Oregon Strategist

Reinventing the Oregon Dream

A Quiet Diplomacy: Syria, Iran and the future of U.S. foreign policy

by

Iran Nuclear DealWith a deal struck to lighten sanctions on Iran in exchange for access to and observation of the Iranian nuclear program, and a political resistance to entering another foreign entanglement in Syria, it appears the United States has entered into a new era on foreign policy.

The truth is, that when it comes to the Middle East, relationships are tenuous and the ground ever-shifting. Such a dynamic is a natural cause for hesitancy to involve oneself in the region’s disputes. Syria represents an extraordinarily complex patchwork of alliances and feuds. Hezbollah, the predominant militant group in Lebanon, supports Syrian President Bashar al Assad and the government. Al Qaida has taken up arms in resistance to Syria’s regime.

And yet our hands-off approach with Syria has proved advantageous from the standpoint that we have not entangled ourselves in a drag-out conflict where sides are blurred and resources are squandered. In fact, the fighting between opposition forces and the Syrian government has resulted in steps towards the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons. The tragedy of 100,000 dead and the creation of nearly three million refugees was very nearly one that would have been shouldered by the U.S.

With uncertainty as to Egypt’s future, pressure on the Iran issue from the hawks in Israel, and an ongoing siphon of U.S. resources just to the east in Afghanistan, there is no question why the U.S. is playing its cards with caution.

And as far as the U.S. is concerned with Iran, frankly, the Iranian nuclear interim agreement represents the absolute best case scenario for the U.S. under current circumstances. A war with Iran would result in tragic levels of debt at the least, and a massive humanitarian tragedy at the most. Iran has emphatically stated it will never stop enriching uranium so, short of war and with no agreement, Iran would find a way to obtain a nuclear weapon. The U.S. has bargained for a higher vantage point in its relationship with Iran. While the deal might seem like a short-term failure given that Iran appears to have given up relatively little in exchange for $7 billion in sanctions relief, the truth is that the U.S. stands to gain a long-term position as one of the foreign overseers of Iran’s domestic nuclear program. If anything goes wrong in the interim, the United States along with its allies can impose even harsher sanctions (or even go to war if one wants to take it that far).

Israeli’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has not stifled any disagreement with the plan labeling the move as an “historic mistake.” And Israel’s concerns are valid. An Iran with nuclear military capabilities poses a threat to Israel’s security. But a war with Iran, over a program Iran agrees will be overseen by international observers for domestic production, would be premature to say the least – especially since the U.S. would be footing the cost.

All of this begs the question: What now is our nation’s role in the Middle East and in international affairs more broadly? While we are reducing our military presence in Europe we are only expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. How are we to take into account the nearly one trillion dollars scheduled in Defense cuts over the next decade?

The answer may lie in the kind of wait-and-see diplomacy demonstrated by our exercise of restraint in Syria and the Iranian nuclear interim agreement. Certainly it makes sense when looking at the bill.

Surplus, Transparency and International Trade

by

TPPAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis the United States is running a trade deficit of $34.2 billion. This is a decrease from the previous annual period; however, it is still enormously unhealthy for an economy attempting to recover from the blow of 2008.

A country’s trade surplus or deficit speaks mightily about where that country stands in its growth and development. Like a college kid with a credit card, we ran up our deficits at the bar, one of those $300 nights, and expected Mother and Father to foot the bill in the end. Only now, we realize Europe has problems of its own. Yes, we have started to offload some of our debt to Asia. This is why Japan maintains an interest in Montana mines and why our Navy controls their harbors from bases in Yokosuka and Okinawa. This is why China, our much younger sibling, is racing to the top to secure its stake in our debt. And this is why we are attempting to join trade associations like the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (“TPP”) that has been the source of much criticism from Congress and the public in Washington D.C.

Understanding our goals for international trade are equally important as understanding our role and status. As Europe’s glory faded into ours, their economies relied upon specialty market goods that now find tremendous appeal in burgeoning regions like eastern and southeastern Asia. We, as a nation, have protected our resources well by relying upon others’ gases, textiles, metals and wood. But as our reliance has grown, so has our deficit, and so has our expectancy that a variety of choices will be laid at the Prince’s feet. Growth comes from acceptance to atonement to demand for greater responsibility.

Part of this acceptance results from raising public awareness about our proposed trade agreements like the TPP. Mega corporations have veiled the negotiations and are inhibiting our acceptance, growth and democracy. Their power over governmental processes is such that they can now bargain away our most important choice: the choice in how we will live and carry on. Yet the reason they are so large and have ultimately consumed our government itself is because we allowed our federal government run what our local government should have been dealing with. We centralized authority over the minute details of our lives.

Trade is, undoubtedly a federal issue that requires broad base, uniform dealings. However, when those dealings are skewed to the perspective of the highest orders, the interests protected tend to be those of the highest orders. Increasing exports by lowering tariffs through trade agreements, reducing imports through restricting the processing of our natural resources overseas, and ultimately working towards a trade surplus is one route to restore our “war” chest, that, next time around, will hopefully be used to advance our internal economic mechanisms and sustain our prosperity.

Such an effort requires the highest order of checks and balances. These checks and balances must span not merely between the three branches of our government, but between those three branches’ relationship to the fourth branch: the lobbies that have hijacked our government and are now controlling negotiations overseas. We must impose checks and balances between the public sector and the private sector in the form of simple, straightforward laws, that reveal where our politicians have been bought and paid for, in order, thus, to bring them down from their supposed role as stewards of our society.