Foreign policy

Well that didn’t take long. No sooner had I decried the notion that President Barack Obama’s decision to move (but not cancel) the US’s proposed missile defence shield from eastern europe than, sure enough, up more folk arrive to suggest that OMG! It’s Munich All Over Again! This time it’s Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, who, in a fit of blinding orginality, argues: With just one announcement, the Obama administration undercut two loyal allies, rewarded Russian bullying, and diminished our ability to counter an emerging Iranian threat. If there were awards for self-defeating weakness, this move would deserve a Neville for Appeasement in a Perpetually Threatened Region. Enough with

Well, according to Dick Cheney, George W Bush was just as almost as bad as your average America-hating euro-weenie or member of the Democratic Congressional caucus. Barton Gellman – whose sourcing is pretty good – reports that: Cheney’s disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets. “In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him,” said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney’s reply. “He said Bush was shackled

I must say I was surprised by Fraser’s praise for Mikheil Saakashvili on Friday and his support for the stance taken by David Cameron and Liam Fox on matters Russian and Georgian. Surprised, because I’d thought Cameron’s dash to Tbilisi last year one of the more reckless moments of his leadership that demonstrated that, like John McCain, his judgement in foreign affairs was too often too open to accusations of rashness.  Apart from anything else, as Carl Thomson ably demonstrates, Saakashvili is a poor poster boy for liberalism, even by the standards of the Caucasus. If Georgia is, in Fraser’s description, “a light of democratic freedom” it’s a light that

Apparently black is white and up is down when it comes to some people’s analysis of events in Iran. Here, for instance, is our old friend Stephen Hayes: Obama says he doesn’t want to be seen as “meddling” given the long history of US-Iranian relations. Leave aside the question of whether simply stating the obvious is “meddling.” If the majority of Iranians believe that Ahmadinejad’s re-election is not legitimate, isn’t it more likely that Obama’s silence in the face of a stolen election will be viewed as another chapter in that long history rather than the end of it? There’s a simple answer to this: no it is not likely

How committed is Obama to human rights? Not very, it seems. Perhaps his speech in Cairo on Thursday will change one’s view of this, but the new President must be judged by actions, not merely words and noble intentions. As my friend Mike Crowley points out: But when it comes to Egypt, he has already set a tone. Obama has declined to make America’s $1.8 billion in foreign aid to Egypt (our second-largest recipient) conditional on political and human-rights reform, and aid specifically for democratic programs has been slashed by more than half, from $55 million to $20 million. Hillary Clinton has spoken cautiously about Egypt’s severe political repression. Cue

Dan Drezner asks his “realist colleagues” if they can think of any reason why Iran should or would give up its nuclear ambitions. Stephen Walt offers some reasons why, unlikely as it might seem, Iran should consider doing so for its own advantage. I think Walt makes some good points but that they may not seem quite so persuasive when viewed from Tehran. In the end, too much of his argument is based upon the notion that the United States is Really Crazy, which risks leaving Walt making an argument that is the mirror image of the Mad Mullahs are Mad and Cannot Be Trusted Not to Do Mad Things

Sure as eggs is eggs, the arrival of a new American president heralds fresh fretting in the British press over the precise state of the so-called “Special Relationship”. Today’s text comes courtesy of Rachel Sylvester, writing in the Times. It’s worth considering in some detail: The inauguration of a president who is adored by the British public could ironically spell the end of the special relationship between the UK and the US. Just as the voters in this country decide that it is time to get up close and personal with America, so the Yanks are losing their passion for the Brits. Just as the Prime Minister decides it is