A major reason why so many American strategists believe it is imperative to aid the Syrian rebels is because Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s fall would significantly roll back Iranian influence. Syria has been Iran’s only consistent ally since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the Syrian-Iranian axis has enabled the two terror sponsors to expand their global reach. Riding high since its 2006 war with Israel, Hezbollah would soon find out how truly weak its position is should its lifeline through Syria disappear. Had it not been for the interference of Bashar al-Assad and his late father Hafez, Lebanon might have thrived and Beirut might have maintained its position as “the Paris of the Middle East,” rather than simply been the tenuous oasis it is today with the Sword of Damocles always hovering just overhead.

Iran hovers above other policy debates as well: It was always the elephant in the room during discussions of Iraq, and it remains the predominant concern in western Afghanistan, even if concern regarding its influence is overshadowed by that of Pakistan in Kabul. Dating back to the Karine-A and before, Iran had become a chief impediment to Palestinian compromise with Israel. Iranian involvement in Sudan poses an increasing threat to U.S. strategic interests.

Alas, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Syria, American strategists advocate extinguishing the fire rather than addressing the arsonist. Certainly, it is an American strategic interest not to allow Iran to prevail in Syria, although it is doubtful whether the opposition as it is now composed would pose any less of a threat to U.S. interests. Those to whom the Syrian quagmire is predominantly a human rights concern may also counsel intervention, but certainly it is also true that the Iranian leadership cares little if its “export of revolution” kills tens of thousands not only in Syria, but also in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, or elsewhere.

Simply put, the chief impediment to peace and stability in the Middle East is Iran, and it’s long past time the United States begins to realize that there will be no breakthrough on any issue of concern to U.S. national security until the Islamic Republic no longer exists. It should be the policy of the United States to hasten that day.

Now, make no mistake: seeking regime change does not mean bombing Iran let alone any action which would put any foreign troops in that country. Not only would the U.S. economy not stand it, but military intervention would strengthen the Iranian regime. The best thing that ever happened to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution was Saddam Hussein’s invasion, because the Iraqi aggression enabled Khomeini to rally the Iranian people around the flag just when it appeared that the revolution would collapse upon Khomeini’s cruelty and the emptiness of his ideology.

Nor is bombing wise: I have always opposed military strikes on Iran for a simple reason: Military strikes might delay the ayatollahs’ ambition for two or three years but, unless the United States has a policy to take advantage of that delay, Washington would essentially be using our men and women in uniform to kick the can down the road because Washington was unable to formulate a policy. That would not only have tremendous cost in terms of blood and treasure—both American and Iranian—but it would also be a misuse of the American military. At present, when people talk about military strikes on Iran “as a last resort,” they are essentially talking about bombing Iran every two or three years, and that is not acceptable.

While the State Department no longer considers the Mujahedin al-Khalq Organization (MKO) a terrorist organization, that group is at best a creepy cult and, regardless, is no less noxious to ordinary Iranians who may dislike the Islamic Republic, but hate the MKO even more. Thinly-disguised bribes to American officials does not legitimacy make.

Nevertheless, there are many other strategies that could promote direct citizen empowerment in Iran, make life difficult for the regime, and move to hasten its downfall. Some of them I addressed in COMMENTARY back in 2010, and other technologies I was only introduced to later. Outreach to dissidents, open discussion of Iran’s corruption and human rights situation on the part of U.S.-sponsored Persian language broadcasting, and support for independent labor and civil society groups should also be on the table. After all, if the Iranian regime is so confident in its election participation numbers, why not allow independent groups to compile their own statistics? Surely the Iranian government does not fear truth?

While some lobbyists look at the election of Hassan Rowhani as a sign that Washington should seek reconciliation with Tehran, they are wrong. Not only is Rowhani not the moderate some suggest him to be, but also no one should learn the wrong lesson from the crowds which celebrated his victory: Had anyone more liberal than Rowhani been allowed to run—especially someone who did not pay fealty to the Supreme Leader—that person would have won in a landslide.

Alas, since the 1989 inauguration of George H.W. Bush, the policy of the United States has been at best incoherent and at worst a quarter century replication of the elder Bush’s “Chicken Kiev” approach to international relations. Neither Obama nor Kerry are strategic thinkers, but perhaps there is space among their successors in both the Democratic and Republican parties for some serious discussion about how the region might be different if the Islamic Republic did not exist, and then what the United States might do to achieve that goal.

filed under:Iran nuclear diplomacy Syria

If Iran Is the Problem, Why Focus on Syria?

