War is not the answer but is big business for a few U.S. companies. We are the largest maker of weaponry and sell arms to the world. The U.S. just concluded the biggest arms deal ever with a key player in the Syrian conflict: Saudi Arabia.

Let’s cultivate peace and turn to a diplomatic solution. Military action has only made things worse. The talks in Vienna are a good start. Over 18 nations are taking part. Remember, one must bargain with ones enemies as well as with ones friends. Perhaps a cease fire will begin the peace process; then an arms embargo for all government and rebel groups. A UN peacekeeping force can be called in. President Obama may have to lead diplomatic efforts to reach a negotiated end to the civil war in Syria. All the above would slow the flow of migrants and bring some much-needed stability to the Middle East. There is another way!

Yet hardliners in Congress are preparing a new sanctions bill. President Obama has vowed to veto it. Whether Congress reaches the two-thirds majority to override his veto depends on whether some Democrats – notably Indiana’s Senator Joe Donnelly – join the Republicans pushing this legislation.

Hawks claim that their bill would mean increased leverage, pushing Iran to make further concessions. But the bill is an ultimatum imposing increased sanctions if Iran does not accept what many experts believe are unnecessarily humiliating terms for a final agreement. The President and global diplomats believe the bill would instead lead Iran to break off negotiations. Iranian hardliners, who have also opposed negotiations, would be vindicated, and Iran would likely step up nuclear activities. That in turn would set the stage for Israel to attack Iran and unleash a new war in the Middle East, almost surely involving the United States.

The last thing the world needs is another war, which would increase the risks of global terrorism as well, ironically, as the chances Iran would actually build a bomb.

Sources:

https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2015-01-15/Congress-Should-Support-Negotiations-Not-New-Iran-Sanctions

https://www.rollcall.com/news/let_the_diplomats_do_the_driving_with_iran_commentary-232362-1.html

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000003454696/obama-urges-against-new-iran-sanctions.html

https://fcnl.org/issues/iran/israeli_us_security_experts_support_first_step_deal/

National Intelligence director, James Clapper, testified last month that in his 50-year career in intelligence, he had not “experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.”

Yet, in its new budget, the Obama Administration is proposing deep cuts in defense spending. Not since before World War 2 will the Army be as small. The number of Navy ships will drop to World War 1 levels. The Air Force is slated to lose several aircraft, including the famous spy plane, the U-2.

Congress is unlikely to approve all these proposals. But with the world in such a mess, why are they even being considered?

The across-the-board spending cuts Congress enacted in 2012, when it could not agree on how to trim the Federal budget, are one reason. While many worried about their impact on social programs and public services, defense programs were targeted for half the reductions. The results are now evident.

In addition, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates notes in his memoir, Duty, the military itself has long resisted modernizing its forces. The President and his staff, he also writes, have little background or interest in defense policy. Other than as a source of money for their districts, neither do many members of Congress. The result: sharp cutbacks.

Nonetheless, the world is still a dangerous place. And if the United States is not prepared to respond to crises, who will be?

Sources

“Worldwide Threat Assessment to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence” (Office of the Director of National Intelligence)

“Winners, Losers in Pentagon’s New Budget” (NBC News)

Gates, Robert M. Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary of War. (Knopf, 2014)

Forty years later, the American Studies Association and other academic groups are moving along the same path. They are adopting resolutions calling for boycotts or other steps against Israeli institutions, ostensibly because of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. These actions stem from a campaign to treat Israel as a country that practices apartheid, as South Africa once did.

However, not even those it is supposed to help support this movement. Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, has objected to boycotting Israeli goods.

Nor is it apt to be very effective. The Economist magazine has called the boycotts “flimsy” with little impact. Even Israeli critics of their country’s policies regard these tactics as counter-productive.

Most importantly, the campaign to equate Zionism with racism is fundamentally flawed. The case for the state of Israel rests not on the claim that Jews are better than other people, but on their right to national self-determination. Until that right is recognized by others in the Middle East, conflict will persist.

In 1991, the UN repealed its resolution. IU’s Michael McRobbie and other academic leaders have already denounced the action of the American Studies Association. But until the Jewish desire for a homeland is accepted, anti-Semitism will continue to flourish in a new form among those who should be most resistant to it.

 Sources

Zionism as Racism Resolution: Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with Suzanne Garment, A Dangerous Place, Little Brown, 1978.

“Campaign Against Israel” (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

“Boycott by Academic Group Is a Symbolic Sting to Israel” (New York Times)

“Boycotting Israel: New Pariah of the Block” (The Economist)

“A Leftist’s Critique of BDS” (Daily Beast)