Another test for NATO in the Form of a Cartoon

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) consists of 30 different member countries with the U.S., Canada, and Turkey residing as the only members outside of continental Europe. In the last few years NATO has faced significant hurdles from alleged Russian hacking, election interference, and poisoning of dissidents in NATO member countries, to competition between Greece and Turkey over resources in the Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus, and U.S. President Trump’s public rebukes of the necessity of the alliance itself. However, a new problem has arisen and may be the worst crux of all for the multilateral defense cooperation. 

On October 21, 2020, a French teacher was beheaded in the outskirts of Paris by an 18 year-old boy for showing Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad to his class as examples of the principle of “free speech.” Free speech and freedom of the press are fundamental pillars of democracy and is a common value encouraged by Western democratic nations such as those composing the majority of NATO membership.

Turkish President Erdogan and French President Macron have since made several public remarks rebuking one another over their views regarding caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad. These public remonstrations have led to a boycott of French goods by several predominantly Muslim countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Qatar, Iran, Bangladesh, Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. Additionally, the murderer was born in Russian controlled Chechenya with alleged connections, help, and an online declared fatwa by Sheikh Yassin Collective, an Islamist group named after the founder of the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The Muslim world is uniting under their core value of preserving religious icons, France is utilizing this incident as a means to diplomatically connect with an estranged Russia, European leaders side with Macron and the teacher under the principle of freedom of speech, current leaders and allies, France and Turkey, continue to politically subjugate one another to negative rhetoric, Muslims in Europe are fearful of retribution, Europeans abroad are advised to avoid public places, and to keep everything in perspective a man has died. 

This conflict appears on the surface to be a clash of ideology, what happens next? What if similar events occurred followed by adversarial activity against a NATO ally? These seem like far-fetched questions, but these fundamental disagreements in foundational principles could be the actual end-all-be-all of the NATO alliance. Think about it this way, Turkey has not been granted entry into the European Union after an extremely long and difficult process exacerbating the differences in ideology and governance, which started in 1987. However, despite key issues preventing a monetary union (there is a separate EU-Turkish Customs Union) between Turkey and Europe, the U.S. and Europe deemed Turkey a worthy defense partner by permitting NATO ascension. 

Only the future will tell, but if your best friend or defender from bullies made the entire high school or university population avoid you and refuse to assist you in practical ways because of a disagreement over some issues, such as cheating on a test, would you not find it difficult to bridge the gap and overcome that experience? Luckily international relations aren’t entirely like high school, but what could be worse for NATO than vehemently contrasting principles amongst its member states?

Russia and US are Similar? Well..........Maybe?

Violent protests in 2020 have caused the U.S. government to call on the National Guard to keep peace. This has caused many Americans to question the status of civil-military relations. In addition to protest and riots, the 2020 presidential election has caused some uproar as President Trump and Biden constantly accuse one another of being against the military. But have many Americans analyzed why have certain opinions regarding military affairs? The Kennan Instatute’s Kirill Shamiev believes civil-military relations in the U.S. is similar, yet different, to civil-military relations in Russia. 

Both Russia and the U.S. respect and trust their militaries. For example, American generals can influence foreign policy. Retired generals commonly express their political opinions in the media. Politicians running for re-elections will often listen to military leaders regarding civilian issues. American military leaders can also influence how domestic policy is perceived. Secretary Esper compared protest scenes to battle grounds, which came with backlash. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley went to Washington’s Lafayette Square with President Trump. This was where tear gas and rubber bullets were used. Milley later said he should not have been there and issued an apology for creating the perception of the U.S. military being involved in domestic affairs.  

Russia’s National Guard, police, Federal Security Service, and Federal Penal Correction Service is heavily militarized. However, these groups see protesters and detainees as enemies influenced by outside forces. Therefore, elite representatives look to protect their own interests and goals instead of protecting human rights. As a result, many Russians have lower confidence in these institutions to combat crime and terrorism because their actions do not seem legitimate. 

Both Russia and the U.S. militaries spent a ton of money on their armed forces and law enforcement. Their law enforcement and military influences domestic and foreign policy. Lastly, many Americans and Russians are disappointed in their politicians who make military policy. Small revisions can help the U.S., Russia, and the entire world.  

