Negotiations

With 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.

Our federal government has ground to a halt. Again. Republicans and Democrats were unable to meet a deadline to fund the government Monday night. While a group of “combative” Republicans are largely bearing responsibility for the impasse in Congress due to their hawkish advocacy to defund the Affordable Care Act, the reality is the factions in Congress are more varied and deeply divided than ever.

Both parties are to blame for this stalemate, and the result may very well be an ever-divided Congress where each party will blame the other for their unwillingness to negotiate. On the one hand, Republicans are claiming they want to reign in spending but are unwilling to compromise when it comes to military budgets and spending on our overseas police power – a capacity that is becoming increasingly disfavored by the public. And, indeed, the Department of Defense is, by far, the largest contingent that will be affected by the shutdown. On the other hand, Democrats spearheaded a bill that is not feasible to fund given the current economic crisis because the government is strictly not generating enough revenue to support such a program short of spending our future away.

Our government’s sole focus right now should be on economic improvement. While the Affordable Care Act promotes a noble purpose, the fact of the matter is that our government cannot afford to pay for it. Our federal programs, such as Social Security, are already failing for lack of funding and mismanagement. There is little support for the idea that the Affordable Care Act would face any more promising future.

Economic improvement will come from taking military spending and re-investing those dollars here on the home front where our infrastructure and education are sorely lacking. Economic improvement will stem from creating a positive climate for small business and entrepreneurship by removing barriers to entry and by encouraging smaller, more flexible entities. These entities will, in turn, create the types of jobs we want in our society – the types based on relationships and accountability. And, finally, at the heart of economic improvement, is the idea that we decrease the stratification of wealth in our society. Simplifying the tax code is essential for leveling the playing field for all people. Complexities in the code create the types of loopholes that allow for corporate exploitation and tax shelters for the wealthy.

There are very certain and definite roles for our federal government. The services Washington D.C. provide through the unification of essential interstate laws and international treaties should be primary but focused. We must be realistic in what we can and cannot sustainably afford at that level. And let’s be honest, Cover Oregon is doing and would do a better job at providing health care for our citizens than any federal program. If our federal government is unable to afford Social Security and Medicare, then what good will the Affordable Care Act do for us when we ultimately cannot afford to pay the doctors?

Will it take a nationwide default to provide the political impetus to reform? That is a possibility. But blaming one party or the other is only fuel for a divisive fire. The stopgap just may be to practice viewing this shutdown from an opposing point of view.