Tag: Missiles
Stevenson’s army, February 9
– WSJ touts US information warfare over Ukraine.
– Politico reports some intelligence officials think too much is being released.
– Russians deny promises to Macron.
– At FP, writer sees Xi-Putin statement as no big deal.
– Maybe hypersonic weapons can easily be defeated, but that technology is on the critical list.
– The FY23 budget was due yesterday, but the 2022 budget hasn’t been passed. Expect lengthy delays.
– Sanctions against Honduran president revealed.
– Updated version of WaPo report on Afghan evacuation gives more evidence supporting my view that a key factor was the organizational culture clash between a State Dept that always resists closing an embassy and was sympathetic to the destabilizing effects on the host nation government and a military that makes detailed, rigid plans without regard to diplomatic and psychological consequences — coupled with a White House that prefers hedging to binary choices.
CORRECTION: The stopgap spending bill runs to March 11, not April as I wrongly said yesterday.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 1
– Summits lead to deals. Qatar’s leader met with Biden and won “Major Non-NATO Ally status” CNN has background. Qatar promised help with the Taliban.
– Archives confirmed what Politico and others reported previously: President Trump often shredded documents which by law should have been preserved; so they’ve been taped together.
– There’s also more evidence that Trump sought DOD or DHS to seize voting machines.
– North Korea is bragging about its missile tests.
– NYT looks for patterns in recent African coups.
– [This came up in class Monday] FT analyzes German internal debates over Russia and Ukraine.
– Location matters.Both Boeing and Airbus promise to build new tankers in US.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 5
– Cook Political Report says redistricting is a wash.
– Defense appropriations heading to higher figure.
– Austin & Blinken together testify on Afghanistan before SFRC next week, in closed session.
– DefenseOne criticizes US hypersonic missile program.
– Vox sees flaws in legal opinion on SEAL refusal to vaccinate.
Charlie also published this yesterday:
I’m always looking for good cases to illustrate the policy process. For diplomatic and military policies, the supply is vast. For foreign economic policy, however, I haven’t found many. Until this week, when I finally had a chance to read Edward S. Miller’s 2007 book for the Naval Institute Press, Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Miller also has a revealing summary of U.S. economic sanctions policies starting with World War I, showing how reluctant U.S. officials were to use sanctions for foreign policy purposes. The key law empowering the president for almost any economic sanctions, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] of 1977, is actually based on a section of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. That law resulted from a bureaucratic fight between the Commerce Department, which historically ran export controls, and Treasury, which claimed jurisdiction over financial transactions laws. Treasury won that fight, not least because the assertive secretary was also President Wilson’s son in law.
A similar bureaucratic struggle occurred in 1940-41 over Japan.Secretary of State Cordell Hull, the key interlocutor with the Japanese, resisted harsh sanctions because he considered them too provocative. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, however, favored pressure but had only an advisory role on sanctions. In key meetings with FDR in July, 1941, the president decided on freezing Japanese assets in the United States and restricting exports of various commodities but not a full embargo. Roosevelt and his cabinet officers even expected to sell oil to Japan, but only after some delay and on a case-by-case basis.
At the sub-cabinet level, however, Dean Acheson dominated the interagency committee that wrote the rules implementing FDR’s executive order and did so to prevent any oil shipments to Japan, a red line that many historians argue made war inevitable. Hull was upset to learn of the impact of the rules when he returned from medical leave, but was reluctant to force a change that might be viewed as favorable to the Japanese. FDR himself was preoccupied with his meeting with Churchill in August and the growing naval conflict with Germany and did not force a change back to his original policy.
Miller cites a 1976 paper by a researcher at the National Archives which has even more details of the hawkish cabal in the bureaucracy on the broad range of export restrictions on Japan, including redefining “aviation gas” so as to prevent any oil exports.
The key lesson for me is the power of the sub-cabinet bureaucracy to shape policy by implementation rules, regardless of presidential-level decisions. It happens all the time. The formal policy was to deter Japan from greater conquest by limited but significant export restrictions, not a full embargo. The actual policy Japan faced was an existential threat.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, November 22
[This is the 58th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy.]
– FT has more on the Chinese hypersonic missile test.
– WSJ says US thwarted secret Chinese project in UAE.
– US warns allies of Russia attack on Ukraine.
– WaPo says DOD reviews NATO exercises, concerned they may be too provocative.
-NYT says Iranian nuclear programs revive despite Israeli attacks.
-Carnegie analysts see clash between US security and democracy interests.
– Sudan’s PM restored to position.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This isn’t easy, but it’s worth the try
President Biden has decided to ignore the attack on US forces deployed in Erbil, Iraq earlier this week and proceed with talking to Iran about returning to the nuclear deal, at the invitation of European allies. This move entails political risk, as surely Republicans and others will criticize talking with people who are rocketing American troops. But the alternative is worse: making a strategic priority subject to tactical moves of uncertain origin. Tehran may have ordered the attack in Erbil, or it may have originated with an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) proxy anxious to prevent US return to the nuclear deal. Or maybe someone else did it.
The US has little other option at this point. Iran is moving rapidly now to enrich more uranium, transform it to metallic form, and block some International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Tehran could be a good deal less than a year from being capable of making an atomic weapon. I doubt it will do so, as that would give others in the region unequivocal incentive to follow suit, and a nuclear Iran would be on a hair trigger alert with Israel every day of the week. But betting on the rationality of the IRGC and the Supreme Leader would be a serious mistake.
Four years of Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” on Iran have yielded nothing but evidence that economic sanctions won’t cause Tehran to re-enter nuclear negotiations in order to deepen and extend their nuclear commitments. Trump also failed to get Iran to expand the talks to discuss the missile and regional issues, as America’s Israeli and Gulf allies would like. It remains to be seen whether Biden’s approach will work better, but the main thing for the moment is to restore as much as possible of the status quo ante, that is the situation from before the Trump Administration’s ill-advised and poorly executed withdrawal from the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action (JCPOA, aka Iran nuclear deal).
This will not be trivial. The know-how Iran has gained can’t be reversed without killing scientists, which the Israelis have been willing to do. But if they continue, Iran will itself withdraw from the JCPOA. The current Israeli government might be pleased with that, as it appears to want a good excuse to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. But their Gulf allies would quickly part company with that move. Their capitals all lie within striking distance of Tehran’s missiles, as do their oil tankers. The Abrahamic accords could quickly see the Gulf part ways with Israel as quickly as Ishmael and Isaac did.
The Biden Administration is entering a complex diplomatic maneuver. The Trump sanctions have unquestionably provided leverage, but history suggests you get what you want from sanctions not when you impose them but when you negotiate relief from them. That can be done gradually and in phases corresponding to Iranian moves. But some in Congress will be sniping at you from behind and some in Tehran will be trying to torpedo the effort with attacks on Americans throughout the Middle East. This isn’t easy, but it’s worth the try.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 25
– Intelligence warning yesterday — Russia, China, & Iran are trying to interfere in US elections this year.
Here’s the brief text.
– There’s the British parliamentary committee’s report on Russian interference in the UK
– In order to sell drones, US is evading the Missile Technology Control Regime. Here’s background on MTCR.
– Here are two assessments of Pompeo’s China speech — Fred Kaplan and James Palmer.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
