On Its Massive Military Deployments Overseas Needed?

Kim Hjelmgaard, USA Today: 'A reckoning is near': America has a vast overseas military empire. Does it still need it? 

The U.S. has enjoyed global military dominance for decades. But in the face of emerging threats, some say a new strategy is in order. 

MANAMA, Bahrain – After weeks at sea, hundreds of young Americans shed their military uniforms for baseball caps and T-shirts and poured forth from the main gates of the heavily fortified U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet base, a major hub for U.S. naval forces in the Middle East. 

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln had just docked in Bahrain, a small Arab island nation on the southwestern coast of the Persian Gulf. The disembarking U.S. service members were intent on cutting loose for a respite from their national security mission patrolling one of the world's busiest and most volatile shipping lanes. 

About 200 miles to the east, across a body of water that has seen many tense naval encounters and acts of sabotage, sat America's longtime adversary Iran. It was November 2019. 

Read more .... 

WNU Editor: This blog has been advocating for a debate on U.S. national security priorities and policies to justify its military programs and budgets. Unfortunately. I do not see that debate happening anytime soon.

Will President Biden Abandon Afghanistan?

Patrick J. Buchanan: Is Biden Prepared to Lose Afghanistan? 

Is President Joe Biden prepared to preside over the worst U.S. strategic defeat since the fall of Saigon in 1975? 

For that may be what’s at stake if Biden follows through on the 2020 peace deal with the Taliban to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 1 — just two months from now. Consider.

If the 2,500 American troops remaining in Afghanistan are pulled out, the entire 10,000-troop NATO contingent departs. 

This would write an end to the Western military commitment. And the likelihood the Kabul government could then survive the constant and increasing attacks from the Taliban, as the latter now control half of the country and many roads leading to the capital, is slim. 

Read more .... 

WNU Editor: Pat Buchanan does have a point .... After all, an Afghan army that could not defeat the Taliban a decade ago, when 100,000 U.S. troops were fighting alongside it, is not going to rout the Taliban after the Americans have gone home. 

The rest of Pat Buchanan's commentary is a must read.

What Will America's Forever Wars Look Like Under President Biden

Joe Biden pauses while he delivers a speech at a campaign event for democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. (Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock) 

Danny Sjursen. The Nation: What Our Forever Wars Will Look Like Under Biden 

Expect the new president to eschew starting new wars while avoiding to end existing ones. 

Hard as it is to believe in this time of record pandemic deaths, insurrection, and an unprecedented encore impeachment, Joe Biden is now officially at the helm of the US war machine. 

He is, in other words, the fourth president to oversee America’s unending and unsuccessful post-9/11 military campaigns. In terms of active US combat, that’s only happened once before, in the Philippines, America’s second-longest (if often forgotten) overseas combat campaign. 

Yet that conflict was limited to a single Pacific archipelago. Biden inherits a global war—and burgeoning new Cold War —spanning four continents and a military mired in active operations in dozens of countries, combat in some 14 of them, and bombing in at least seven. That sort of scope has been standard fare for American presidents for almost two decades now. Still, while this country’s post-9/11 war presidents have more in common than their partisan divisions might suggest, distinctions do matter, especially at a time when the White House almost unilaterally drives foreign policy.

Read more .... 

WNU Editor: President Trump is the first US President in my life time who did not start a new war and/or escalated an existing one. I do not expect President Biden will achieve the same result. What I expect in a Biden administration is an escalation of a war or two (Afghanistan is on the top of my list), and maybe the start of an insurrection/war here or there (a few African countries are on my list).

Did President Trump Wreck The International Order?

In this photo made available by the German Federal Government, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, center, speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump, seated at right, during the G7 Leaders Summit in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, on Saturday, June 9, 2018. German Federal Government/Jesco Denzel via Associated Press

Brett Bruen, Business Insider: Trump wrecked the international order. It's time to start thinking about what happens when he's gone.

* From abandoning the Kurds to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and Iran Deal to attacking NATO, President Trump has undermined the post-Cold War international order and diminished America's influence around the world.
* So it's time to think about how we should rebuild the trust with out allies and shape the world once Trump is out of office, whether that's in a few months or a few years.
* Brett Bruen was the director of global engagement in the Obama White House and a career American diplomat. He runs the crisis-communications agency Global Situation Room.

