Tag: foreign policy

The Insanity of US Foreign Policy

What do you do with a president (and of course he’s just reading a script given to him) who says he “fully, fully, fully” supports Israel as it commits genocide in Gaza, gobbles up the West Bank, invades Lebanon, and spoils for a war with Iran? It’s as if Joe Biden took an oath to Israel rather than the U.S. Constitution. And will the madness be any different under Kamala Harris or Donald Trump?

And, speaking of foreign interference in U.S. elections, why is Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli leader overseeing genocide and invasions, allowed to address Congress, before which he receives stormy applause from virtually every senator and representative? Why are organizations like AIPAC allowed to have so much power and influence (through campaign financing and lobbying) over U.S. elections? Why is it OK when AIPAC brags that its support ensures that candidates win their elections, and that its opposition determines that they lose?

The untoward influence exercised by Israel and AIPAC ensures you have the “choice” of Donald Trump, who advocates smashing Iran for Israel, and Kamala Harris, who gives her unqualified support of Israel’s right to defend itself (of course, everything Israel does is “defensive”). The U.S. military is currently defending Israel in the Middle East, effectively at war with Iran (one hopes it doesn’t escalate, but a wider war with Iran may be the “October surprise” that will have Harris and Trump falling over each other to profess their undying devotion to defending Israel and smiting its enemies in the name of freedom).

It’s bizarre indeed to see the world’s self-styled lone superpower and imperial hegemon reduced to a lackey and toady of Bibi Netanyahu and hardliners within Israel. It’s not just a case of the tail wagging the dog but a flea on the tail wagging the dog.

With my globe in front of me, I see how geographically small Israel is. In land area, it’s roughly the size of New Jersey, Google tells me. Now, imagine if New Jersey completely dominated U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and heavily influenced presidential and congressional elections across America. A little weird, don’t you think?

Keep reading

Russian Arms Dealer and “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout Who Joe Biden Exchanged for Pot-Smoking Brittney Griner Is Back in Business Selling $10 Million in Arms to Houthi Rebels

Another major foreign policy failure by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

Nothing ever seems to go right for this ridiculous, tyrannical administration.

The infamous “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout, who Joe Biden traded for WNBA pot-smoking star Brittney Griner, is allegedly back in business. Bout reportedly was caught selling $10 million in arms to Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to The Wall Street Journal.

WNBA star Brittney Griner was found guilty of drug smuggling with criminal intent in a Russian court in August 2022.

The 6’9″ basketball star was accused of possession of vape cartridges containing cannabis oil at a Moscow airport in February, during the lead-up to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine later that month. Griner’s defense team said she was prescribed marijuana by a doctor for pain treatment.

Russia released Brittney Griner in exchange for international arms dealer Viktor Bout, the notorious “Merchant of Death.”

Vikor Bout is a former Soviet military officer, who was serving a 25-year prison sentence in the United States on charges of conspiring to kill Americans, acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, and provide material support to a terrorist organization. Bout has maintained he is innocent – via CNN.

Bout armed terrorist groups in some of the most violent conflicts in the world.

Bout was arrested back in 2008 in Thailand and extradited back to the United States. His arrest was linked at the time to FARC rebels in Colombia.

Keep reading

When odious foreign policy elites rally around Harris

Efforts to bolster the candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris by the D.C. foreign policy establishment kicked into overdrive over the course of the past week with the near simultaneous release of two open letters signed by hundreds of former U.S. national security officials.

It is an accelerated version of previous campaigns in 2016 and 2020, where ex-officials and military officers on both sides of the aisle vocalizing major opposition to Trump offer to give national security cred to the Democratic candidate — in this case Harris. For their part, the candidate virtually ignores that many of these endorsements are in many cases coming from odious individuals, including architects of wars and interventions that Democrats have openly criticized as stains on recent American history.

The first was a letter signed by over 100 former Republican national security officials stating that while they, alumni of every Republican administration from Reagan to Trump, “expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues” they also “firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump.”

According to the former GOP officials, Trump’s “susceptibility to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, unusual affinity for other authoritarian leaders, contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior, and chaotic national security decision-making” render him a danger to U.S. national security interests.

