The killing on Friday of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh might bring more within it than what it seems like. The latest assassination is putting Israel, the US and Iran in a very sensitive position. According to Barbara Salvin “Why Was Iran’s Top Nuclear Scientist Killed?”, the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh isn’t about stopping a bomb — it’s about preventing diplomacy. Joe Biden doesn’t have to let it work.

The Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal pushed Iran to produce a large amount of uranium, but it is not close to the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has said repeatedly that it will go back into full compliance with the nuclear agreement if the Biden administration agrees to do the same, and lifts the onerous sanctions piled on by President Trump. However, the recent assassination of its top nuclear scientists has made Iran take a step back and made the diplomacy between Iran and the new US administration under the leadership of Joe Biden harder.

The Trump administration is fearing an expected return to the Iran nuclear agreement by the Biden’s administration. Both the current Trump administration and Israel are fearing that such action would revive Iran’s struggling economy and make it harder to contain its influence in the Middle East.

As we delve further into the holiday season and Americans cannot help but want to spend time together, we currently await a surge of COVID cases to be reported. Dr. Fauci explains how holiday travel will inevitably result in a surge as travel rates reportedly reached the highest since this March with almost 1.1 million travelers passing through airport security. The traveling occurred despite last week’s recommendation from the CDC against holiday gatherings this year. These small gatherings, they explained, could potentially become super spreader events. Despite these disconcerting predictions, Biden appears to be building up his COVID strategy plan. It looks like he will not adopt Trump’s state-by-state tactic and instead plans on implementing a national strategy removing the responsibility from state leaders. It appears like he also plans on implementing a vaccination strategy. Several vaccines appear to be progressing with 55 vaccines undergoing clinical trials in humans and 87 preclinical vaccines in animals. But like everything involving the pandemic – this is not so simple. Even if the vaccines were perfectly ready to be administered next week, it is not indicative of people that will actually accept to receive the vaccine. Pre-pandemic the anti-vaccine movement was already steadily on the rise. Now, an entire movement against COVID vaccines is rising. WaPo reports Alabama and other poor rural states will be the most challenging states to administer the vaccine. In short, I hope Biden’s plan will somehow encourage Trump’s conspiracists to protect themselves. But looking at the amount of traveling and holiday converging, I may have better luck writing Santa a letter to create a Christmas miracle.

In their article, “Confronting Climate Change and Reframing Security”, Carol Dumaine and Irving Mintzer discuss how the issue of climate change has become a topic of discussion and study in security and military circles. They discuss how since the 1970’s American policy makers have “securitized” the issue of climate change and discussed how the United State’s military and security apparatus should prepare for the incoming affects of climate change. They contrast the American security lens with that of Germany. The German lens does not focus on security and military matters, instead it focuses on using strong multilateral and cooperative approaches to deal with and mitigate the damage that will come from climate change. Dumaine and Mintzer quote some German experts as stating that they believed that America’s focus on the security aspect of climate change is a distraction from the real issue. I believe that American policymakers are correct in “securitizing” climate change .As the environmental situation continues to degrade resources such as water and arable land will become scarcer and only countries that can physically defend their resources will be able to keep them. I would also consider it unwise for nation states to rely on multilateral approaches when dealing with climate change considering the fact that the United States left the Paris Agreement. In my opinion, it is the German experts who are acting foolishly in believing that the international community would come together during such a crisis and not crumble into a state of chaos in which every nation is solely looking out for the survival of its own people.

On November 17th, President-elect Joe Biden announced that former Secretary of State John Kerry will join his administration as Climate Change Envoy, or “climate czar.” Former Secretary Kerry has advocated for government action to address climate change – at both the state and federal level – for decades. Nor is Kerry a stranger to tackling diplomatic tasks relating to climate change; after all, it was his job to lock down commitments to reverse the trend towards a runaway climate reaction from nearly two hundred countries at the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015.

The United States has its work cut out vis a vis re-gaining international trust in its climate commitments. The Trump Administration has done much to erode this trust through actions it has taken that even go beyond its decision to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in August 2017. A slew of deregulation initiatives and executive orders have scaled back many climate-friendly Obama-era precedents and regulations.