The Hopes of the Future Naval Force Study

The US Navy will soon release a Future Naval Force Study, a document that addresses the Navy’s plans for the next few decades. The Department of Defense believes China poses the greatest threat to the security of the United States and, therefore, a strong naval presence in the Indo-Pacific is a requirement. While the US Indo-Pacific Command encompasses all branches of the military, due to the geographical outlay of the region, the most important players will ultimately be the Air Force and the Navy. 

The Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, has hinted at what such a plan might entail. Secretary Esper wants to increase the amount of attack submarines as there is a current deficit and the Navy is on track to have only around 40 by 2025. Additionally, the Department of Defense would like the Navy to possess 500 ships. However, the proposed budget for fiscal year 2021 does not offer much money for new naval construction and this is likely to follow in the future. Therefore, there is a huge disparity between the aspirations of the Navy and the reality of a constrained budget.

 

This plan also hints at infighting within the Department of Defense as the Navy attempted to determine and release a force structure plan last year but failed to do so. Secretary Esper then took over and created his own plan. The Future Naval Force Study provides few concrete details, even in regard to specific types of ships and what exactly they are.

 

While the Navy, and, in turn, the Department of Defense, are right to worry about encroaching Chinese power in the Indo-Pacific and to prepare by rebuilding and increasing the fleet, there are other factors which may endanger this proposition. The Navy must determine how to best prepare while acknowledging its budgetary constraints.  

International Students and DHS Code of Federal Regulations Amendments

 

Immigration has been a topic of debate since the very founding of our country. Under the Trump administration does make it any different, nor is it the beginning of the US’s issues regarding immigration. However, under the current administration we have seen one of the lowest overall immigration rates ever. In 2018, the Trump administration began their big immigration law movement by declaring they could prosecute all immigrants crossing the border unlawfully. Even going as far as separating children and newborns from their parents. It was seen that families were being separated at alarming high rates, which displayed a severe crackdown on immigration law.

It is shown again here in recent times, the disdain for immigrants as we are faced with the recently proposed amendments to Department of Homeland Security’s Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These new amendments would make it even harder for international students to study abroad. The current amendments would grant the student the time of their program plus 30 days but would only grant two to four-year visas. The additional thirty days has been reduced from sixty days of grace period. On top if this there would be fewer students being granted the ability to even come over. The overall admission acceptance rates for international students would be decreased as a result.

International students are a much-needed asset to any university or place of study. Everyone benefits when there are cultural exchanges taking place that are to improve our relations and overall knowledge. By having even more hoops, so to speak, for these students to be forced to go through we are wasting time and resources that should be kept and put towards the very people we need to come together for. We learn and grow through other individuals and this will no longer exist if there is continued persecution of our international student body. 

Email Media Circus: 2016 Rerun or Concerning Trend

        As we move into the final week before the 2020 presidential election we find ourselves in a place not unlike the end of the 2016 election. Rudy Giuliani announced over the weekend that he possessed a laptop given to him by a Delaware computer repairman containing damning emails from the Biden family. An ex-business partner of Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski alleged that former Vice President Joe Biden was part of discussions around his son’s efforts to form an investment venture with a Chinese oil company. Bobulinski said he is the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, which he explained "was a partnership between the Chinese operating through Chairman Ye and the Biden family." He said he was brought on as CEO by Hunter Biden and James Gilliar, who was listed as the sender of several emails. The allegations against Joe Biden are that the Biden family regularly leveraged their family name to make millions in China and Ukraine during Biden's Vice Presidency. It is also claimed that Joe Biden received a cut of these earnings while in office and regularly advised Hunter Biden on which deals to make. An email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details. The reference to "the big guy" is alleged to be Joe Biden.

        After the New York Post published the emails reportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) claimed that the information was not legitimate and that it was part of a Russian disinformation scheme. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe pushed back against this claim, saying "there is no intelligence that supports that." The most important question in everyone's mind is, are these emails legitimate? The timing of the release of this information is certainly nothing new. The dreaded "October surprise" in election cycles is always a given. However, the source of this surprise is where we really need to focus our attention. Should the emails prove to be true the Department of Justice and the Senate will decide appropriate action and ultimately determine if Joe Biden was involved in these activities while acting as Vice President of the United States. If the emails are a scheme drawn up by the Trump campaign in a last effort to rally against Biden right before the election; then we will see the continuation of an unfortunate trend in American political muckraking. The real danger however comes if this is indeed a deliberate misinformation campaign. During the last presidential debate on October 22nd Joe Biden claimed that Russia and Iran have already been confirmed to be actively interfering in U.S. elections. Biden claimed that Russia played a significant role in 2016 and that American voter registration information has already been compromised this year. When asked what he would do in response to this he said that nations found interfering in U.S. elections would "pay the price." Trump has also expressed concern over the election and famously proclaimed that he would not accept defeat if he suspected foreign interference and would launch a comprehensive investigation into the matter. U.S. national security policy may be forever changed by the outcome of the 2020 election. This known interference may push the intelligence community further online and force them to look at how other nations can affect domestic politics and policy by influencing public opinion with false, partial or targeted information.  