Must-Reads from Magazine

Politics & Ideas

The Flushing Remonstrance

Year zero.

JOHN STEELE GORDON / Aug. 25, 2017

The statue insanity goes on.

The latest is a call to scrub from New York City the name of one of the most famous people of early Colonial America, Peter Stuyvesant, governor of New Netherlands from 1647 till the British takeover in 1664.

Stuyvesant’s name is found all over the city, from Manhattan’s Stuyvesant Square, with its statue by Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney (founder of the Whitney Museum), to Bedford-Stuyvesant (usually elided to Bed-Stuy) neighborhood in Brooklyn, to Stuyvesant High School, one of the city’s (indeed the country’s) most elite public educational institutions, more difficult to get admitted to than Andover or Exeter.

(By the way, Stuyvesant had famously lost part of a leg to a cannon ball in his military days and stumped around on a wooden replacement. When Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney created her statue of him in the 1930’s it was not known which leg he had lost, so she had to guess. As luck would have it, she guessed right. Recent research has uncovered that it was his right leg that was lost.)

Stuyvesant’s thought crime was anti-Semitism. While the Dutch were notably more tolerant than most other Europeans at that time, Stuyvesant had in full measure the common 17th-century attitude about Jews. But he had little use for Catholics, Quakers, or Lutherans either or, indeed, for anyone not of the Dutch Reform Church. He tried to keep out of the colony anyone not of that faith, forbidding them to build houses of worship when he couldn’t prevent them from settling.

But Stuyvesant’s intolerance had a curious and wholly good result, the Flushing Remonstrance.

When Stuyvesant banned public meetings of non-Dutch Reform churches, a group of citizens in what is now Flushing, on Long Island, petitioned Stuyvesant to reverse the policy:

The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sonnes of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. . . .Therefore if any of these said persons come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but give them free egresse and regresse unto our Town, and houses, as God shall persuade our consciences, for we are bounde by the law of God and man to doe good unto all men and evil to noe man. And this is according to the patent and charter of our Towne, given unto us in the name of the States General, which we are not willing to infringe, and violate, but shall houlde to our patent and shall remaine, your humble subjects, the inhabitants of Vlishing.

Stuyvesant ignored the petition, of course. Indeed, in 1658 he proclaimed a “Day of Prayer for the purpose of repenting from the sin of religious tolerance.” In 1662, he had John Bowne of Flushing arrested for allowing Quakers to meet in his house (which is still there, one of the oldest in North America and well worth a visit). He deported Bowne to Holland (although Bowne was English and spoke no Dutch) and Bowne asked the governors of the Dutch West India Company to intervene. They wrote Stuyvesant a letter ordering him, in no uncertain terms, to end all religious persecution in the colony.

Thanks to the Flushing Remonstrance (and thus at least indirectly to Peter Stuyvesant), New Amsterdam (New York after 1664) quickly became the most religiously tolerant city in the American colonies, welcoming all faiths, as it still does. The idea spread to the other colonies and is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. No wonder the Flushing Remonstrance is often called, “The birth certificate of American religious liberty.”

Politics & Ideas

Obama’s Motives

Rehabilitation.

Noah Rothman / Aug. 25, 2017

When Caroline Randall Williams practically begs Barack Obama to speak out on the state of American politics, she speaks for millions of distraught Democrats. “We need your voice,” she writes in an op-ed for the New York Times. “There is not a saner, more trustworthy opinion that many of us would rather hear.”

Williams confesses to a sense of “panic,” and Donald Trump’s penchant for divisive racial agitation surely hasn’t helped ease her sense of dread. But by her own admission, her nervous condition is a result of less sober and rational voices on the left sucking up all the oxygen. Her anxiety peaked, she reveals, when people like Alan Dershowitz and Maxine Waters warned her that a constitutional crisis is just around the corner.

The young author and columnist, whose moving appeal to the former president resonated with many apprehensive Democrats, will soon get her wish. Barack Obama will not languish in the shadows in his post presidency. Indeed, he cannot afford to, but not because of an acute civic crisis looming forever just over the horizon. He has an image to rehabilitate.

The 44th President left his party in tatters. Over 1,000 Democratic lawmakers lost their seats to Republicans between 2009 and 2017. We’re all familiar with the timeline of events. The House fell in 2010; the Senate in 2014. Democrats entered 2009 with 31 governorships. Today, they’re reduced to just 15. Half the Union is governed entirely by the Republican Party. But it’s at the legislative level where the damage to the Democratic brand becomes most obvious. In 2009, 62 of 99 legislative chambers were dominated by Democrats. Today, Democrats control just 31 state-level chambers.