How will we put international institutions back together when Donald Trump finally leaves office?

Whether his departure comes in a matter of months or years, the damage he wrought will be considerable. Leaders both in the US and abroad need to begin drawing up plans. A bold new strategy and structure is required to restore a semblance of stability and security around the globe.

America's influence has dramatically declined during the Trump Administration. Under this president, the US abandoned the Kurds on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq, left the Paris Agreement on climate change, pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, and dumped the Iran Nuclear Deal. Trump wants to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization and even threatened to leave NATO.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I do not share the above commentator's view that the international order was stable and secure until President Trump arrived. I have been following foreign policy and international events for almost four decades, and IMHO the system was incredible messed up and dysfunctional before President Trump even decided to run for office. If President Trump is to be blamed for something, it is for exposing to the public on how bad the situation has become.

Are America's Days Of International Policing Over?

Image: Flikr / U.S. Department of Defense

Ramon Marks, National Interest: America's Days of International Policing are Over

The United States can no longer act as the lone, dominant military power around the globe.

The Trump administration indicated that it may change the number of U.S. troops in NATO when it threatened to remove those troops from Germany and possibly send them to Poland. While Congress appears to have blocked that step, this festering controversy in NATO over troop levels and participation is not going to disappear. Ever since President Donald Trump took office, he has raised the complaint level by several decibels over the continuing failure of European NATO allies to meet a 2014 agreement to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on their defense budgets by 2021. Of the major powers, Germany is the worst offender, spending only 1.3 percent of its GDP on defense, and not pledging to meet the 2 percent annual goal until 2031.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Running an empire is not what most Americans want. The fact that the U.S. has played that role for the past 75 years is definitely a unique moment in its history, and one that I think will change to a lesser role in the coming years.

World Leaders Are Hoping That Bided Wins The Presidency In November

Marc Champion and Nick Wadhams, Bloomberg: World Leaders Face Dilemma: Deal With Trump or Hang On for Biden

(Bloomberg) -- America’s allies and rivals face a tough choice as Donald Trump trails in polls ahead of November’s presidential election: Wait to see if he loses to presumptive Democratic candidate Joe Biden, or cut deals now to avoid negotiating with an emboldened second-term Trump.The president addressed that dilemma himself in a tweet celebrating the release of an American prisoner, Michael White, from Iran earlier this month.

“Don’t wait until after U.S. Election to make the Big deal,” Trump wrote. “I’m going to win. You’ll make a better deal now!”

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Xi, Merkel, Trudeau .... it is easy to know who wants President Trump gon, and they are going to do what they can to make sure he is gone. As for the others, they are nervous that even if they get a deal on an issue with President Trump, it will be rescinded by a Biden administration.

Is America's Defense Better Off Today Than We Were Four Years Ago? .

Robert Haffa, RCD: America’s Defense: Are We Better Off Today Than We Were Four Years Ago?

In 2020, are you better off today than you were four years ago?

The phrase dates to the final week of the 1980 presidential campaign between President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Although the race was considered close, it turned sharply in Reagan’s favor when he asked that famous question of the audience: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

This November, voters' answer to a similar question may have much to do with the effect they personally feel from the Covid-19 virus, the way they perceive the administration has handled the pandemic and the state of the economic recovery.

In contrast, American foreign and defense policy seldom play a defining role in U.S. presidential elections. However, in recent Gallup polls, national security/terrorism ranks right up there with health care, education, gun policy, and the economy as issues the electorate cares about. The lack of preparation for a pandemic may lead to further questions on America’s national security. It is worth asking, then, in terms of national defense: are we better off today than we were four years ago?

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Are we better off? I had to think about this one for a few minutes. The trend is to extradite the U.S. out of the never-ending conflicts in the Middle East and the never-ending war in Afghanistan. That will help in the long term US national security. Unfortunately the global pandemic has definitely changed the national security scene. Everyone is focused on combating and recovering from the pandemic rather than pursuing national security and foreign policy objectives. As a result, national security and defense will be taking a back seat for the next few years. This makes the global situation ripe for countries like China to exploit, and that alone will definitely strain US defense commitments. So in answer to the above question .... are we better off? Not fighting these wars has (and will) help America's defenses, but we are now entering a new era where I can easily argue that we will not be better off this time next year.