 

Trump's Politicization of the State Department

The State Department under President Trump has been dangerously politicized, forcing the agency to become a tool for the president's political objectives. Beginning under the leadership of Tillerson and continued under Pompeo, there has been a clear targeting of career officials in the State department. Trump's Secretaries of State have implemented a top-down power structure in the agency, icing out and harassing the senior experts they perceived as disloyal. The State Department has hemorrhaged foreign officers under Trump's purview, depriving it of collective decades of expertise. 

Secretary of State Pompeo announced that he would release more of Hilary Clinton's emails just weeks before the presidential election, only a day after the predisent had expressed his disappointment over Twitter about the emails being withheld from the public. The partisan posturing by Pompeo is the latest in a troublingly long line of examples of the State Department's politicization. Unsatisfied with the already deep damage caused to the agency's career officials, Trump has also announced an executive order intended to extend his ability to dismiss any civil servants unwilling to fall in line. This executive order - going into effect in just 90 days - will allow for thousands of federal civil servants to now be classified as at-will employees. Those affected will have their protections effectively stripped as career professionals, giving the president and his politically-appointed department heads the ability to target these employees for political dismissals without recourse. 

Under the Trump administration the expertise within the State Department has been diminished, and the agency has been forced into becoming a political institution beholden to the executive branch's interests. The damage done and personnel lost is generational. 

U.S. Policy on Iran Stands Firm as Arms Embargoes Expire

     On October 18, 2020 a decade long U.N. arms embargo on Iran expired. This embargo forbid Iran to purchase any foreign made weapons, tanks or aircraft. The embargo also did not permit Iran to sell any of its weapons to other nations. The "Iran Nuclear Deal" which spawned this embargo has been greatly criticized by the Trump administration on numerous occasions. The United States at this moment formally does not recognize the end of the embargo. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected the expiration staying, "The United States is prepared to use its domestic authorities to sanction any individual or entity that materially contributes to the supply, sale, or transfer of conventional arms to or from Iran, as well as those who provide technical training, financial support and services, and other assistance related to these arms." "For the past 10 years, countries have refrained from selling weapons to Iran under various U.N. measures," Pompeo said. "Any country that now challenges this prohibition will be very clearly choosing to fuel conflict and tension over promoting peace and security." The Trump administration also considers the end of the embargo moot due to the reimposing of the U.N. sanctions by the U.S. independent of the international community after withdrawing from the nuclear deal in 2018. 

    The Iranian state called the end of the embargo " a momentous day for the international community... in defiance of the U.S. regime's effort." "Today’s normalization of Iran’s defense cooperation with the world is a win for the cause of multilateralism and peace and security in our region" Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted. Iran also stated it does not intend on a "buying spree" but it can now in theory openly trade arms with friendly nations. In reality however, Iran's economy remains weak due to the U.S. imposed sanctions. Many nations avoid and will continue to avoid arms deals with Iran due to fear of American financial retaliation. Trump administration warned that any sales of weapons to Iran or Iranian weapons exports would be penalized. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency predicts that Iran will likely purchase Russian Su-30 fighter jets, Yak-130 trainer aircraft and T-90 tanks. Iran also may try to buy Russia’s S-400 anti-aircraft missile system and its Bastian coastal defense missile system. The DIA worries not only about the advancement of Iran's domestic arsenal but that U.S. arms embargoes failed to stop Iran from selling weapons to Yemeni Houthi rebels. This new ability to export weapons more freely may lead to further destabilization of the region. 