This was Barack Obama’s chief regret, although he did not say so precisely. The decimation of the Democratic “farm team,” from which the youngest and hungriest candidates for federal office are drawn, has handicapped the party. In the autumn of 2016, Obama sought to address this dubious legacy by getting right down to the state level. He toured the country endorsing 150 legislative candidates and campaigning on their behalf. The result? The Democratic Party’s decline continued largely unabated. In the end, Obama’s near total repudiation is self-evident in the image of his successor.

Does Williams know that Barack Obama is as much to blame as Donald Trump for her trauma? She is beset by the voices of doom and panic, in part, because hundreds of center-left Democrats who are less prone to apocalyptic rhetoric find themselves in the private sector today. She hungers for a more reasonable set of Democrats who might reassure her that the system of checks and balances that prevent a demagogic figure from doing irreparable damage to the republic are working (which they are). Obama might be keen to play that role, but he would be doing his fellow Democrats yet another disservice.

All Donald Trump wants for Christmas is a foil onto whom he can project his frustrations that would also unite the GOP behind him. Congressional Democrats are weak and factious. Political media is disliked by Republicans, but they are an unsatisfying opponent (“media” won’t be on the ballot next November). Congressional Republicans maintain their individual constituencies, even if they are mistrusted by the Republican base in the aggregate. And Donald Trump seems disinclined to rally the country against a real foreign adversary.

Barack Obama plans to remerge into the national political scene along with Hillary Clinton, but both plan to do so with as much delicacy as possible, insofar as they can thread that needle, if only to avoid giving Trump what he wants. No matter how they make their move, Donald Trump will exploit their reappearance onto the political scene and reenergize the largely dispirited core GOP coalition.

Williams’s fear is honest, and her plea is heartfelt. That’s why she deserves to hear the unpleasant truth: Barack Obama is as accountable for her anxiety as anyone. The former president’s resurfacing this fall is as likely to exacerbate those symptoms as it is to alleviate them. Given that fact, it’s worth pondering whether Obama really is hitting the trail this fall entirely out of an abiding sense of moral and civic obligation. That’s surely part of what motivates the former president, but it’s not the only thing.

filed under:Barack Obama Donald Trump

Education

Who Knew Diversity Was So Complicated?

An inconvenient truth.

Jonathan Marks / Aug. 25, 2017

As students, faculty, and administrators return to campuses with Charlottesville on their minds, we can expect them to double down on “diversity” initiatives.

I put “diversity” in quotation marks because it means, here, increased representation of and protections for groups deemed marginalized. In this context, gains for Asian students and faculty barely, if at all, register as a gain for diversity.

There are reasons for wanting a diverse faculty even in this narrow sense. It is not hard to see how, in the absence of examples of women doing physics, undergraduate women who otherwise have the interest and capacity to excel in that field might get the impression that it is not for them.

However, the results of a recent study (I link to the working paper because the published version is gated) of professors in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and non-STEM (education, English, sociology, and the humanities) fields at forty selective public universities challenge those who expect that doubling down on diversity efforts will strike a blow against what they call white supremacy. First, efforts to increase faculty diversity have already made considerable headway. Second, areas in which we are not seeing gains may prove hard to crack. And third, we don’t understand well why we see striking differences across fields.

Diyi Li, a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and Cory Koedel, an associate professor of economics and public policy there, conclude that “black, Hispanic, and female professors are underrepresented and white and Asian professors are overrepresented in [their] data,” even among assistant professors, who have been hired recently. However, “comparison of senior and junior faculty suggests a trend toward greater diversity in academia along racial/ethnic and gender lines, especially in STEM fields.”

Moreover, when we consider representation relative to Ph.D. production, rather than to the overall population, we find mixed results. Among Hispanics, there is “no indication of systematic over- or under-representation among assistant professors.” Asian faculty members are “significantly overrepresented as assistant professors relative to domestic degree-production rates in all fields except in sociology.” White assistant professors “are overrepresented relative to Ph.D. production in biology, and to a lesser extent educational leadership and policy; but underrepresented in all other fields, most notably in economics.” As for gender, “representation among assistant professors . . . is generally fairly even.” Finally, “black faculty are consistently underrepresented as assistant professors in STEM fields” and “overrepresented . . . in . . . non-STEM fields.”

The fact that the picture changes dramatically when we look at representation relative to Ph.D. production rather than to the general population reinforces a familiar finding: those who want to increase faculty diversity have a “pipeline problem,” at least in some fields.