Critics of course point out that many of these people are the same Washington creatures who got our country into endless foreign wars and profited from them for 20 years straight — and until this day support cruel, authoritarian dictators when convenient to U.S. policy. They are not wrong.

As a group, the signatories of the first letter are a very mixed bag. The missive does feature a few sensible, responsible pillars of the Washington establishment, including those of former defense secretary (and U.S. senator) Chuck Hagel, and former FBI and CIA director William Webster.

Yet for the most part, the letter carried with it the odor of the consensus minded War Party, if not 9/11-era neoconservatism. In the past this would have been a problem for traditionally liberal and progressive outlets, but Mother Jones and the New Republic were quick to applaud the letter as a “win” for the Harris campaign. Not surprisingly, only The Nation has called out their fellow liberals and progressives for making common cause with the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, both of whom have also endorsed Harris in recent days (except for columnist Joan Walsh, who found Liz Cheney’s endorsement of Harris “strangely moving,” writing, “Liz, I told you we could find common ground. Let’s have a cup of coffee. Or even a beer?”

This columnist at Al Jazeera, however, offers no stated desire for beers with the Cheneys, particularly father Dick. “What makes Cheney’s endorsement, and the Democratic Party’s embrace of it, particularly galling is the way in which they gloss over these past sins in order to paint him as a guardian of American values,” charged Howard University Law school professor Ziyad Motola.

Just so.

The letter features dozens of embittered Republican hawks who claim to deplore Trump’s “unethical behavior and disregard for our Republic’s time-tested principles of constitutional governance” when they evinced no such concerns when they worked for the likes of George W. Bush, Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and old boss John Ashcroft during the Global War on Terror.

Keep reading

Debate Debacle: Our Bleak Foreign Policy Future

The first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump presented a bleak picture of the future of U.S. foreign policy no matter who wins in November. On the most urgent and important foreign policy issue of the year, the war and genocide in Gaza, Harris repeated empty platitudes about a “two-state solution” and Trump fell back on tired “pro-Israel” rhetoric. Neither candidate offered voters any hope that there would be a meaningful change from Biden’s policy of unconditional support for the slaughter and starvation of Palestinians.

Trump absurdly said that Harris hates Israel, but aside from her perfunctory expression of support for Palestinian self-determination there was unfortunately very little to distinguish the two of them on this issue. Like Trump, Harris backs Israel to the hilt, and the main difference is that she pays lip service to Palestinian rights while doing nothing to protect them. She says some of the right things about the need for a ceasefire, but the Joe Biden administration isn’t willing to use its leverage to secure one and Harris refuses to call for the halt to U.S. arms transfers that U.S. law requires.

Harris has had many opportunities in the two months since Biden dropped out to separate herself from the president on this issue. She squandered them all by sticking to the official administration line. The vice president would rather tout her support from the likes of Dick Cheney than try to win the support of antiwar voters across the country. Harris has been catering mostly to hawks this summer, and she prefers attacking Trump for being “weak” instead of using his policy failures against him.

Keep reading

American Interventionist Foreign Policy: One and a Quarter Century of Failure

When Theodore Roosevelt succeeded William McKinley as president in 1901, he realized the US was no longer just a continental republic; with the Spanish-American War of 1898, America now claimed Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines as territories, Cuba a protectorate and annexed Hawaii.

Roosevelt “believed it was the burden of ‘civilized’ nations to uplift ‘uncivilized’ nations,” says Michael Patrick Cullinane. He believed U.S. interests were global interests, and that it was actually good for “civilized” nations to intervene in other countries’ affairs.

Moreover, the 26th president made sure the U.S. played a larger role in international affairs by extending the Monroe doctrine through the Roosevelt Corollary – the United States, henceforth, would protect countries in the Americas from recolonization by European powers, and would intervene militarily if  necessary to do so. It was a foreign policy he described as “speak softly and carry a big stick.” US presidents since Roosevelt have pursued his “big stick” foreign policy agenda.

In the slightly less than a hundred years from 1898 to 1994, the U.S. government (directly or indirectly) has intervened successfully to change governments in Latin America, alone, at least 41 times. That amounts to once every 28 months for an entire century. Overall, while the United States engaged in 46 military interventions from 1948–1991, from 1992–2017 that number increased fourfold to 188.

