Dwindling Support for Trump's Challenge to America's Democracy

Since the likelihood President Trump will concede to Joe Biden, who most acknowledge as the President-Elect, dwindling by the minute, the remarks made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that directly contradict Trump’s rhetoric does not bode well for the current President. President Trump and his administration along with his campaign have made it seem as though they will fight to the very end that they in fact won the election despite no such evidence. Not only is there very little evidence to support the Trump camp’s claims, their legal actions have been stifled. In Pennsylvania, many of the lawsuits filed by Trump campaign have been thrown out of court. The President is running out of options to challenge the results of the election. 

He has used rhetoric to suggest that he would use certain actions that would in fact lead to the involvement of military personnel. These statements have been directly countered by General Mark Milley whose remarks made it clearly evident that he sees the oath taken by anyone in the military that they serve the Constitution of United States rather than any President who serves as Commander-in-Chief of these service members. 

Having exacerbated almost all of the legal resources at his disposal, Trump would have to rely on support from the troops that he still commands. At least until the President-Elect Joe Biden is sworn in on the Inauguration Day in January. President Trump has faced more opposition by his immediate predecessor, former President Barrack Obama said in a 60 minutes interview that Trump and his administration are “delegitimizing democracy” by disregarding the win by the Biden campaign. 

Those who have been condemning the actions being taken by the Trump administration have used similar rhetoric to President Obama and have even made remarks that coincide with what General Milley said. Perhaps the best way to put it, is that Trump does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging the results of this election. His own Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff has made very public remarks ensuring that the military does not serve him but rather the Constitution and will protect that over him or any future President. 

Trump's desire to fight the election results have created another rift in this country and hurts the respect of America's democracy held by our allies and international institutions. 

A Q by Any Other Name...

Q, the anonymous figure at the center of the Q-Anon conspiracy theory–whose members will be represented in Congress come January–has reportedly gone quiet. This radio silence isn't entirely surprising given that Q predicted a massive Trump victory that did not come to pass. The Daily Beast also notes that "this silence isn't Q's longest; the person went silent for a month in 2019." 

The conspiracy theory specifically around Q's posts–which poses a national security threat–may lose steam as a result of the one-two punch of Trump's defeat and Q's long absence. However, the threat posed by the Q-Anon conspiracy should not be considered to have abated if the conspiracy no longer revolves around Q. After all, few beliefs within the schematic network of the Q supporter are original to Q-Anon. 

Most notably, the belief that there is pervasive child trafficking among prominent "elites" (Q "code" for celebrities and high-ranking Democrats) goes back to the 2016 Pizzagate conspiracy, which resulted in a shooting at D.C.'s Comet Ping-Pong. Conspiracist suspicions of child trafficking (obviously a real and tragic phenomenon; conspiracist beliefs are erroneous with regard to its location and prevalence, not its existence) reared their ugly head again during the Wayfair conspiracy of 2020. Finally, an emerging belief within the Q-Anon network is that prominent celebrities traffic children in order to access a compound in their blood known as adrenochrome; this belief is also unlikely to abate in the absence of Q. 

Simply put, it is important that those studying Q-Anon not focus too narrowly on Q themselves (the Soufan Center has arguably done a good job of this). Given that Q could disappear permanently at any time–and with it, its attendant gatherings of supporters, both online and in-person–quelling the Q-related security threat requires taking the focus off of Q and placing it back where it belongs–on understanding and interrogating the full complement of its supporters' beliefs and their willingness to act on them.

Biden's Transition Team

President-elect Joe Biden has begun the process of establishing transition teams for his administration despite President Trump’s reluctance to admit defeat in the election. His teams are set to be the most diverse yet with 46 percent of the team people of color and 52 percent women. Overall, the team consists of around 500 people with a variety of backgrounds represented. Biden has repeatedly stated that it is important to him to have a transition team and Cabinet that reflects the makeup of America and is not solely elderly white men.