In 2015, according to the Survey of Earned Doctorates, 73 doctorates were awarded in chemistry to black candidates, 2.9 percent of the total. Not all of those Ph.D.’s plan a career in academia. In many of the nation’s vast number of colleges and universities seeking to diversify their ranks, quite a few searches will come up empty. Institutions like the University of Pennsylvania, which is pouring $100 million into efforts to attract candidates from under-represented groups, will probably get somewhere. But poorer institutions are likely to be disappointed. Even when it comes to championing social justice, it is good to be rich.

But, Li and Koedel observe, even when the pipeline problem is accounted for, black faculty are surprisingly scarce in the fields of biology and chemistry at the selective public universities they studied. In 2014-15, black candidates earned 2.5 percent of the Ph.D.’s awarded in chemistry by the top fifty colleges and universities, as rated by U.S. News. But they constituted less than 1 percent of the assistant professors in Li and Koedel’s data set. They earned 3.6 percent of the Ph.D.’s awarded in biology but constituted less than one-half of 1 percent of the assistant professors.

This scarcity does not carry over into economics, the other STEM field considered, in which black candidates earned 2.7 percent of the Ph.D.’s and constituted 2.4 percent of the assistant professors. As already noted, we find over-representation in other fields. For example, black candidates earned 1.8 percent of the Ph.D.’s awarded in English but were 8.6 percent of the assistant professors in Li and Koedel’s sample.

Whatever these complex and in some ways puzzling results indicate, they do not suggest that a new push is needed to drag reluctant colleges and universities, complicit in white supremacy, into a diversity fight they have plainly been waging with some vigor. Rather, assuming Li and Koedel’s results survive scrutiny, close attention should be paid to the disparate outcomes they find across groups and across fields.

But at a time in which the urge to do something is strong, their results will probably be ignored.

filed under:college diversity

Politics & Ideas

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

The 2020 race has begun.

Noah Rothman / Aug. 24, 2017

It’s no secret that President Donald Trump is no fan of Arizona Senator Jeff Flake. He’s gone so far as to encourage Flake’s prospective primary challengers and to attack Flake at a rally in the senator’s home state. Turnabout is fair play. Asked whether the president’s habit of engaging in internecine feuds with his fellow Republicans made a primary challenge to Trump more likely, Flake did not give a political answer. “I think he’s inviting one,” he said. Flake is right, but don’t take his word for it. Donald Trump’s own pollster confirms it.

On Tuesday, the Republican consultant and Trump campaign pollster Tony Fabrizio revealed the results of a survey was ostensibly designed to dispel the notion that the president’s base was beginning to lose heart. It achieved the precise opposite effect.

According to Fabrizio, the number of Republican voters who approve of the job Trump is doing in office declined from 81 percent in June to 75 percent in August. Total disapproval increased from 19 to 25 percent. That kind of attrition is remarkable and outpaces even the rate at which public pollsters have shown Republican voters abandoning Trump.

But Fabrizio wasn’t done face-planting. To prove that Trump still commands the enduring affections of his voters, the pollster tested a handful of prominent Republicans who are or were critical of the president against him in a theoretical primary battle.

“[Trump is] crushing a hypothetical GOP primary field,” Fabrizio boomed triumphantly. “So much for the ‘buyer’s remorse’ the DC insiders are convinced the GOP has.” In fact, by even testing this proposition just seven months into a presidency, Fabrizio demonstrated that the president’s people think the ground is softening beneath Trump’s feet. The results of this survey proved conclusively that it is.

In a five-way primary race between Trump, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and Senators Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse, and Tom Cotton, Trump wins the contest handily. But he only pulls the support of 50 percent of the potential GOP electorate and 54 percent of the likely Republican vote. Among all Republicans, only 42 percent would “definitely” vote for Trump, rising to just 49 percent among likely GOP voters.

These are atrocious numbers for an incumbent. By way of comparison, in the immediate wake of the 2010 midterm elections and at the nadir of Barack Obama’s political potency to that point, he was still drawing 65 percent among Democrats in a hypothetical primary contest between him and Hillary Clinton. Fabrizio’s numbers prove without a doubt that Trump’s base is crumbling, and Republicans who are contemplating a primary challenge are justified in doing so.

Trump’s Praetorian Guard may pretend as though the president is unconcerned about a primary challenge, but his behavior suggests otherwise. His 2020 campaign machine is staffing up, raising funds, and tracking potential Democratic challengers. The president is touring swing states holding campaign-style rallies among devoted fans. Donald Trump is not exactly a wounded animal, but he clearly senses that predators are starting to gather, eying him hungrily.