Keep reading

US Foreign Policy: ‘No Daylight’ Is Where Peace Dies In Darkness

“Absent a directed, sustained, and articulated policy of no daylight between the United States and Israel,” Matthew Continetti wrote in the Washington Free Beacon on March 29, “the rift between America and her ally will widen and the world will grow more dangerous.”

Proof that Continetti had things completely bass-ackward arrived on April 1, when Israeli aircraft attacked an Iranian consulate building in Syria, killing 16 and boosting the already not insignificant prospect of a wider regional war. The US regime disclaimed prior knowledge of the Israeli strike, but couldn’t be bothered to actually condemn it.

While occasionally, softly, and grudgingly calling for “restraint” from all parties, Washington has continued its policy of supporting the Israeli regime no matter what it does, and blaming Israel’s adversaries for every Bad Thing that happens in the Middle East.

The US and Israeli regimes remain in a bear hug through which not so much as a single ray of daylight passes. And THAT makes the world more dangerous.

If the US left Israel to its own devices, or at the very least conditioned its billions of dollars in annual aid — not to mention its support in every argument — on good behavior, we might see some progress toward peace.

How many fights would Israel pick with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon if it didn’t have the US threatening to pound anyone who doesn’t comply with its every demand?

Keep reading

Uncomfortable Truth: The US Is The World’s Most Prolific Sponsor Of Terrorism

Upon reading the title of this article many might reflexively click off, going straight to the comments section to voice their disapproval, to vitriolically chastise the perceived lack of patriotism and the insinuation that the United States of America is anything but the greatest bastion of freedom and liberty in the world. A beacon of light in the dark protecting democracy from the dregs of despotism.

It is a reaction that has been programmed into many of us, one that even among the “liberty community” many, including yours truly, espoused at one time or another. Since birth we are programmed via nationalistic propaganda to have such a worldview.

Every single day of our schooling for at least 12 years we are indoctrinated to place our hands over our hearts and pledge our allegiance to the nation, in other words our loyalty to the government, or more specifically — given the origins of the pledge itself — the ideologies of colonialism in honoring Christopher Columbus, Anglo-American ethno-nationalism, and later, a reinforcement of US political and religious moral superiority, that is itself inherent to the government and its systemic norms.

Denoting these sentiments under a negative connotation will as well likely spark the ire of many who still refuse to acknowledge the role of settler-colonialism in the American experiment, but we digress.

The point is, we as Americans have been institutionally inculcated our entire lives with sentiments of nationalism and American exceptionalism which have subsequently, with assistance in no small part from the heavily controlled corporate mainstream media and the centralized education system, blinded huge swaths of the population from the realities of the innumerable crimes committed by the American government. Both in the past, and the present day.

Chief among these misbehaviors would be the ways in which America would behave itself with regard to it’s foreign policy, both early in its existence as a burgeoning superpower and today as the leader of a globe spanning unipolar hegemon.

Beginning with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 wherein the US asserted itself as being the sole authority in the entirety of the Western Hemisphere, It would slowly go on to refine this doctrine as justification for intervention and expansionism, first in Latin America and expanding outward to the rest of the world.

As the US would continue to expand its power and influence over its global neighbors the destabilization of sovereign governments that Washington viewed as being at odds or potentially deleterious to its agendas of regional control became standard procedure.

We recently elaborated upon this briefly with regard to the century of US intervention in Haiti and the long history of US backed regime change.

Keep reading

Blinken Receives Stern Warning From Azerbaijan To Stop Destabilizing The Caucasus

The Biden Administration is continuing it efforts to provoke conflicts around the world in a desperate effort to salvage its disastrous foreign policy. This time the target is the Caucasus. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken received a stern warning from the President of Azerbaijan to stop trying to undermine the security of the region.

The U.S. is scheduled to participate in a trilateral meeting on April 5, alongside representatives of the EU, with Armenian officials, sparking concern in Azerbaijan. In a call with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Blinken claimed that the main focus of the meeting would be economic development, but the real purpose seems to be providing armaments to Armenia.

President Ilham Aliyev stated that he received information that discussions will center around topics such as military support to Armenia, joint military exercises, the establishment of military infrastructure along border areas with Azerbaijan, and Armenia’s arming through the EU’s European Peace Facility, which is funded by the US budget.