Rivals Are Now Testing Limits of American Influence

Lightly News: As Virus Toll Preoccupies U.S., Rivals Test Limits of American Influence

WASHINGTON — With the United States preoccupied by the sobering actuality of greater than 100,000 Americans lifeless from the coronavirus, China has pushed in current weeks to maneuver troops into disputed territory with India, proceed aggressive actions within the South China Sea and rewrite the foundations of the way it will management Hong Kong.

At roughly the identical time, Russian fighter jets roared dangerously near American Navy planes over the Mediterranean Sea, whereas the nation’s house forces performed an antisatellite missile take a look at clearly aimed toward sending the message that Moscow might blind U.S. spy satellites and take down GPS and different communications programs. Russia’s navy cyberunits have been busy, too, the National Security Agency reported, with an revolutionary assault that will portend accelerated planning for a strike on e mail programs this election 12 months.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The U.S. is not the only one being tested. Everyone is testing the limits of everyone else right now.

Are These The 3 Worst Foreign Policy Disasters Of The 2010s?

Daniel R. DePetris, Foreign Policy: The 3 Worst Foreign Policy Disasters of the 2010s

Will Washington be able to dodge similar mistakes in the 2020’s? This is certainly the hope. But if U.S. officials are too afraid to come to terms with their own-goals over the last decade, they are flirting dangerously with failure.

With the year 2019 coming to a close, the world is poised to enter a brand new decade of promise, opportunity, and unpredictability. None of us have a crystal ball; we can only hope that the next stretch of time is peaceful and prosperous, devoid of the kind of superpower conflagrations that defined the Cold War period.

Progress over the next decade will depend in large measure on our ability to avoid the kinds of self-inflicted wounds that can make our lives hell. For the men and women who have the privilege and weighty responsibility of running U.S. foreign policy in the future, avoiding mistakes means looking back in time and recognizing when judgment was poor and when policy errors were made. There is no better time to perform this exercise than at the end of a calendar year.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I disagree with number two. No deal was signed, and inspectors were denied access to Iranian military installations long suspected of conducting nuclear research and enrichment. This "agreement" also emboldened Iran to become actively engaged in military operations in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while green lighting military strikes by their allies against Israel and Saudi Arabia. In short, they have become like Saudi Arabia (as outlined in foreign policy disaster #3), but on steroids.

Did U.S. Foreign Policy Fall Apart In 2019?

France's President Emmanuel Macron and Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel look on as U.S. President Donald Trump and Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan walk during a photo opportunity at the NATO leaders summit, December 4, 2019. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann/Pool

Julian Borger, The Guardian: 2019: the year US foreign policy fell apart

Donald Trump’s approach to the world is little more than a tangle of personal interests, narcissism and Twitter outbursts

Donald Trump meets the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, at the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea, on 30 June. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP

The new decade is about to start under many shadows, but none is more ominous than North Korea’s threat to return to nuclear and long-range missile tests after a two-year lull.

Pyongyang’s pendulum swing from enthusiastic summit diplomacy back to name-calling and threats comes as Donald Trump is increasingly focused on his re-election campaign.

That may be a good thing, as the US president will be wary of provoking a crisis to spoil his narrative of peace and prosperity.

Or it could be a very bad thing: Kim Jong-un could seek to exploit a moment of maximum leverage and miscalculate.

Read more ....

Update: Trump faces raft of foreign policy challenges in new year (AP)

WNU Editor: Almost all of the news commentary and pundit opinions that I read today on US foreign policy are negative. The above post by Julian Borger from the Guardian is one of the mild ones. As to what is my view .... it is different. The U.S. is slowly disengaging from the wars that it has been involved in for almost two decades, and it is also restoring some of the trade imbalances that have favoured China. A new NAFTA trade deal with Mexico and Canada is also moving forward, and it will be probably be finally signed in 2020. Just those three points by themselves is why I will say that the past year has been a foreign policy win for the Trump administration, even though everyone else has a different point of view.

