Global Paradigms

Remind me why the current parliamentary elections taking place in a small country in the Middle East with about six million citizens is probably receiving MORE coverage in the American media than a race for the Governorship of, say, New York or California? There was a time when the results of an election in Israel could have determined whether the U.S. would have been able to pursue the "peace process." Well, no peace processing is going to take place any time soon. If you want to know why read my recent analysis "How to Handle Hamas. The Holy Land needs a more modest peace plan. Think Cyprus," in The American Conservative which was posted earlier on this blog , in which I argued that the peace process is for all practical purposes dead. I suggest in my piece that all we can hope for under the current conditions is some sort of a separation between the two communities. I agree with what The Economist suggested in recent leader, "The remarkable survival of Kadi...

Karl Lueger: Anti-Semite John Mearsheimer: Critic of Israel Lobby I've received a few emails from online pals who were wondering based on my earlier posts whether I "support" or "approve" of the paper/article that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (M/W) had written about the Israel Lobby . Interestingly enough, I’ve never been asked whether I “support” or “approve” of articles by, say, Paul Krugman or Tom Friedman but whether I “agree” with this or that stuff published by this or that “public intellectual.” My usual response is that I agree or disagree with some or most of what these guys have to say (believe it or not, I actually agree sometimes with what Krugman and Friedman have to say). And, hey, I sometimes find myself disagreeing with some of the things I had written a day or two ago… That’s the nature of intellectual discourse. You approve of or support the platform of a political party, a policy proposal or a diplomatic agreement. Yet when it comes to d...

A Image from 2009? I've been trying to caution the war critics that when it comes to Iraq The End is Not Near and that they are departing the Reality-based community when they imagine that political pressure at home would force President Bush to start withdrawing troops from Iraq any time soon. I assume that after Bush told a news conference Tuesday that future U.S. presidents and Iraqi governments probably will have to decide when to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, everyone is finally facing the reality, that American troops will remain at war in Iraq at least through 2008 and beyond. If you still have any illusions, please read Tony Karon excellent Iraq is the 51st State posted on his Rootless Cosmopolitan blog. Here is a highlight: The U.S. isn’t about to walk away and leave the borders of the country with the world’s second largest known oil reserves prey to the whim of Tehran or Ankara or Damascus or anyone else. That may be why when Kerry challenged Bush on the campaign trai...

This U.S. guy wants to be the Global Boss... So he hopes to get the Indian guy.... ...And Australia and Japan on the U.S. side... ...to help him to contain the China guy... ...who then gets together with the Russia Guy to counter-balance the U.S.... ...as it tries to counter-balance the Iran Guy... Yes, boys and girls, it looks like a lot of fun as we seem to be returning to the balance-of-power games 19th century-style, with one Great Power trying to win the support of another Great Power to counter-balance that other Great Power which then... In short, as this enlightening and entertaining analysis Springtime in Beijing makes it clear the neocon-driven strategy of replacing the bipolar system of the Cold War with a Unipolar system led by Boss Bush is facing major challenges. And the Iran nuclear crisis could turn out to be a major diplomatic battleground in which American push towards hegemony would be tested. Happy Multipolarism!

My article,"Muddling Through:The Bush administration has no idea what it's doing," which was published originally in the Business Times of Singapore was posted today on antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com : American officials, lawmakers, and pundits have been analyzing – over-analyzing is probably the right term – U.S. President George W. Bush's new National Security Strategy (NSS), leading one to conclude that the document that was issued last week has major significance in terms of gaining insights into what kind of approach to world affairs the Bush administration will be pursuing in the last three years of its term. In a way, it is not surprising that the pundits have been trying to deconstruct the 2006 NSS in order to gain possible insights into the Bushies' foreign policy. Have President Bush and his national security team adopted a more "realistic" orientation? Will the United States attack Iran's nuclear facilities? Will there be more of an eff...

Stephen Walt John Mearsheimer In an earlier post I discussed an article authored by two of my favorite political scientists, John Mearsheimer (the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago) and Stephen Walt (the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard) on the Israel Lobby which was published in the new issue of the London Review of Books . I'd assumed that the article (which was based on a research paper that I haven't read yet) would iginte a heated debate and some controversy. And it should. After all, the the Israeli Lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is not only the most powerful foreign policy looby in Washington but has exerted an enormous (and that's an understatment!) influence on U.S. policy in the Middle East, a region in which American intervention has resulted in major costs for the American people(terrorism, wars, a lot of $$$). I've been at the rece...

Dr. Strauss provides comments on this celebration of anarchy on Stop The Spirit Of Zossen : The original's anarchist view (the V and the 1980s “A” for anarchy not accidentally similar) is and was self indulgently childish — especially when the reality Moore railed against is now so much more immediate than his overcooked imaginings just twenty years ago. Apropos "A" for Anarchy check out the "A" is for Anarchy in the Wall Street Journal . It's an interesting review/history of the anarchist movement by Todd Seavey. What Seavey and others fail to point out is that "V" is not fighting against a middle class liberal democratic regime but against a Fascist dictatorhsip. Would he label the partisans fighting against the Vichy regime in France as "anarchists?" And it's not surprising that the Tory Anarchist aka Daniel McCarthy gave it "V for … Very Good, Actually:" Glamourized sadism is an apt description of the Wachowkis’ last ...