    Iran however has long been outmatched by the Arab Gulf nations with whom the U.S. supports. Six Arab Gulf nations have matched agreed with and matched the reinstated U.S. sanctions and also refuse to recognize the end of the embargo. With this action, the signing of the "Abraham Accords" and multiple deals regarding the sale of F-35 aircraft to Arab Gulf states the U.S.-Gulf alliance grows stronger. As Iran gains strength and seeks more influence over the region the U.S. relationship with Israel and the Arab Gulf states will begin to play an ever increasing role in stabilization of the Middle East. 

COVID-19 Outbreak is Only Making Matters Worse

  For the first time since July the United States surpassed 64,000 new COVID-19 cases in a matter of two days. Accompanying this resurgence of COVID cases, is the roadblocks to creating a vaccine. There have been several pharmaceutical companies report that they are either halting their testing or that they have not made enough progress for a vaccine to be produced soon. Whereas, President Tump and his administration have repeatedly said that a vaccine is coming "momentarily". Scientists have also refuted his claims that a vaccine will be coming soon. Pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer has been working tirelessly to create a vaccine and they reported Friday that they would not be able to produce a vaccine prior to the election. Now the major aspect of any vaccine in America is whether or not the vaccine meets FDA guidelines and can be approved; approval is the problem that Pfizer is struggling with currently. Pfizer chief executive, Albert Bourla expressed his understanding that the company could possibly have enough information to determine their vaccine's effectiveness this month, but they would not be able to meet the safety follow-up required for FDA approval. In order for FDA approval to happen the vaccine would have to have enough Phase 3 clinical trials to show the FDA of it is in fact safe. 

This new outbreak in cases is a less than ideal situation for the US government as it prepares for the presidential election in just a little over two weeks from now. Even with the strong push for untraditional voting methods people are still going to vote in person, which began on September 9th. This year there is a sizable amount of people who are in fact voting by mail in ballots which has been in practice but never to this scale. America is seeing record turnout for this election, and COVID is not taking a day off so we can vote. Another outbreak not just threatens our most fundamental aspect of government, but also it threatens the progress that was made just a few months prior. More and more counties and states are enforcing more mandates whether that be to wear masks or shutting down restaurants and business. If this next outbreak is not contained the economic impact could very well be detrimental to many small economies throughout this country. 

Foreign Policy and Nat'l Security in the 2020 Election Thus Far

Election season is upon us, and thus far there has been a presidential debate and vice presidential debate. National security, itself, has not truly been defined by either presidential candidate.  However, both platforms unveiled their foreign policy strategies. 

The presidential debate on September 29, 2020 saw both candidates largely ignore foreign policy altogether. There was no discussion from the democratic nominee, Joe Biden, about how exactly he plans to re-align America with its Allies and Trump continued blaming China for the U.S. Coronavirus deaths. Biden assessed the Trump Administration failed to conjure any positive results from its “trade war” with China. Meanwhile, President Trump continued to throw insinuations towards Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden for his work as an international consultant. The most notable foreign policy moment on stage was Joe Biden’s Arabic quip “inshallah” as Trump discussed the ongoing issues of his personal tax returns. Whether this was Joe Biden’s way of showing Americans can be cultured or merely flexing his political intelligence over his counterpart, it truly failed to reassure Americans of both candidates’ foreign policy and national security plans. 

For reference there has been little explanation from the Biden campaign about how they will go about fulfilling their foreign policy goals which include:

• Take "immediate steps" to restore alliances.

• Reform the U.S. military presence in the Middle East.

• Take a greater international role in fighting climate change.

In contrast, Trump’s platform remains largely unchanged from what we have seen in his first term with little emphasis on major changes in strategy:

• Continue bringing American troops home from "endless wars." 

• Combat international terrorism

The vice presidential debate on October 7, 2020 appeared far more promising in the foreign policy arena. The moderator posed the question “Where do you see America’s role in the world?” This kick-started a classic political banter back-and-forth between Pence and Harris about foreign policy issues such as China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Harris provided a well-rounded answer emphasizing credibility and leadership while accusing Trump of abandoning democratic allies for authoritarian ones. Whereby Pence replied defending Trump’s, arguably successful, achievements in focusing on combating China’s influence, killing Suleimani, and sanctioning North Korea and Iran. Both debaters failed to show-off their foreign policy or national security ingenuity and sparked questions as to whether either candidate would be well-versed in tackling these tough issues without their current leadership. 

