Republican disrespect for America is a big win for Democrats

Memorial Day Monday commemorates those lost defending America in its too many wars. Yesterday the Republicans in the Senate, using the filibuster, blocked creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 attack on The Capitol. The irony should be lost on no one: while commemorating those who defend America, elected representatives are preventing investigation of the most successful physical attack on its institutions, and on them, since 1812. Why?

It’s not because they don’t want to know why January 6 happened. It’s because they know perfectly well. Supporters of then-President Trump were attempting to disrupt the constitutionally mandated tabulation in Congress of the Electoral College results. Trump himself encouraged them to do so, claiming fraud during the November election that did not occur and urging his supporters to march on The Capitol. The January 6 rioters, hundreds of whom are now charged in court, included white supremacists and others who wanted to prevent the votes of Black and Brown minorities from deciding the outcome of the election.

Creation of the bipartisan commission would have been an excellent opportunity for the Republican Party to separate itself from the racist miscreants who led the January 6 insurrection. The party leadership–which includes not only Trump himself but notably also Senate Minority Leader McConnell–passed on that opportunity, despite McConnell’s speech after the second impeachment blaming Trump for the assualt. The result is all too apparent: the GOP is now fully committed to racism and white supremacy, not only in Congress but also through the dozens of bills introduced in state legislatures to limit voting by non-whites.

The main question now is whether this racist political program will thrive or not. The six Republican senators who voted in favor of the January 6 commission will soon have to decide whether they can continue to inhabit the GOP or need to break definitively from it. That kind of formal split would doom the Republicans to serious losses in the 2022 election. Even without a formal split, racist strength among GOP loyalists, who are the main participants in primaries, guarantees that it will nominate for the House and Senate more candidates who back Trump than the six defectors. The 2022 election will be a referendum not only on Biden’s performance, which is garnering solid approval so far, but also on Trump Republicanism, which retains something like 30% support.

That’s why the voting rights issue is so important. The electorate that put Biden in office would unquestionably inflict a massive defeat on the racist version of the GOP. But mid-term elections like 2022 do not bring out the same electorate as a presidential contest. Fewer people, and fewer minorities in particular, vote. If Republicans at the state level suppress the vote by making it more difficult for people to register, cast absentee ballots, get to the polls, and cast their votes, Trumpism has a far better chance, even though he will not be on the ballot.

He won’t be in 2024 either, despite his effort to suggest that he might run again. There are indications prosecutors in New York will be charging Trump within the next few months with financial crimes, including tax fraud and election campaign violations as well as other associated felonies. Conviction could take a long time, so he will be wrapped up in court for years to come, if his health holds up. It is hard for me to imagine that Trump will continue to be a fundraising paladin once indicted, but if he is donors will be throwing good money down a rat hole. The notion of a Republican presidential nominee who is under indictment or convicted is beyond my imagination, though of course it is possible.

Speaker Pelosi will now appoint a select commission, including a quotient of non-Trumpist Republican-affiliated big shots. If it manages to report truthfully before the end of the year or early next, the impact could be close to that of a bipartisan commission. By defeating that proposition, Trump has guaranteed he will be blamed for January 6. The Republicans are defeating themselves. Democrats should not be too unhappy.

Tags : ,

Deal likely, but can it go any farther than rollback?

This discussion of the possible return of the US to the Iran nuclear deal was convened by the Middle East Institute May 26, as US-Iranian talks in Vienna entered their fifth round. Participants analyzed the prospects for a deal between the US and Iran and its implications for the region’s security. The panel discussed the possibility of expanding on the original JCPOA, as well as broader regional security dynamics and specifically their implications for Iraq. They agreed a new JCPOA seems to be imminent. However, the question remains whether it can be used to reduce Iranian influence in the region and if it should.

The speakers were:

Amb. (ret.) Rend al-Rahim
Co-founder and President
The Iraq Foundation;
former Iraqi Ambassador to the US

Michael Rubin
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute

Ali Vaez
Iran project Director
International Crisis Group

Alex Vatanka (moderator)
Director, Iran Program
Middle East Institute

A mutually beneficial deal?

All speakers agreed that a deal appears imminent. Ali Vaez pointed out that sequencing will remain an issue, but that the largest problems will likely be solved at the 11th hour. Iranian or Israeli brinkmanship is unlikely to derail the negotiations. This was shown by their continuation after the attack on the Natanz facility and Iran’s announcement that it would start enriching to 60%. Rubin believes Congress should be asked to ratify the agreement. Congress might prove more concerned about brinkmanship than the negotiators in Vienna. Ali Vaez expects that the deal will be announced right after the Iranian presidential elections. In this way, the result will not influence the popularity of conservative candidates. At the same time, Rouhani would still be responsible for the deal’s implementation, meaning he can serve as a scapegoat for any of its shortcomings: a win-win for conservatives in Iran.