Much of the transition teams come from think tanks, perhaps most notably, the team for the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD team will be led by Kathleen H. Hicks who is currently the director of the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a prominent think tank located in Washington DC. Others on the team currently work for, or have previously worked for, the RAND Cooperation, New America, and the Center for a New American Security. While think tanks are not a part of the government, the work they do is often cited by members of Congress or governmental departments. It theoretically is unbiased and independent research. However, many think tanks rely on massive donations from corporations that have a vested interest in what the research says. This may lead to less impartial research as employees wish to keep receiving funding.

 

While it is not problematic for members of the transition team to have worked at think tanks, it is important to be cognizant of possible links between officials and organizations and to recognize the greater problem within funding for research.

Kosovo and the question of future U.S. military interference abroad

In 1999, NATO and the United Nations intervened and participated in major bombing campaigns during the Kosovo-Serbian conflict. Depending on the definition of national security, I think it can be argued Kosovo is of particular interest to the United States for several reasons, albeit indirectly effecting the U.S. public and homeland: human rights abuses such as ethnic cleansing, the spread of terrorism and guerilla factions in an unstable region on NATO’s doorstep, and maintaining economic ties to a developing region. The rise and fall of Kosovo will not lead to the total destruction of the U.S. However, a key national security strategy within DC since the end of WWII has been maintaining collective security and peace on the European continent. In 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump facilitated an economic normalization deal in order to better infrastructure and economic links between Kosovo and Serbia. This deal does not push Serbia closer to recognizing Kosovo’s sovereignty, but it is a step forward for these two countries with tumultuous recent history. 

That work may be undermined given the new indictments brought by the International Criminal Tribunal against the Kosovar President Thaci last week. Thaci has since resigned from his post as President and is currently in the Hague pleading not guilty to a variety of war crimes perpetuated by the Kosovo Liberation Army (PLA) during the Kosovo conflict in 1998-1999. The tribunal was set up in 2015 to handle cases relating to the war that led to Kosovo’s independence from Serbia a decade later in 2008. The court is governed by Kosovo law but staffed by international judges and prosecutors.

Thaci is cooperating with the international community in confronting these charges, but these proceedings and his resignation may lead to instability in the young Kosovo democracy. Additionally, the war crimes included in the indictment such as murder, torture, organ harvesting, etc. contradict the U.S. international image as a global police officer and advocate for human rights. The U.S. hailed Thaci as a hero during his time with the PLA battling the ethnic cleansing inflicted by the former Serbian leader Milosevic. Therefore his implication in atrocious acts of violence by the International Criminal Tribunal could further erode the history’s analysis of U.S. military interference abroad. Kosovo, Georgia, and Iraq remain primary examples of U.S. interference without a “direct threat” to the U.S. justified through human rights and non-proliferation, Thus the U.S. justification for interference in Kosovo on the grounds of preventing ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, the U.S. could be seen as an unspoken collaborator in the war crimes committed by those it attempted and succeeded in propping up within the new Kosovo republic.

There isn’t yet a statement from the U.S. on this issue, but the U.S. may not be able to go without comment for long given the cooperation of the Council of Europe in bringing about these charges. Lastly, it is important to note Amnesty International and Serbia welcomed the charges for revealing the truth regarding actions during the conflict and bringing solace to those who encountered such violence. However, despite the International Criminal Tribunal being supported by Kosovar law, many in Kosovo disagree with the indictments putting Kosovo’s "liberators" on trial. 

President Elect: Lack of Congratulations!

 

With the recent buzz of the American election it is easy to see how anyone could become swept up in the chaos. However, one would expect officials who are leading countries, especially those who share common goals and daily life, would want to be on good terms with one another. This recent election was a very close election that left Biden as the next President of the United States. In light of this despite many congratulations coming in, there are powerful nations who have decided not to extend any congratulatory sentiments for Biden just yet. Such areas as, Russia, China, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico have in the past openly spoke on matters with the Trump administration and even extended congratulations in advance to the swearing ceremony.

What could this mean for upcoming President-elect? Does this mean that the United States will have upcoming issues with these countries? Is there a bigger-picture situation being held behind closed doors?

It could be very easy to see why someone like Trump would not acknowledge the defeat of his campaign yet, but if countries truly have no issue with dealing with the recently chosen President then why have that not followed suit?

