Complex Problems Without Simple Solutions
The crisis in Syria and concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapons are multi-faceted and incredibly complex issues. Outsiders like me (and likely most people following this conversation) have limited access to information about these situations and thus see only small pieces of a much larger, intricate puzzle. After a brief discussion of why foreign policy is so important when deciding how to vote for president, I will offer a few observations about possible paths to follow in addressing the situations in Syria and Iran.
Foreign Policy and Choosing a President
The oft-quoted description of the U.S. President as the “most powerful person on earth” may tend toward hyperbole, but the president does indeed wield significant power over issues that affect thousands, millions, and even hundreds of millions of lives. Presidential decisions matter. Lives can and do hang in the balance.
As voters evaluate presidential candidates, they should consider the powers and duties of the office, paying particular attention to those actions and decisions a president ultimately decides alone.
International affairs is one of these key policy areas where the president has great freedom to take independent action. The president serves as chief diplomat, interacting directly with other foreign leaders, and he sets the tone and issues directives for the State Department as they pursue diplomatic efforts around the globe. Although Congress technically has the sole power to declare war, in modern practice, the president has initiated most military actions by committing troops and issuing orders for military strikes.
Some foreign policy concerns span several decades and develop over many years, vexing Democratic and Republican administrations alike. But many, and sometimes most, of the foreign policy dilemmas that arise during a president’s term are unexpected. As I have expressed in more detail elsewhere, even the most thorough campaign cannot address all of the possible issues a president will face. We cannot know exactly when, where, and what will happen in our own country or abroad. Presidents often face complex foreign policy realties that leave them few, if any, good options. In presidential elections, we should seek a leader whom we find most trustworthy to make wise decisions in the midst of great uncertainty.
Syria: An Unexpected Crisis with No Easy Solutions
The Syrian case is an excellent example of an unexpected international crisis. Even respected scholars were taken by surprise; eighteen months ago, no one was predicting a Syrian uprising that would leave thousands dead and Assad refusing to cede power.
I will defer to those with greater knowledge to offer more specific policy prescriptions.
From my understanding of the current conflict in Syria, the United States has few, if any, viable options for a unilateral response. Experts generally agree that the extensive complexity on the ground precludes most military options. The Syrian opposition movement has been severely fractured and is only recently beginning to unify; it is unclear how or if we should support them. Some reports, for example, suggest possible links between some of the rebels and Al Qaeda. The U.S. has already imposed significant sanctions against Syria without much success, and diplomatic efforts thus far have failed.
The international community has possible options it might pursue, but few offer much promise for establishing peaceful order. The peace plan Kofi Anan recently negotiated looks promising, but it has to begin with a cease fire. It is hard to imagine Assad easily or willingly ceding his power. His violent response to the uprisings and retaliation against his own people has essentially backed him into a corner. At this point, he has little to gain from negotiations, and opposition leaders and the families of victims are unlikely to accept anything short of Assad’s removal. Meanwhile Assad has overwhelming firepower and maintains control of key leadership sectors in Syria.
As is often the case with international issues, the situation in Syria is incredibly complex, and no good solutions are readily apparent. The United States, the Arab League, the United Nations and others should continue seeking solutions and pursuing diplomacy, but we should not expect a quick and easy end to this crisis.
Iran: An Ongoing, Bipartisan Concern
The situation in Iran is a good example of an ongoing international issue that transcends party differences. Democrats and Republicans agree that the world will be less safe if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Iran refuses to allow inspections, so we are uncertain about the status of their weapons program. Intelligence reports vary. The Israelis are publicly raising concerns that the timeframe is short; other countries estimate Iran may be a few years away from nuclear weapons. Analysts are also unsure if Iran will actually build the weapons or if they will stop short of declaring themselves a nuclear power.
What are some of the possible options for U.S. policy?
First, we could engage in more direct diplomacy and hope that those efforts combined with increased sanctions result in Iran allowing inspectors into their sites.
Second, the United States could initiate some sort of limited military action. An air strike may or may not be effective; successful strikes might set a weapons program back 2 or 3 years. Military strikes could have significant fallout, and depending on the way and level to which Iran responded, the action could lead to a wider regional war.