Keep reading

Sullivan to meet MBS to push Saudi side of Israel mega-deal

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan will travel to Saudi Arabia to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Thursday about a potential mega-deal that would include Saudi normalization with Israel.

Why it matters: With the war in Gaza ongoing and the U.S. presidential election just seven months away, White House officials admit there’s a slim chance they can pull off the historic peace agreement. Sullivan’s trip shows President Biden is still determined to pursue it.

Behind the scenes: The White House continues to work toward a draft U.S.-Saudi defense treaty and understandings related to U.S. support for a Saudi civilian nuclear program, according to four U.S. and Israeli officials.

  • U.S. officials hope to reach a bilateral agreement with the Saudis and then possibly present it to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose side of the deal would include committing to a path toward a two-state solution.
  • Netanyahu would then face a choice: If he agrees, he could broke a historic peace deal with Saudi Arabia. If he says no, he could be exposed as a rejectionist and lose whatever U.S. support he still has left.
  • The White House declined to comment. The Saudi embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

What they’re saying: “There has been lot of progress in the talks between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia about their draft defense treaty. They want to have their side of the deal ready and then put it on our table and say, ‘Take it or leave it,” a senior Israeli official told Axios.

Keep reading

60 years since coup, Brazilians call on US to declassify its role

Today marks a solemn anniversary in Brazil: 60 years ago, the Brazilian military seized power from the government of João Goulart, marking the start of over two decades of military rule.

Brazil’s 2014 Truth Commission report is the country’s only formal investigation into this period of dictatorial rule. The commission’s 2,000-page report revealed some grisly details of the dictatorship’s human rights abuses, identified over 400 individuals killed by the military, and shed light on Brazil’s role in destabilizing other Latin American countries.

To assist with the Truth Commission, then-Vice President Joe Biden hand-delivered declassified State Department records to former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff — who herself had been imprisoned and tortured by the military regime. The records offered details about the dictatorship and Washington’s enabling of abuses, including a cable from former Ambassador to Brazil William Rountree arguing that condemning the regime’s human rights “excesses” would be “counterproductive.”

Biden’s delivery of the declassified records was symbolic, since the U.S. had supported the coup. The U.S. solidified its support for the putschists the year prior, drew up plans for a U.S. invasion if deemed necessary, and sent a naval task force to Brazil to support the military plotters. In the end, direct U.S. involvement wasn’t needed — Goulart fled to Uruguay by April 4. The coup was carried out by Brazil’s generals, but Washington celebrated it as a victory for its interests nonetheless.

On the one hand, U.S. support for the coup laid bare the hypocrisy of America’s supposed commitment to sovereignty and democracy. Gone was the Kennedy administration’s promise to reject a “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” The Cold War logic of siding with anti-communist dictators for the purpose of defeating the Soviet Union prevailed. Washington may have lost China, but it won Brazil — or so the thinking went.

However, even the most cynical arguments for aligning with undemocratic regimes for a strategic purpose often failed to bear fruit, given that many of these regimes departed from U.S. policy on key issues. Many historians of the U.S.-Brazil relationship contend that during this period their ties at times more closely resembled rivals rather than close partners. Rubens Ricupero, a former diplomat and minister of finance of Brazil, writes that, “Little by little, doubts turn[ed] into disappointment, and this le[d] to gradual disengagement in relation to the regime they had helped to create.”

When it first took power, Brazil’s military dictatorship closely followed Washington’s lead. Goulart was out, as was his “Independent Foreign Policy,” a non-alignment stance that emphasized self-determination, decolonization, and non-intervention, devised by the ousted president’s predecessor, Janio Quadros. In line with Washington’s desires, the dictatorship, which rotated through five different military general-presidents between 1964 and 1985, broke off relations with Cuba and even assisted the U.S. in its occupation of the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Washington also saw Brazil as a key ideological partner in destabilizing leftist regimes across Latin America. As one Brazilian general put it, the United States wanted Brazil “to do the dirty work.” And it did. Most prominently, the Brazilian regime played a critical role in the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile,. even secretly bringing members of the Chilean military to Brazil to discuss the potential coup. Brazil under the generals also participated in Operation Condor, the secret cooperation of right-wing military dictatorships in much of Latin America to assassinate, or “disappear” perceived leftists and other dissidents during the 1970s.

Keep reading