Overall, it is not shocking given the American landscape that national security and foreign policy have taken a “back seat” in regards to major domestic issues such as racism and police reform, healthcare, Supreme Court nominations, and alike. However, it is concerning that little effort was given from both tickets’ to articulate their visions for America in the international community. Hopefully the next and last debate on October 22nd will demonstrate some further strategic planning especially given events such as ceasefire failures in Nagorno-Karabakh and Xi Jinping telling his military troops to focus all energy on preparing for war. 

Roscosmos Vs Space X

 

We all know that during this era of technology there is a challenge to now concur space. The Russian space force program, or Roscosmos, has been in competition with Elon Musk’s Space X for an extensive time. Space X is owned by Elon Musk and shareholders while being funded privately and through different projects with NASA. Roscosmos is headed by Dmitry Rogozin, who became the leader in 1992. The US and Soviet space programs were in competition with one another prior to the actual formation Russia and the secrecy was even heavier then. We see the veil of secrecy lifted as we enter the new age of technology and internet. As this creates new avenues of sending and receiving valuable information. This becomes particularly important with regards to how people share pertinent data and cross over boundaries of respect for one another.

Recently, Russia’s space program has fallen under scrutiny with regards to a Twitter account that has been since deleted. Maxim Suraev is the cosmonaut that has openly called out the program as being inadequate when compared to Space X. This controversy goes into more than just one person firing shots, but rather there are multiple accounts that are involved. Through the tweets released it seems there is concern that program Space X is outperforming their Russian counterparts. The robot, Fedor, is rumored to have sent some of the response tweets, but as of now the accounts have all been deleted and an investigation is pending.

Where do we draw the line with social media and this new technological industry where we are fixing to place humans on Mars, but we, as a collective whole, are not united on this front? At what point do decide to put aside differences and possibly join forces. As opposed to driving a further wedge between our relationship.

There Was No Winning: Shifting the Discourse Around The Fight Against Pandemics

 

When the U.S. hit the grim milestone of 100,000 COVID-19 deaths, former Department of Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem tweeted the following:

“In the military, there is a notion of acceptable losses, a calculation made about whether the risk of death is outweighed by the benefits of a battle win. We rightfully do not have a similar metric for the homeland. This is simply unacceptable. #100ThousandDead"

Kayyem’s comparison, it must be said, is somewhat flawed. The U.S. did not willingly enter the “battle” against COVID-19; it was thrust upon us, which limits our ability to generate a “similar metric.” However, our inability to develop such contingencies implicitly suggests that COVID-19 is not a battle that was ever “winnable,” in the traditional sense. This conclusion, then, makes the case for framing COVID-19 through Jacqueline Whitt’s “strategy of not losing.”

Ironically, partisan critics of tactical errors on “the other side” (e.g. President Trump’s failure to implement robust testing; Democratic governors’ decisions to move COVID-19 patients to nursing homes) share a clear implicit goal: avoiding excess deaths. In this sense, we have a (fairly obvious) picture of “not losing.” However, implementing this consensus priority as our overarching strategic goal makes it difficult to argue that there is a way to “win” against a pandemic–and thus strengthens the case for aiming at “not losing.”

As support for this framing, consider one recent analysis, which suggests that 70-90% of COVID deaths could have been prevented through swifter action by the U.S. government, particularly the President. While some of the actions mentioned are politically/Constitutionally nonviable (a national lockdown) or were contested (border closures), many of them were eminently achievable. However, this would still leave us with 35,000 unavoidable deaths at the time of analysis alone; given the intensity with which we still mourn the events of 9/11, which killed around 3,000, few would likely consider 35,000+ deaths to be a victory in any meaningful sense. 

Not only is this shift in discourse key to resolving political disputes during crisis–it is the necessary crux of the issue strategically, especially if we truly are entering an “age of pandemics.” Perhaps the most necessary retrospective analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on the U.S. will involve coming to terms with several brutal realities: that there is no way to “win” against a pandemic, that our end strategic goal is to “not lose,” and that the pandemic-specific metric for “not losing” will always be largely out of our hands.

Iran's Wargame Woes

 

  The tensions between the United States and Iran have been rising since May of 2018 when President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal. Tensions were heightened when in January of 2020 a U.S. drone launched an attack near Baghdad International Airport taking out Iranian General Kasim Salemani. Escalating pressure continued into July when an American F-15 intercepted a passenger aircraft from Iran which had deviated from the civilian air corridor over Syria. One week after the F-15 incident a mock U.S. aircraft carrier was photographed leaving the port of Bander Abbas where it was towed to the Strait of Hormuz. 