Former Secretary Kerry’s appointment has been hailed universally as a positive step in the right direction and a strong indicator of intent. The fact that the climate czar will have a seat at the National Security Council gives the issue of climate change the largest degree of deference it has ever enjoyed in the United States government. However, Kerry’s diplomatic overtures can only do so much. It should be noted that the effect that the new climate czar position may have are stringent on the incoming administration’s ability to introduce climate-friendly domestic policies.

The current impact of COVID-19 has caused many countries, governments, and international organizations to realize the vast impact that global health securities such as pandemics, medical and food shortages, and by extension, biological agents, may have on global security.  The outbreak has taken toll on economies, societies, and the disruption to supply chains showed the potential impact to various nations as well.

This also highlighted the need for a multilateral approach to global health security.  The Global Health Security Agenda has expanded to address and handle such concerns, greatly influenced by the current, ongoing pandemic.  The acceleration of priorities towards securing food and resource scarcities and preventative health measures has been a key concern for future pandemics and lessons learned from COVID-19.  Below is some information on the GHSA:

Global Health Security Agenda

After a deal signed between the United States and the Taliban in February in Doha, Qatar, the tensions in Afghanistan have increased creating competition among anti-government militants. Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) dispute with the Taliban for political success and influence bringing more violence to the Country. The peace deal signed with the United States dealing to halt bombing urban center and break up the relationship with other terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda Nevertheless, attacks from the Taliban have increased by around 50% in the last months, the Taliban has used military operations increasing concerns about the group is trying to establish a discriminatory and totalitarian regime in the country.

Many people in Afghanistan blame the Taliban for hosting and collaborating with terrorism groups, the war by the Taliban has undermined Afghanistan’s political stability, security, and economic development, weaken the government’s functionality and territorial control, allowing others militant groups such as  ISK gain more control over the country.  These groups are trying to build leverage through violence and claiming the honor of resisting the US and its partners. They are fighting to create frustration and chaos to expand their operational reach and lethality, thereby creating transnational inspiration for the movement.

The conflict in Afghanistan is going up, it is a combination of proxy wars and terrorism, the proxy dimension of the war since the 1980s produced countless intended and unintended consequences such as state fragility, terrorism, sectarianism, war crimes, social fragmentation, and radicalization.  On the other hand, mistakes made on all sides, especially by the Trump administration in Washington, created both inspiration and hope for many extremist groups in the region.

Paul Musgrave has a very interesting article on The Beautiful, Dumb Dream of McDonald’s Peace Theory and how the theory falls apart. The latest blow comes from McDonald’s and Burger King franchises in Azerbaijan weighing in on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with clear pro-Azeri messages on social media. Musgrave points out the irony of “a company once held up as a disincentive to war becom[ing] a participant in one.” (The posts have since been deleted and both companies did not comment on political speech from franchisees.)

While Armenia does not have a McDonald’s, so in this case the theory somewhat holds, other conflicts have involved two parties with McDonalds. NATO bombed Serbia shortly after Friedman’s book came out, but technicalities could get around this case disproving the theory. Since then, however, the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2008 Georgian-Russian War, and the 2014 Crimean crisis all involve “militarized disputes” between nations that both have McDonald’s.

Ultimately, the Golden Arches Theory isn’t really about McDonald’s, but about the theory of capitalist peace. McDonald’s doesn’t even begin operations in countries that haven’t reached a certain level of economic development. Capitalist peace suggests that economic development and integration is the way to maintain peace among nations. While this theory has had some merit, Musgrave points out the theory doesn’t account for countries choosing other values over economic gain. Uncertainty over the United States’ commitment to preserving the international order encourages nations to accept economic pain as a necessary consequence of improving their own security.

As the effects of global climate change continue to make themselves apparent, it would be reasonable to assume even more nations will find conflict with other McDonald’s nations worth the cost. Ultimately, scarcity invites competition and as resources become even more scarce, countries will likely be pressed to ensure their own survival. If the Coronavirus pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that there is a large segment of the population that simply cannot be moved to do the right thing for the protection of others. Convincing nations to cooperate and tackle climate change together rather than compete for scarce resources without devolving into even more armed conflicts will be an extraordinary challenge. Idealistic theories of Golden Arches and an unending American hegemony are unable to meet the moment.