Former U.S. Ambassador Says President Trump's Ambassador's Have Been Inadequate

Former US Ambassador Rufus Gifford with President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and their wives (Twitter)

Rufus Gifford, Business Insider: I was once an ambassador, and I believe that the Trump administration's ambassadors have wrecked a once important part of America's foreign policy

* President Barack Obama appointed Rufus Gifford to be the US ambassador to Denmark; he served from 2013 to 2017.
* There's been a critical rethinking of the role of politically important ambassadors.
* President Donald Trump's ambassadors have been consistently inadequate, Gifford says, including his own successor.
* Gifford says it's time to ask ourselves the question that if the system can allow for people to be confirmed to a position where they are so clearly putting ideology and political party over Constitution and country.
* Rufus Gifford was part of the senior leadership of Obama's presidential campaigns and a former candidate for US Congress in Massachusetts' 3rd District.

There have been so many headlines decrying the quality of politically appointed ambassadors. The New Republic declared "Mega-Donor Ambassadors Are Corrupting Americans Diplomacy." The Atlantic: "As the Rich Get Richer, the Ambassadors Get Worse."

Even Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren took aim at the idea of politically appointed ambassadors.

"The practice of auctioning off American diplomacy to the highest bidder must end," Warren said.

These headlines have drawn my attention because I was a politically appointed ambassador.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: President Trump was very slow to fill empty ambassador slots when he was inaugurated, and was criticized for it. Now he is being criticized for his choices. You just can't win. 

'American Experts' Did Not Forsee The Current Uprising In Iran

People protest against increased gas price, on a highway in Tehran, Iran November 16, 2019. Nazanin Tabatabaee/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Liel Leibovitz, New York Post: Iran in flames and ‘experts’ didn’t foresee it due to Trump-hate blindness

The Iranian regime faces the most serious popular challenge to its tyranny in 40 years. Sparked by a 50 percent hike in fuel prices last month, the uprising has spread to the whole country. Security forces have killed hundreds of protesters, and at one point they were even forced to shut down the internet — a sign that the ayatollahs feared for the survival of their regime.

So it’s worth asking: Did our ­experts see this coming?

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I have been reading and following what American policy experts have been saying for years. And to put it bluntly. American foreign policy experts have a lousy track record when it comes to understanding international events and trends. In fact, I have lost count over the years on how many times they have been wrong. And while the above post is focused on Iran, the real focus should be on how America's foreign policy establishment has failed in providing sound and thoughtful policy analysis and recommendations on Russia. It has been a train wreck, from unproven claims of Russian collusion to not understanding what are Russia's national security priorities. And it still continues today, with Russia playing a significant role in the impeachment inquiry that is now playing out in Washington.

America's Allies Are Not Willing To Commit Military Forces To Support Missions So That The U.S. Can Focus On Russia And China

Stratfor: Why the U.S. Will Struggle to Reduce Its Military Commitments Abroad

Highlights

* The United States has called on its allies to increase their support of various missions, particularly in the Middle East, in the hopes of refocusing resources on its competition with Russia and China.
* U.S. allies, however, have been largely unwilling or unable to commit more forces abroad. And those that have so far have offered only token additional support.
* The widespread mistrust that the bulk of its partners share regarding U.S. intentions against Iran has hampered the White House's ability to garner support for its security program in the Persian Gulf.
* In other places, like Syria, the United States will likely be able to cobble together some extra reinforcements, but nowhere sufficient enough to allow Washington to completely draw down its presence.

Time and again, the United States has attempted to redirect more of its attention and resources toward its competitions with Russia and China. But Washington's other commitments around the world continues to undermine this effort. Since taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump has sought to address this problem by pressuring allies to commit more military resources to places like Syria (where the United States is trying to draw troop levels) and most recently, the Persian Gulf (where it now faces an increased risk of a military clash with Iran).

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This reluctance to deploy military forces has been the case with America's allies for a long time. In the end the U.S. will have to make some hard decisions, starting with the realization that they cannot be everywhere at all times.

Are U.S. Diplomats Ready For The Next Great-Power War?

Caleb D. Becker, War On The Rocks: Are U.S. Diplomats Ready for War?