My article on the Dubai controversy which has been published in The American Conservative is now available online: March 27, 2006 Issue Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative Six Ports and a Storm The Dubai debacle shows Americans looking inward. By Leon Hadar It’s not every news cycle that the columnists for the anti-interventionist Antiwar.com and for the internationalist op-ed page of the New York Times find themselves echoing the same line-of-the-day spun by the media masters of George W. Bush’s White House. Those lawmakers who have criticized the Bush administration’s decision to allow a company owned by the government of Dubai —which is part of the United Arab Emirates—to purchase a British company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation—which now has the contract to operate six major U.S. ports—were “Kicking Arabs in Their Teeth,” screamed the headline of a column by the Times’ in-house neoconservative David Brooks, a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, Jus...

Civil War Not A Civil War The Washington Note is providing us with an overview of the propaganda campaign led by The Cheney-led Civil War-Deniers to try to convince us that indeed what's going on in Iraq is not a civil war but just examples of honest disagreements between a few alpha males taking place in Liberated/Free/Democratic/New Iraq. The most pathetic example of these efforts that don't seem to affect the majority of the American people has been the series of dispatches from Iraq by Ralph Peters that seem to suggest that, well, forget Provence and Tuscany; choose Iraq as your next vacation destination. Well, if it looks like a civil war, and if it sounds like a civil war, it's a Civil War. That at least is the conclusions of two former U.S. intelligence guys. Larry Johnson in Smells Like Civil War? explains and illustrates: Is there a civil war in Iraq? Let's imagine that the events, which happened on Sunday, March 12, 2006 in and around Baghdad, occur tomorr...

My analysis, "How to Handle Hamas. The Holy Land needs a more modest peace plan. Think Cyprus," was published in the new issue of The American Conservative (April 10, 2006). Online access is not yet available. But if you click on the following images you'll be able to read the article:

Olivia Ward from the Toronto Star interviewed several experts including yours truly on the topic: Leon Hadar, author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East and a research fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, says the fear of an Iranian bomb is overblown. And, he adds, looking at the question historically, there may be points in its favour. "If you go back to when China exploded its first bomb, the reactions in the American press looked like the end of the world had come. "China was ruled at that time by ideological fanatics who were every day reiterating their plans to destroy the West. But in the end it created a triangle of relationships that contained the Soviet Union, which was already armed with nuclear weapons." When Pakistan set off five nuclear tests in 1998, it was also greeted with horror. However, Pakistan's relations with its nuclear rival, India, thawed in the aftermath of the blast, and there was new agreement over the territorial is...

Reading all the nasty reviews of V for Vendetta you would think that it's a movie about Osama bin Ladin produced by the communist propagandist Willi Münzenberg and directed by Hitler's favorite film-maker Leni Riefenstahl (if she only had left for Hollywood in the early 1930's, she would have been the recipient of several Oscars). Normonson (John Podhoretz)bashes it in the Weekly Standard "an Atlas Shrugged for leftist lunatics." The more intelligent Stephen Hunter complains in the Washington Post that it's not as good as George Orwell's "1984" in terms of "evoking dyspotia" but then expresses his revulsion over the movie's "tasteless celebration of explosive devices taking down famous London landmarks, which invites us to cheer as another step" against the fascistic regime depicted in "Vendetta." And then there is David Denby in the New Yorker whose reviews I usually find very instructive who really hates t...

The NR issue that WF Buckley missed Yeah... I guess that time flies when you're also having bad time. Very soon GWII could end up being longer than WWII. To mark the anniversary I decided to re-examine the comments I made during an adress before the Middle East Council in Washington on January 2003 a few weeks before the start of the war Following the end of the first Gulf War and the Madrid Peace Conference, there were high expectations in Washington that a new American-led order would be established in the Middle East. The Madrid Peace Conference and the ensuing Oslo peace process were supposed to lay the foundations for a New Middle East: Peace between Israel and a Palestinian state. And the integration of the region into the global economy. Ten years later and it's the same old Middle East. There is a President Bush. There is an Assad. (He does surf the Internet. So perhaps globalization did have some effect.) The ayatollahs are still around. And so are the Hashemittes. And...

My commentary on the Dubai/ports controversy and what it means (a chllenge to globalization by the rising forces of nationalism), which originally appeared in the Singapore Business Times was posted today in antiwar.com : March 17, 2006 Saying Good Bye to Dubai; Bidding Adieu to Globalization? by Leon Hadar Philip Bobbitt's The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History (Alfred A. Knopf) received a few glowing reviews when it was published in early 2002 but did not get much attention beyond the confines of think-tanks and academia. Perhaps the book was too heavy for the broader readership (well, with more than 1,000 pages, it certainly was) and it is quite possible that in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, not a lot of people were interested in reading a Big Picture analysis on the future of globalization. But, in fact, the scenarios about the prospects of globalization drawn up by Bobbitt were – and are – very relevan...

It's an intellectual bombshell. John Mearsheimer and Stephan Walt, two respected realist political scientists launch a frontal attack on the Israel Lobby in the recent issue of The London Review of Books . It's a very comprehensive and intelligent critique of AIPAC and the influence it exerts on U.S. policy in the Middle East: The Israel Lobby John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume th...

Is it possible that Cheney and his aide John Hannah are reading out loud the first sentence -- "The Dick Cheney era of foreign policy is over" -- in Look Who's Running the World Now which was published in The Washington Post over the weekend? In the article, one of Washington's leading brown nosers, David J. Rothkopf, asserts that "Cheney's influence has waned in the White House" since President Bush no longer depends on the vice president as he did in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush was still learning national security on the job and the nation was in crisis. The president today is better schooled [?] , more experienced and more confident. Second, Rumsfeld, who is Cheney's staunchest supporter after the president and whose vacation home is just a few steps away from Cheney's on Maryland's Eastern Shore, has lost a lot of his clout. No longer the center of attention, as he was during the offensives in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rumsfeld...