Third, we need to assess if we can live with a nuclear Iran. Although this is not the preferred scenario, building a bomb does not automatically lead to using it. Some strategy for containment might be possible.
Seeking a Christian Response
The situations in Syria and Iran raise complex and troubling questions political leaders must address. But how can ordinary Christians like us respond? With no access to essential intelligence and only limited information from the news media, how can we make sense of such vexing problems?
We can start by admitting that we can’t fully understand the depth and complexity of these issues nor can we easily predict outcomes of the array of possible responses governments may pursue. If we suggest actions or make foreign policy recommendations, we should do so with caution and caveats.
We can all act with great confidence and boldness, however, in bringing the conflict in Syria and the potential threat from Iran to God in prayer. We can pray for peaceful solutions to such complex problems, we can intercede on behalf of those affected by conflict, and we can pray for wisdom for the men and women who gather information, propose alternatives, and make difficult decisions that affect so many lives.
I appreciate your measured response, particularly your willingness to do what few are willing to do – admit that the complexities may be beyond your ability to give an adequate response. This may be the best place to start in any such discourse related to foreign policy issues.
What I would suggest is that there is a critical element missing from this discussion which skews it a particular direction even before the issue can be discussed. What is absent is a recognition of the destabilizing role a recalcitrant and increasingly aggressive Israeli government is playing in most if not all of the regional conflicts. Iran is a case in point. While we are insisting that Iran abandon its nuclear program, they are well aware, as are all players in the region, that Israel is not only a nuclear power, but has never allowed inspectors in to verify this. This merely affirms what most Middle Eastern peoples recognize, which is that the primary American interest in the Middle East is to preserve Israel's power to do anything she wishes over against the interests of her neighbors. Until we develop a more even handed approach that backs up our pronouncements about Israeli settlements and Israeli aggression with the same kind of sanctions we impose on Iran, there is little that we as a nation can do that will make any real difference related to justice and peace in the Middle East.
I appreciate your measured response, particularly your willingness to do what few are willing to do – admit that the complexities may be beyond your ability to give an adequate response. This may be the best place to start in any such discourse related to foreign policy issues.
What I would suggest is that there is a critical element missing from this discussion which skews it a particular direction even before the issue can be discussed. What is absent is a recognition of the destabilizing role a recalcitrant and increasingly aggressive Israeli government is playing in most if not all of the regional conflicts. Iran is a case in point. While we are insisting that Iran abandon its nuclear program, they are well aware, as are all players in the region, that Israel is not only a nuclear power, but has never allowed inspectors in to verify this. This merely affirms what most Middle Eastern peoples recognize, which is that the primary American interest in the Middle East is to preserve Israel's power to do anything she wishes over against the interests of her neighbors. Until we develop a more even handed approach that backs up our pronouncements about Israeli settlements and Israeli aggression with the same kind of sanctions we impose on Iran, there is little that we as a nation can do that will make any real difference related to justice and peace in the Middle East.
I appreciate your measured response, particularly your willingness to do what few are willing to do – admit that the complexities may be beyond your ability to give an adequate response. This may be the best place to start in any such discourse related to foreign policy issues.
What I would suggest is that there is a critical element missing from this discussion which skews it a particular direction even before the issue can be discussed. What is absent is a recognition of the destabilizing role a recalcitrant and increasingly aggressive Israeli government is playing in most if not all of the regional conflicts. Iran is a case in point. While we are insisting that Iran abandon its nuclear program, they are well aware, as are all players in the region, that Israel is not only a nuclear power, but has never allowed inspectors in to verify this. This merely affirms what most Middle Eastern peoples recognize, which is that the primary American interest in the Middle East is to preserve Israel's power to do anything she wishes over against the interests of her neighbors. Until we develop a more even handed approach that backs up our pronouncements about Israeli settlements and Israeli aggression with the same kind of sanctions we impose on Iran, there is little that we as a nation can do that will make any real difference related to justice and peace in the Middle East.
John,
Thanks for your comments and for offering some of your additional thoughts about broader questions in the Middle East.