Unless you’re a regular reader of nuclear weapon development capabilities, the name Mohsen Fakhizadeh probably didn’t mean much before this week.
His name is making international headlines after the successful assassination mission carried out near Tehran on Friday. The details are gruesome and point to clear signs the actions were deliberately coordinated.
A failed car bomb was followed by a string of gunfire. Fakhizadeh was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

Public sources have yet to name the responsible parties involved, but it’s a safe bet that Israeli forces contributed helpful hands. Their covert boots on the ground methods produce a recognizable signature. For example, in September of this year, working in a similar fashion but more efficient manner than the hit on Fakhizadeh, Mossad operatives riding a motorcycle in the streets of Tehran shot and killed Abu Muhammad al-Masri, a member of al-qeada’s top leadership responsible for the fatal attacks on U.S. Embassies in Africa.

If the hit on Fakhizadeh had been a U.S. mission, we might have sent AMG-114 hellfires, as was the case in eliminating Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and seven others in Iraq without incurring civilian casualties, in January of this year.

As we think about Who Makes Policy, it’s important to consider all aspects of the policy landscape, including defensive measures. In some scenarios, the most effective policy measures to curtail ambition to develop a nuclear weapons program are eliminating its brain trust, such as in the lethal strike against Fakhizadeh. It’s an eerily discomforting feeling reaching this realization; nevertheless, it’s relevant and at times necessary for the security interests of the United States and our global partners.

Reading the climate change articles this week, I felt that the disproportionate challenges faced by the Global South – which is comprised by countries that were not the major polluters responsible for the escalation of climate change in the 20^th century – were addressed only briefly. I also was surprised that none of the articles really made the case for policies of managed retreat to higher ground alongside more transformative technological solutions like sucking carbon out of the air, carbon taxes, etc.

Climate change is recognized as an urgent security problem on a global scale, but its effects will be felt most immediately and acutely by communities of the Global South. An uptick in droughts and major storm events, combined with inadequate infrastructure and high reliance on the agricultural sector have left the region particularly exposed to this threat. Major cities in this region are commonly located on coasts or major waterways and thus face the immediate impacts of rising seas. Urban centers are primary destinations for climate refugees escaping the drought, deforestation, and food insecurity increasingly faced by rural and agricultural economies – contributing to existing problems of overcrowding, slum expansion, and insufficient housing supply in cities.  As the region grapples with a changing climate, the science suggests the brunt of these changes will impact the region’s most vulnerable: women and children, the poor, and those with low levels of mobility.

The urban poor are most vulnerable to rising temperatures. The poor are most likely to live in insecure structures without proper heating or cooling infrastructure and are least likely to have ready access to clean water or green space that serves to offset rising temperatures. Further, the development of informal housing in dangerous or risk-prone areas is often encouraged by regulations and zoning laws that restrict housing supply and deny poor communities land tenure. As a result, already overcrowded slums are overflowing as migrants arrive from coastal areas ravaged by climate change’s most immediate effects, or from agricultural communities where changes to weather patterns have devastated their crops and ability to make a living. As new arrivals to cities, migrants find access to affordable housing and transportation is limited, and many migrants struggle to gain employment as they lack formal education and skills translatable to the urban economy. In this way, it is easy to see how environmental degradation can lead to security threats and conflict over scarce resources – particularly among populations already suffering from various forms of deprivation.

In the face of rising sea levels, some scientists and scholars have suggested that the response should be a systematic retreat to higher ground or mass movement to climate resilient terrain. Moving inland, they argue, is not a defeatist measure; it is simply a practical one. This approach has not gained a great deal of traction in climate change policy conversations, primarily because relocation is drastic, complicated, and costly, and would mean moving local communities – often the poorest and most vulnerable – from the places they call home. Programs of this nature would require a particularly high level of buy-in from policymakers and communities, which the concept does not currently enjoy.  However, proponents of retreat say these policies are framed as prohibitively difficult until they are deemed inevitable, pointing to islands of the South Pacific and Indian Ocean that have hastily adopted policies of retreat and relocation, recognizing that their environments will soon be underwater. These scholars contend that, if well-managed, retreat would be a prudent, proactive measure to head-off an inevitable reality that many communities will face down the line. Such policies are not only prudent for communities of the Global South but also low-lying and coastal communities in the United States. New York has experimented with such policies in the wake of Hurricane Sandy in parts of  Long Island and Staten Island, offering to buy damaged homes for pre-storm value in exchange for owners moving to less vulnerable areas.

I put managed retreat in the category of adaptive solutions rather than the transformative solutions needed to address the problem on a global scale, but both need to be discussed side by side by policymakers.