U.S. foreign affairs agencies are ill-prepared for the next great-power war, and no one is talking about it. Unfortunately, recent reports seem to take crisis diplomacy or alliance maintenance for granted. Most commentary does not examine the U.S. government’s institutional inability to match military strength with civilian. In part as a result of this failure, last year the National Defense Strategy Commission “came away with a troubling sense that civilian voices were relatively muted on issues at the center of U.S. defense and national security policy, undermining the concept of civilian control.” While this finding focused on the Department of Defense, the same holds true across the departments and agencies involved in foreign affairs that do and will work alongside the U.S. military.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: From what I read and see, the answer is no to the question on U.S. diplomats being ready for the next great-power war. In the case of Russia, there has been some public remarks from the Kremlin on fears of another major war, but there has been no preparation from the foreign office for it. In the case of China President Xi has been very blunt, prepare for war .... ‘Prepare for war’, Xi Jinping tells military region that monitors South China Sea, Taiwan (SCMP).

Is Washington "Hungry" For A War Against Iran?

Tucker Carlson, FOX News: Tucker Carlson: Warmongers in Washington badly want a war with Iran. Trump is rightfully skeptical

Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives trying to remake the Middle East in our image. It's sad to say it out loud, but we have to: It hasn't worked. Many of us thought it would, but it hasn't.

By every measure, our foreign wars have ended in dismal failure for the United States -- however noble their intentions, and some did have noble intentions. Donald Trump was one of the rare Republican politicians honest enough to admit this. He said it out loud three years ago, and promised not to repeat the same mistakes if elected president. And partly because he said that, he was elected president.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: When I read stories like this .... To avoid a wider war, Iran must be deterred with limited U.S. military strikes (The Washington Post), or this .... US should attack Iran militarily to retaliate for downing of American drone (Jim Hanson, FOX News), or this .... Lindsey Graham: If Iran 'attacks shipping again,' US should consider 'taking out their Navy, oil refineries' (FOX News), or this .... The Pirates of Tehran (Bret Stephens, New York Times) .... the answer is yes, many in Washington are looking for a war. And this is doubly so right now, with the main stream media narrative today pushing the story that President Trump is indecisive. I see it differently. President Trump was decisive in not pursuing what everyone wanted .... another war. Kudos to him for making the right decision and sticking with it.

Are China's and Russia's Better Weapons A Threat That We Cannot Ignore?

Dov S. Zakheim, The Hill: China and Russia's better weapons, risky behaviour are threats we can't ignore

Unusually for Washington these days, there is consensus at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue that China and Russia, rather than terrorism, Iran or even North Korea, pose the most serious threats to American national security. There is good reason for this; both China and Russia have taken increasingly belligerent stances toward the United States.

Speaking on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue, China’s defense minister, Gen. Wei Fenghe, clearly referred to the U.S. when he spoke of “big countries [that] intervene in regional affairs, make troubles, walk away and leave a mess behind.” Alluding to the U.S. Navy’s Freedom of Navigation operations, Wei justified ongoing Chinese military construction in the South China Sea as a response “in the face of heavily armed warships and military aircraft.”

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The Russians and Chinese have been saying the same thing about the U.S. and its behavior and advanced weapons for decades. But for the moment Russia and China's focus is on trade .... No US, no problem! Russia-China trade set to double & reach $200 billion soon (RT).

This Is Why America Can No Longer Rule The World

Reuters

Doug Bandow, National Interest: The One Reason America Can't Police the World Anymore: Washington Is Broke

Even if America once felt wealthy enough to squander its financial resources in such pursuits, those days have ended. Washington is effectively bankrupt, with massive unfunded liabilities. Its fiscal future will only worsen as Baby Boomers continue to retire.

The annual budget battle is at its peak and Washington continues to flaunt its remarkable dysfunction. This fiscal irresponsibility affects more than domestic programs. In the coming years, it is likely to drive U.S. foreign and military policy.

The U.S. government has no more important duty than defending the nation. However, providing for the “common defense,” as the Constitution puts it, is remarkably easy. America has vast oceans east and west and peaceful neighbors to the north and south.

Today only Russia, with an arsenal of nuclear-tipped missiles, could launch a serious attack on America. However, Moscow has no incentive to do so, since the result would be devastating retaliation. China’s military is expanding but directed at preventing Washington from dominating the People’s Republic of China at home and in its neighborhood.