I can’t speak for each of the six authors contributing the initial essays to start these conversations, but my guess is that they will share my view that it is incredibly difficult to address each new topic in anything close to the 600-800 word limit that is our target. Our responses can only scratch the surface of multi-faceted issues.
I concur that U.S. support for Israel and internal Israeli politics significantly complicate issues in the Middle East. I would add that the antipathy toward Israel from its neighbors is another relevant factor that adds further complications. Perhaps we will attempt to tackle the Israel/Palestine question in a future topic.
Amy
John,
Thanks for your comments and for offering some of your additional thoughts about broader questions in the Middle East.
I can’t speak for each of the six authors contributing the initial essays to start these conversations, but my guess is that they will share my view that it is incredibly difficult to address each new topic in anything close to the 600-800 word limit that is our target. Our responses can only scratch the surface of multi-faceted issues.
I concur that U.S. support for Israel and internal Israeli politics significantly complicate issues in the Middle East. I would add that the antipathy toward Israel from its neighbors is another relevant factor that adds further complications. Perhaps we will attempt to tackle the Israel/Palestine question in a future topic.
Amy
John,
Thanks for your comments and for offering some of your additional thoughts about broader questions in the Middle East.
I can’t speak for each of the six authors contributing the initial essays to start these conversations, but my guess is that they will share my view that it is incredibly difficult to address each new topic in anything close to the 600-800 word limit that is our target. Our responses can only scratch the surface of multi-faceted issues.
I concur that U.S. support for Israel and internal Israeli politics significantly complicate issues in the Middle East. I would add that the antipathy toward Israel from its neighbors is another relevant factor that adds further complications. Perhaps we will attempt to tackle the Israel/Palestine question in a future topic.
Amy
Hi, Amy,
I appreciate your measured response, although I must respectfully disagree with your attempt to separate Israel/Palestine from the discussion. Israel/Palestine is not a separate issue. It is integrally related to all of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. It is certainly what leads one of the contributors to this discussion to categorize the Iranians as "evil," as this is determined at least in part by the fact that they pose a possible threat to our client state, Israel (defined in this case as "good". No one, by the way, is asking whether or not the Iranians might feel threatened by a nuclear equipped Israel. We don't ask that question, as the underlying assumption behind this discussion is that Iran is evil, Israel good. Good nations are allowed to have WMDs; bad nations not). The point here is to say that any discussion about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons cannot remove Israel from the equation.
This, however, was not my greatest concern in raising the issue about the very nature of the discussion itself. My greater concern is the fact that what is happening in Iran and Syria raise two very different sets of issues, which means that they shouldn't be cobbled together in this way. Here my concern is less how Israel is related to what is happening, than what this says about our tendency to read all Middle Eastern realities through the same distorted lens. Here one is reminded of Edward Said's "Orientalism." In this book, as well as other things he wrote during his celebrated career, Said notes that western scholars, as well as westerners in general whose only source of information about the region is the western media, tend to read Middle Eastern societies through a panoptic lens as though this very diverse region can be described by a handful of easily grasped characteristics ("exotic", "mysterious", "violent", "irrational" – with the one exception of Israel, which is a brightly shining star of western enlightenment in a sea of despotism). In this case it is natural to assume that what is happening in Syria and Iran must be related, as they are two sides of the same evil dinar. The fact that few on this list challenged this assumption throws into question any conclusions they reach, apart from your own wise decision to recognize the complexity of the issues under consideration. I once again thank you for that.
Hi, Amy,
I appreciate your measured response, although I must respectfully disagree with your attempt to separate Israel/Palestine from the discussion. Israel/Palestine is not a separate issue. It is integrally related to all of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. It is certainly what leads one of the contributors to this discussion to categorize the Iranians as "evil," as this is determined at least in part by the fact that they pose a possible threat to our client state, Israel (defined in this case as "good". No one, by the way, is asking whether or not the Iranians might feel threatened by a nuclear equipped Israel. We don't ask that question, as the underlying assumption behind this discussion is that Iran is evil, Israel good. Good nations are allowed to have WMDs; bad nations not). The point here is to say that any discussion about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons cannot remove Israel from the equation.