The speakers disagreed on whether more than the original JCPOA should be on the table. Ali Vaez argued that a return to the original deal is needed to build trust after the unwarranted American abandonment of the deal under president Trump. Ambassador al-Rahim, however, said she does not believe that any further progress can be made after this deal. Just like after the initial JCPOA’s conclusion, no further deals – for example on ballistic missiles – will be forthcoming. Michael Rubin argued that some important issues need to be addressed. In this ‘JCPOA+’ framework, attention needs to be paid to the role of the IRGC in Iran’s economy. Rubin emphasized that any easing of sanctions could go to the IRGC’s economic wing, rather than benefiting the Iranian people in dire need of economic relief. In fact, lifting sanctions without addressing the IRGC’s entanglement in the economy would only aid in its projects throughout the region.

Thinking about a new Middle Eastern security arena

This brought the discussion to the second point of disagreement: the level of Iranian influence that is desirable. Ambassador al-Rahim outlined the difference in strategic visions between Iran and the US. According to her, the US fails to use its potential in the region (for example through the Iraqi Strategic Dialogue). Instead it focuses on disengaging and setting up a post-US strategic order. The US needs to consider whether it is content with leaving Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon under Iranian influence, with an Israeli-Gulf alliance hegemonous over the rest of the region. Iran, as Rubin pointed out, meanwhile sees itself as a pan-regional power, not merely Shia. It is unlikely to accept such a limited sphere of influence. He emphasized that there are ways of resisting Iranian influence without major US investments. Regional countries need to be armed to do so themselves.

Ali Vaez also sees these problems, but challenges the US to consider how much Iranian influence is acceptable. If the US and its allies are content only when Iranian influence in Iraq is zero, then the goal is simply unrealistic. Should we consider influence in a country like Iraq as zero-sum, as Israel and the Gulf appear to do? Also, can we expect Iran to disarm while we are arming its neighbors to the tune of billions of dollars? A regional détente with concessions from all sides is his preferred means of lowering tensions. Ambassador al-Rahim contends that Tehran sees its influence as zero-sum too. If it is allowed to have any influence, it will aim for total influence. Furthermore, she contends that Iran did have zero influence in Iraq before 2003. Its entanglement in Iraqi power structures is not unavoidable she thinks. She and Vaez agree that both Washington and Tehran should agree that Iraq needs to be allowed to be its own sovereign country. Recent Shia protests in Iraq show that the population shares this desire.

Tags : , , ,

Stevenson’s army, May 28

Microsoft reported a new Solar Winds hack.   NYT links it to Russians using AID computers.
Administration confirms end of Open Skies treaty.
WaPo says Russia is cooperating with Huawei.
SecState Blinken, just back from arctic, Europe, and Middle East. now heads to Central America.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , ,

Stevenson’s army, May 27

– The Endless Frontier Act to counter Chinese technology has been re-branded as the Innovation and Competition Act and expanded to 1,445 pages — even before Senate amendments this week.
 Several committees contributed sections. The markup in the Commerce Committee was criticized by an advocate of the original version.  But to me that’s just the regular order, with the usual parochialism included.
OMB will release more detailed budget figures later today. DHS isn’t getting more, but military cyber is.
– WaPo has a good description of the interagency fight over the origins of the Covid19 virus.
 It’s rare for a dispute between intelligence agencies is admitted.
– FDD calls for greater limits on Chinese technological investments in US.
– Australia is reviewing a Chinese port lease.
– My former colleague at the National War College, Dave Auerswald, has good ideas for an Arctic strategy.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , ,

Stevenson’s army, May 26

Former 5-term Senator John Warner, R-VA, died last night.  He was 94. I worked with him on several issues, always admired his seriousness of purpose. Among his greatest achievements, in my estimation, were his sponsorship of the amendment requiring the president to produce a national security strategy report and his leadership of SASC at the time of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Warner was so appalled he held 6 SASC hearings into the matter while his GOP HASC counterpart didn’t want to have any, but finally held a truncated one.
– WSJ says UAE ties to China  imperil F-35 sale.
-Defense News says US has lifted South Korean missile limits.
– NYT says US is speeding up Afghan withdrawal, plans end in early July.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , , ,

Stevenson’s army, May 25

-WaPo has story of how Joe Biden spends his day.
– SecState Blinken is in the Middle East.
-Iran talks back on.
– Look at the many defense and foreign policy hearings this week.
FT.com has good roundup of European defense activities.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , , , ,
Tweet