Read more ....

WNU Editor I completely agree.

Will The Cohen, Manafort Cases Reshuffle Global Politics?

Donald Trump with his campaign manager Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, July 21, 2016. Picture taken July 21, 2016. REUTERS/Rick Wilking/File Photo

David Eckels Wade, Reuters: How Cohen, Manafort cases reshuffle global politics

Tuesday’s judicial bombshells will scramble political calculations not just in the United States, but in capitals around the world. In the span of a few hours, we witnessed first the conviction of Donald Trump’s campaign manager and longtime associate Paul Manafort on eight charges of tax evasion and bank fraud in connection to his work for a pro-Putin Ukrainian strongman. Then we saw the president’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen plead guilty to campaign finance violations and say that Trump had directed him to pay hush money to two women during the 2016 campaign to stop them from speaking out about affairs they said they’d had with him.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: From what I have read .... and with the exception of the U.S., Canadian, and U.K. media .... there has been minimal coverage on this story. This tells me that the impact on global politics will also be minimal. And while I am sure that in some capitals of the world an assessment on how this will impact President Trump are being made, we have been down this road so many times in the past year and a half that I suspect the assessment will be "same story as usual".

A Look At The Diferences (And Similarities) Between President Trump And President Obama On Foreign Policy

President Trump and North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un leave after signing documents. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Blake Hounshell, Politico: How Trump Made Diplomacy Great Again

Obama was attacked as ‘naive’ and ‘weak’ for talking to America’s enemies. Trump is turning it into a political asset.

When candidate Barack Obama said in a 2007 debate that he’d meet with the leaders of rogue states—including North Korea—without preconditions, critics pounced: Fox News host Sean Hannity ripped his “lack of foreign policy expertise” and called the idea “disturbing” and “naive.” His Democratic primary rival, Hillary Clinton, called him “irresponsible and frankly naive.”

Months into Obama’s presidency, Republicans ripped him again when he exchanged pleasantries briefly with Hugo Chavez, the late dictator of Venezuela, on the margins of a Latin America summit. One Republican senator called it “irresponsible” for the president to be photographed “laughing and joking” with an anti-American leader like Chavez.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: First things first .... President Trump is not President Obama (and vice-versa). Their styles, global view, and strategies are different. And while it is true that the Republicans and some Democrats were critical of President Obama's foreign policy initiatives .... I disagree with the above Politico's analysis that the Republicans are giving President Trump a pass. They have been (and are) just as critical towards President Trump as they were towards President Obama. But President Trump will not need to worry ....the Republicans may be critical, but they are not going to stop President Trump from pursuing his foreign policy objectives just as they did not stop President Obama.

U.S. Foreign Policy Cannot Be Built By Executive Orders

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Eliot A. Cohen. The Atlantic: A Reckoning for Obama's Foreign-Policy Legacy

Veterans of the last administration are learning a hard lesson: Policies constructed by executive order and executive agreement are just as easily blown up by them.

Embedded in any policy is some theory of victory—some explanation, no matter how inchoate or ill-considered, that explains why this might work. So too with President Trump’s decision to walk away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the agreement with Iran so ungainly that even the acronym JCPOA seems elegant by comparison. The nominal theory of victory here is preposterous: that Iran will come to heel, retreat from its nefarious activities in the Middle East, end ancillary programs such as its ballistic-missile work that support the nuclear program, and permanently renounce its nuclear program in word and deed. Such behavior would be inconsistent with anything Iran has done in the past and would be a crushing humiliation that would jeopardize the very survival of the regime.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The Obama administration expected Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency .... and once sworn in to continue with President Obama's foreign policy. Hence the executive orders when it came to agreements like the Iran nuclear deal .... and the avoidance of gaining the approval of Congress for these actions. As we all now know .... this strategy has not not work, and the entire legacy of President Obama's foreign policy efforts are now gone. The above author hopes that since many of President Obama's foreign policy experts are young .... they will in time get back into power, and act to reverse what President Trump has done. I say good luck to that. The reason why President Obama avoided bringing his foreign policy initiatives to Congress is because he knew there was little support for it .... and even less in the American public. A new administration .... doing the same mistakes .... will only guarantee the same result.