This, however, was not my greatest concern in raising the issue about the very nature of the discussion itself. My greater concern is the fact that what is happening in Iran and Syria raise two very different sets of issues, which means that they shouldn't be cobbled together in this way. Here my concern is less how Israel is related to what is happening, than what this says about our tendency to read all Middle Eastern realities through the same distorted lens. Here one is reminded of Edward Said's "Orientalism." In this book, as well as other things he wrote during his celebrated career, Said notes that western scholars, as well as westerners in general whose only source of information about the region is the western media, tend to read Middle Eastern societies through a panoptic lens as though this very diverse region can be described by a handful of easily grasped characteristics ("exotic", "mysterious", "violent", "irrational" – with the one exception of Israel, which is a brightly shining star of western enlightenment in a sea of despotism). In this case it is natural to assume that what is happening in Syria and Iran must be related, as they are two sides of the same evil dinar. The fact that few on this list challenged this assumption throws into question any conclusions they reach, apart from your own wise decision to recognize the complexity of the issues under consideration. I once again thank you for that.
Hi, Amy,
I appreciate your measured response, although I must respectfully disagree with your attempt to separate Israel/Palestine from the discussion. Israel/Palestine is not a separate issue. It is integrally related to all of the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. It is certainly what leads one of the contributors to this discussion to categorize the Iranians as "evil," as this is determined at least in part by the fact that they pose a possible threat to our client state, Israel (defined in this case as "good". No one, by the way, is asking whether or not the Iranians might feel threatened by a nuclear equipped Israel. We don't ask that question, as the underlying assumption behind this discussion is that Iran is evil, Israel good. Good nations are allowed to have WMDs; bad nations not). The point here is to say that any discussion about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons cannot remove Israel from the equation.
This, however, was not my greatest concern in raising the issue about the very nature of the discussion itself. My greater concern is the fact that what is happening in Iran and Syria raise two very different sets of issues, which means that they shouldn't be cobbled together in this way. Here my concern is less how Israel is related to what is happening, than what this says about our tendency to read all Middle Eastern realities through the same distorted lens. Here one is reminded of Edward Said's "Orientalism." In this book, as well as other things he wrote during his celebrated career, Said notes that western scholars, as well as westerners in general whose only source of information about the region is the western media, tend to read Middle Eastern societies through a panoptic lens as though this very diverse region can be described by a handful of easily grasped characteristics ("exotic", "mysterious", "violent", "irrational" – with the one exception of Israel, which is a brightly shining star of western enlightenment in a sea of despotism). In this case it is natural to assume that what is happening in Syria and Iran must be related, as they are two sides of the same evil dinar. The fact that few on this list challenged this assumption throws into question any conclusions they reach, apart from your own wise decision to recognize the complexity of the issues under consideration. I once again thank you for that.
As moderator of this current conversation on Syria & Iran, the recent exchange between John Hubers and Amy Black prompts me to provide some clarifications intended to continue and advance the conversation.
First, we all recognize the complexity of the current situation in the Middle East, which can be likened to a complicated jigsaw puzzle with many interrelated pieces. But we cannot talk about all of the pieces at the same time. So, the reason for focusing, this time around, on the situations in Syria and Iran is to address two specific issues that are currently prominent in foreign policy discussions in the United States: the conflict in Syria and the nuclear build-up in Iran. This is not to “cobble” the two issues together as if they were indistinguishable (and our commentators do not treat these issues as if they were identical). But, it does recognize at least one deep connection between the two issues: the extent to which the United States should, or should not, consider military action, negotiations and/or sanctions in response to these two situations – see “potential leading question” #4 (which our commentators do address in some detail).
Having said that, however, it is always important to note that another piece of the Middle East puzzle can have an important effect on the two pieces on which we are presently focusing. Therefore, I believe John Hubers is absolutely correct when he asserts that “any discussion about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons cannot remove Israel from the equation.” Therefore, I believe that much can be added to this present conversation if one or more of our commentators will now address this “connection.”
In an attempt to further explore the possible interconnections between the many pieces of the Middle East crisis, let me announce that the next topic for conversation will be “Israel and Palestine,” to be launched on April 25.
