Beyond Labels

A 360° Discussion of Foreign, National and Local Policy Issues

7/28: EU Defense Strategy?

Having spent the last two meetings discussing national (US) politics, I thought we could turn our attention to Europe:

  • Given the Trump Administration’s uncertain support for the NATO alliance, how should Europe react?
  • Are the European members of NATO sufficiently aligned in their policies/objectives to coordinate well without strong US leadership, or are countries like Hungary likely to cause decision-making gridlock?
  • Can Europe really achieve the 5% of GDP defense spending objective without undue political backlash? If they do, how? Higher taxes? Adjustments to social spending? What will these moves do to economic growth?
  • Can Europe establish a unified front vis-a-vis Ukraine? Russia? China?
  • What will be the implications for US policy (and the US economy) if the Europeans do become more independent and self-sufficient?

More background material about the Israel-Iran war

if we continue to talk about this on Monday, here are a couple of links to recent articles:

  1. What does international law say about the legitimacy of Israel’s attack on Iran? Here’s a link to an article in the 20 June edition of The New York Times analyzing the legality of Israel’s attack on Iran, and of the legality of the potential participation of the US in that attack.
  2. What are the potential risk to the US if it participates in the attack on Iran? Here’s a link to an article in the 18 June edition of The New York Times describing some of those risks.
  3. Here’s a link to an article in The 18 June edition of Politico with brief statements by a variety of people (including Dennis Ross and Ryan Crocker) describing their views of the risks to the US from its potentianal participation in this war.

What should theUS do in the Middle East now?

If we continue our conversation about the Israel-Iran war next week, here’s a link to a relevant opinion piece by Tom Friedman in the 16 June edition of The New York Times proposing what Trump should do next in the Middle East. I think Friedman describes a strategy similar to that proposed last week by all of us, collectively, but smarter.

In summary, Friedman proposes the following:

  1. The US should tell Iran we will supply Israel with the weapons it needs to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear capacity unless Iran immediately agrees to allow the IAEA to dismantle all of those facilities and remove all of Iran’s missile materials. This is what a majority of us proposed last week. (Friedman also proposes that “[o]nly if Iran completely complies with these conditions should it be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program under strict IAEA controls.”
  2. The US should recognize Palestinians’ right to national self-determination, provided  “… that they can fulfill the responsibilities of statehood by generating a new Palestinian Authority leadership that the United States deems credible, free of corruption and committed both to effectively serving Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and Gaza and to coexisting with Israel.” This a step in the direction of what Peter proposed last week, but without the immediate US recognition of a Palestinian state. (Friedman doesn’t expressly condition that recognition on Palestinians’ committing to form a secular state, although perhaps “coexisting with Israel” is intended to imply that. Friedman also doesn’t call for US recognition of a Palestinian state if the conditions he describes here are met. Does that imply that the US should do so only if and when Israel and a reconstituted Palestinian Authority reach agreement on a two-state solution that establishes mutually acceptable borders and security guarantees for Israel?
  3. The US must tell Israel it won’t tolerate “…  the rapid settlement expansion and one-state reality that Israel is now creating ….” (Friedman doesn’t call for Israel to end all “expansion” of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, or say what the US should do if Israel creates new settlements or “expands” existing ones, nor does he call for the removal of any Israeli settlers. I suppose Friedman would leave this last issue for Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate.)
  4. Finally, Friedman says, “Trump could also say that his administration will be committed to sponsoring peace talks for a two-state solution — with the Trump peace plan for a pathway toward two states from his previous presidency as the minimum starting point but not ending point. That, the parties themselves must negotiate directly.” (Friedman says Trump “could” do this but says Trump “should” or “must” do what he proposes in items 1-3. Also, I’m not sure what “sponsoring” peace talks entails. I’m also not sure what Friedman expects to happen if the US doesn’t say it will “sponsor” peace talks. Should another country do that? Which one(s)? Should the UN do that? Would “sponsoring” peace talks be conditional on Hamas releasing all remaining hostages? On Israel releasing its Palestinian prisoners, particularly those who could form the core of a new Palestinian Authority or participate in peace talks? Do Hamas or Mahmoud Abbas have any role to play in any of this?)

  • Subscribe via Email

    Receive email notification of new posts/announcements about our weekly meeting.

    Join 245 other subscribers
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments