“What could be more exceptional, more laudable, than seeking a lasting global peace?”
Virtually all Democrats and many in the media ascribe to Donald Trump full blame for the mess in which this country finds itself. Yet Americans would do well to temper their expectations of what supplanting Trumpism with Bidenism is likely to produce.
Perhaps the horrors of 2020—the fires and hurricanes, Trump’s vicious attacks on democracy, the death, sickness, and economic dislocation caused by Covid-19—can force a real conversation about national security in 2021. Maybe this time we can finally ask whether trying to prop up a dying empire actually makes us—or indeed the world—any safer.
Biden can immediately reverse some of Trump’s most disastrous decisions. And each one can set the stage for broader progressive foreign policy initiatives.
Trump has sent more new troops to the Middle East than he’s bringing home from Afghanistan.
While the steps of a successful peace process do not need to unfold in a particular order, my research and that of others shows that there are several clear steps that any process should take to maximize the chances of success.
In this essay, we hear a first-hand account from Mel Packer who was one of the Americans who visited Iran during the hostage crisis of 1980.
Suleimani was not a “bad” man. Killing him was morally wrong, probably illegal and certainly a catalyst for much future bloodshed.
What if peace is really based on pragmatism, and war on fantasy?
If the United States goes to war with Iran, you are unlikely to hear the word “oil” uttered by top Trump administration officials, but make no mistake: that three-letter word lies at the root of the present crisis, not to speak of the world’s long-term fate.