Some countries are following the suit of Mexico, where they “are going to wait for all the legal issues to be resolved… We do not want to act lightly” (CNN, link at bottom). This is the way to prevent saying anything in event the election results be reversed, but this could hold something foreboding for the relationship with president-elect if election results stand as is. The next few weeks should bring about many answers for all tuned in.

The Election and the Courts

 The election has finally ended after an appropriately endless-seeming Election Day and Joe Biden is officially the President-Elect. However, President Trump has refused so far to concede and, instead, has announced his intent to pursue a legal battle. It is somewhat unclear on what grounds Trump plans to fight Biden’s victory, especially as he seems to hold expectations that the Supreme Court will intervene. He has alleged election fraud; however, there is no proof any fraud occurred.  

 

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a single case with ties to the elections. This case focuses on ballots that arrived after 8 pm on Tuesday in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania decided to allow three extra days for receipt and processing, a decision to which Republicans filed an appeal. The state received around 8,000 late ballots which are being held and counted separately until the Supreme Court rules. Ultimately, this case will not affect the election results in any substantial way since Biden has received enough votes to win the state without the added late ballots. 

 

While Trump continues to explore his options, it seems unlikely that anything he could try to pursue would pan out. Biden is projected to finish with 306 electoral votes, a number well over 270. Even the expected recounts that will occur will probably favor Biden. The small number of cases related to election issues that are currently being heard by state and federal courts also will not offer Trump much hope of a legal victory for a second term.

Civil-Military Relations in Thailand

Protestors in Bangkok, Thailand

Thailand has experienced weeks of student-led protests in opposition to the current prime minister and former general, Prayuth Chan-ocha, and his government's crackdown on political opposition and dissent against the monarchy. In the wake of this unrest, rumors have sprung up about the possibility of another military coup by the Thai military. General Narongpan Jittkaewtae, the military's new Army chief, responded to such rumors with assurances that "the chance of making a coup is zero," as long as no particular group instigates a situational or violent conflict. But one can infer that if such a group does arise, even among the ongoing protests, the military could very well respond with force. 

The Royal Thai Armed Forces has a history of political intervention--for example, there have been 30 attempted coups in 80+ years. Its generals have consolidated much domestic power through a close relationship with the monarchy and extensive influence over Thai society, including in schools (military regimentation, conscription) and the government's Civil Service. The military also appoints all 250 members of the Senate and is the country's largest landowner after accounting for the government's national parks. Generals justified Thailand's most recent coups, in 2006 and 2014, as necessary to protect the royal family; in turn, for protection and an armed eye on domestic unrest, the king grants legitimacy to the military, even during coups. 

Compared to other countries, and specifically other democracies, Thailand's civil-military relations are unique--both in the king's and military's quasi-codependence, and the military's clear influence over civil society. As the protests continue, the Thai military may have another opportunity for political intervention--but given popular sentiment towards both civil government and the monarch right now, the military's generals may experience decreased legitimacy as well as a lack of popular support. In the meantime, calls for democratic reform will continue. 

The Military and the Election

 With the election just two days away, there is growing fear on both sides that there will be widespread civil unrest no matter the results. These fears are inflamed by President Trump who recently floated the idea at a rally of using an executive order to stop Joe Biden from ascending to the presidency, should he win. Although the legality of such an order is incredibly murky and would undoubtedly incite national rage, there is a very real possibility for the military that they may be called upon to defend democracy and the president. The only question is who is the president they are beholden to defend? 

 

Historically, the military operates apart from the political system. Officers are chosen on merit, not appointed by a president. However, over the past few years, President Trump has appointed multiple military or former military officers to positions within his administration. While this in and of itself is not problematic, the actions of the administration have prompted other current or retired officers to criticize it and President Trump. This increased politicization of the military is highly problematic as the military must function as a unit and not be spilt along ideological lines. Recently, there has also been infighting between top military officials and Trump after comments by the president stated the military prefers to fight wars in order to please weapon manufacturers. 

 

Should Trump refuse to accept election results (assuming he loses), the top officials in the military will face an extraordinary conundrum. There will almost certainly be widespread protest, similar to this summer after the murder of George Floyd. They will have to decide if the National Guard should be deployed or if even more aggressive military tactics are required, all while keeping in mind the optics of deploying a country’s military on its own people. 

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.