    The replica aircraft carrier was first spotted between 2013 and 2014 and when questioned the Iranian government claimed it was to be used as a movie prop. However, in 2015 the fake carrier was spotted again during Iran's "Great Prophet 9" wargame. The carrier sported U.S. Navy external markings and seemed to resemble the USS Nimitz which regularly patrols the Persian Gulf. During the exercise "Great Prophet 9" Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps launched attacks against the aircraft carrier stand-in using air, land and sea based ballistic missiles. The mockup is merely a barge fashioned with external metal to serve as a symbolic representation of a U.S. Nimitz-class carrier however the attacks are carried out to prove Iran's alleged military superiority over the United States. During the wargame the vessel was damaged but was not intended to be sunk, instead it was repaired to serve the same role again. 

    In response to the increasing tensions with the United States Iran carried out "Great Prophet 14" in late July of 2020. The aircraft carrier mockup yet again served its purpose as a target for rocket attacks. However, during this exercise it was accidentally sunk. This creates a significant problem for the Iranians and for merchant vessels in the region. The sunken carrier now blocks port Bander Abbas's main approach channel. Attempts by ships to circumnavigate the wreck or attempts to remove it also prove very challenging as the surrounding waters only measure forty-five feet in depth. The presence of this barrier poses not only a threat for Iranian state due to the the vital nature of this port but also the potential for an international incident. With tensions already high Western powers are well aware that 21% of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Continued supply of this oil is critical and it is imperative that operations continue normally without interference from the Iranian state. However, with the popularity of this Iranian port and the dangerous nature it now poses it important to understand how an accident of a merchant ship in this port could escalate to dangerous levels. The accidental sinking of a merchant vessel due to the blockage of the port by the fake aircraft carrier could result in misinformation surrounding such an incident and thus perceived malicious intent or intentional negligence could further heighten tensions. 

The Possibility of U.S. Diplomatic Withdrawal from Iraq

     On September 28, 2020 U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened to close the U.S. embassy in Baghdad over claims of increased rocket and improvised explosive device (IED) attacks by Iran-backed groups and armed rogue groups against the the U.S. embassy, areas with large American and coalition forces, and the Baghdad Airport. The U.S. posits that in order to stay, the already fragile Iraqi government must take tougher measures against the militias. Statements from the Iraqi foreign minister and U.S. officials indicate the evacuation of the embassy and extraction of the diplomatic representatives are intended to provide more military options to the U.S. to combat Iran-back forces thus paving the way for a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq.

    There is allied support from the UK, Canada, and Saudi Arabia for requiring better protection of the embassy and personnel. Between October 2019 and July 2020 about 40 rocket attacks have targeted the US embassy or bases housing American troops; In September 2020, alone, Iran-back Shiite militias launched more than two dozen attacks in or around Baghdad. There are echoes that these events are parallel to the events in 2012 in Benghazi which led to the death of an American Ambassador and 3 others. While it has been quickly dismissed by the Iraqi Foreign Minister, there may be credence to this argument. It is worth analyzing whether this is a scenario where we are learning from the past or if Mike Pompeo is actually opening the door to more “stick” waving by removing the carrots. 

    Whether combatting and taking a hard stance against Iran or protecting the diplomatic core are the prerogative for these unprecedented events, one key idea springs to my mind: What about U.S. relations with the Iraqi people? There are alternatives to opening Iraq to the havoc an intensified proxy war with Iran. There are alternatives to reducing diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The U.S. needs to acquire the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Democracy is installed, security forces trained. Undoubtedly, there are still problems for Iraq, but the U.S. could do more, learn more, and focus more on the people on the ground. Could this be an opportunity to use Iran's playbook and throw it back at them. Investing in Iraq provides an opportunity to bolster pro-American sentiment is something I haven’t seen discussed often. It is hard work and can backfire as we saw after the success of the Cold War and current crackdowns by Putin and Hungary’s Orban on American institutions and NGOs. It doesn’t guarantee support by American voters. It doesn’t guarantee a solution to Iran-back militias shooting rockets. However, Iran-back militias are and have been killing Iraqi civilians. Iraqis want jobs and to protect their families. Why not try something new? Given past initiatives and unjustified invasion in 2003, the U.S. has wagered the lives of Americans for years in order to preserve American influence in Iraq, why let Iran spoil it?