As moderator of this current conversation on Syria & Iran, the recent exchange between John Hubers and Amy Black prompts me to provide some clarifications intended to continue and advance the conversation.
First, we all recognize the complexity of the current situation in the Middle East, which can be likened to a complicated jigsaw puzzle with many interrelated pieces. But we cannot talk about all of the pieces at the same time. So, the reason for focusing, this time around, on the situations in Syria and Iran is to address two specific issues that are currently prominent in foreign policy discussions in the United States: the conflict in Syria and the nuclear build-up in Iran. This is not to “cobble” the two issues together as if they were indistinguishable (and our commentators do not treat these issues as if they were identical). But, it does recognize at least one deep connection between the two issues: the extent to which the United States should, or should not, consider military action, negotiations and/or sanctions in response to these two situations – see “potential leading question” #4 (which our commentators do address in some detail).
Having said that, however, it is always important to note that another piece of the Middle East puzzle can have an important effect on the two pieces on which we are presently focusing. Therefore, I believe John Hubers is absolutely correct when he asserts that “any discussion about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons cannot remove Israel from the equation.” Therefore, I believe that much can be added to this present conversation if one or more of our commentators will now address this “connection.”
In an attempt to further explore the possible interconnections between the many pieces of the Middle East crisis, let me announce that the next topic for conversation will be “Israel and Palestine,” to be launched on April 25.
As moderator of this current conversation on Syria & Iran, the recent exchange between John Hubers and Amy Black prompts me to provide some clarifications intended to continue and advance the conversation.
First, we all recognize the complexity of the current situation in the Middle East, which can be likened to a complicated jigsaw puzzle with many interrelated pieces. But we cannot talk about all of the pieces at the same time. So, the reason for focusing, this time around, on the situations in Syria and Iran is to address two specific issues that are currently prominent in foreign policy discussions in the United States: the conflict in Syria and the nuclear build-up in Iran. This is not to “cobble” the two issues together as if they were indistinguishable (and our commentators do not treat these issues as if they were identical). But, it does recognize at least one deep connection between the two issues: the extent to which the United States should, or should not, consider military action, negotiations and/or sanctions in response to these two situations – see “potential leading question” #4 (which our commentators do address in some detail).
Having said that, however, it is always important to note that another piece of the Middle East puzzle can have an important effect on the two pieces on which we are presently focusing. Therefore, I believe John Hubers is absolutely correct when he asserts that “any discussion about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons cannot remove Israel from the equation.” Therefore, I believe that much can be added to this present conversation if one or more of our commentators will now address this “connection.”
In an attempt to further explore the possible interconnections between the many pieces of the Middle East crisis, let me announce that the next topic for conversation will be “Israel and Palestine,” to be launched on April 25.
Harold:
Just a very brief rejoinder: your use of a jigsaw puzzle to describe the reality of life in 22 very different countries may underscore the point I am trying to make. This assumes that we can have a discussion about one singular puzzle, when in fact, it would be much better to speak about a multitude of different puzzles, just as we would do with North America or Europe, where, because those are people "like us" the diversity is immediately and instinctively recognized. What I'm arguing for here, as well as in numerous venues where I've been asked to address issues related to our experience in that region, is to recognize the diversity.
Harold:
Just a very brief rejoinder: your use of a jigsaw puzzle to describe the reality of life in 22 very different countries may underscore the point I am trying to make. This assumes that we can have a discussion about one singular puzzle, when in fact, it would be much better to speak about a multitude of different puzzles, just as we would do with North America or Europe, where, because those are people "like us" the diversity is immediately and instinctively recognized. What I'm arguing for here, as well as in numerous venues where I've been asked to address issues related to our experience in that region, is to recognize the diversity.
Harold:
Just a very brief rejoinder: your use of a jigsaw puzzle to describe the reality of life in 22 very different countries may underscore the point I am trying to make. This assumes that we can have a discussion about one singular puzzle, when in fact, it would be much better to speak about a multitude of different puzzles, just as we would do with North America or Europe, where, because those are people "like us" the diversity is immediately and instinctively recognized. What I'm arguing for here, as well as in numerous venues where I've been asked to address issues related to our experience in that region, is to recognize the diversity.