It’s worth considering that this kind of thinking is precisely what Team Trump wants to incept in prospective challengers. Maybe Fabrizio’s inexplicable victory lap is explained by the White House’s desire to bait prospective GOP challengers into probing donors, gauging receptivity on the Hill, or otherwise outing themselves early enough to nail them before they become threats. If that’s the strategy, it’s so obvious and ham-fisted it may only embolden potential candidates.

Inevitably, when political observers think about the prospect of a primary challenge against a sitting president, they think about personalities. Who will the candidates be? This is the wrong way to think about it at this early stage. Few anticipated Eugene McCarthy would emerge a credible candidate in 1965, or that the Vietnam War would be such a rallying cry. In 1977, who expected Ted Kennedy to test his popularity among Democrats at the polls? The issue set that Pat Buchanan used to mobilize a GOP coalition to challenge George H. W. Bush barely existed in 1989. The figures that emerge to challenge Trump could take us entirely by surprise. That’s why it may be more predictive to examine the ideological camps from which primary challengers might emerge.

We can consolidate those camps into three factions. The first we’ll call the Kasich Camp. Ohio’s governor has been unguardedly positioning himself as a challenger to Trump in 2020, but from the president’s left. He does not support Obamacare’s repeal or the prolonging of America’s mission in Afghanistan, and he’s been reliably critical of Trump’s rhetorical excesses.

The second camp is the camp into which Flake and Sasse fall: these Republicans are happy Trump has been convinced to abandon much of his isolationist and protectionist policy preferences, but are convinced his uncivil rhetoric is dividing the nation against itself.

The third camp is the Bannon camp: the wing of the GOP that believes in Trumpism even more than Trump.

Let’s dismiss the last group offhand. The Bannon camp may be the most disappointed with the reality of Trump, but he’s the only game in town. There just isn’t much room to Trump’s right on issues close the hearts of populist nationalists. As for the Kasich Camp, John Kasich pretty has that one locked. This leaves us to speculate on the Flake/Sasse wing. This group has the broadest Republican constituency from which to draw support. It is very likely to produce a real contender.

That contender should, however, realize what he or she might be getting into. There is no triumph on this path; at least, not in the near-term. Trump’s challenger or challengers should know that they are most likely martyring themselves. No one has ever defeated a sitting president in a primary. They will be blamed for rending the party asunder and undermining Trump’s chances for victory in November. If Trump loses, his supporters will be able to dismiss that loss as reflective not of Trump’s record in office but the conceit of the spoiler.

All of these burdens may be worth bearing if prospective candidates truly believe the GOP is being transformed permanently into an irascible, bitter, racially anxious party that is hostile toward conservatism. Trump’s challengers may arrest that transformative process, but they won’t get credit for it initially. Vindication would come later.

filed under:2020 Donald Trump jeff flake

Podcasts

Not What You Expect In a President

Podcast: Does Trump have to start worrying about the primary?

John Podhoretz / Aug. 24, 2017

The second COMMENTARY podcast of the week features me, Noah Rothman, and Abe Greenwald digging deep into new polls—including one issued by President Trump’s own pollster showing Trump with shockingly low support among Republicans as they look ahead to the 2020 primaries—and exploring the question of whether the president actually wants a border wall or just wants to keep talking about one to keep his base riled up. Give a listen.

filed under:2020 commentary podcast Donald Trump

If Iran Is the Problem, Why Focus on Syria?

Commentary's picks:

The System Works

On Russia: Trump vs. Trump

Otto Warmbier, Moral Perversion, and the Social Justice Left

If Iran Is the Problem, Why Focus on Syria?

Must-Reads from Magazine

The Flushing Remonstrance

Commentary's picks:

The System Works

On Russia: Trump vs. Trump

Otto Warmbier, Moral Perversion, and the Social Justice Left

Obama’s Motives

Commentary's picks:

The System Works

On Russia: Trump vs. Trump

Otto Warmbier, Moral Perversion, and the Social Justice Left

Who Knew Diversity Was So Complicated?

Commentary's picks:

The System Works

On Russia: Trump vs. Trump

Otto Warmbier, Moral Perversion, and the Social Justice Left

Notes on Trump’s Usurper

Commentary's picks:

The System Works

On Russia: Trump vs. Trump

Otto Warmbier, Moral Perversion, and the Social Justice Left

Not What You Expect In a President

Commentary's picks:

The System Works

On Russia: Trump vs. Trump

Otto Warmbier, Moral Perversion, and the Social Justice Left