Author: JUSTIN CONSALVO

For this week’s post I was drawn to the New York Times article, “Is the United States Done Being the World Cop?” I think this article is extremely relative with discussing the recent withdrawal from Afghanistan and the current conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine/Russia.

For one side, I’ll argue that the United States has become to intertwined and dependent on the rest of the world and should begins to practice isolationism. This does include not getting involved in armed conflicts in which we have no direct reason to be in. The most common question I hear in regard to this topic is, “is it worth American lives?” This I believe is the best argument for the United States not sending ground troops to defend Ukraine. After getting out of 20 years of fighting, the American people do not want more lives lost for something they may or may not agree with. The world tends to look toward the United States to solve their problems and at what point do we say no. But, there is more to it than the surface level of war behind being the world police.

Over the past century, the United States has been the world’s hegemonic power and I think that it is in the best interest of both the government and the people of the country for it to stay that way. Yes, we provide a lot of aid to countries and assist when called upon, but most of the time it is for our economic prowess. The world looks to us to solve their problems, but in return we ask for trade advantages and other economic benefits. The main reason that the United States is in the powerful position that it is, is because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency. This stemmed from Bretton Woods, but more recently the petrodollar. Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC countries agreed to price oil in dollars, if the United States provides military support to those countries. This is the most perfect example of why the United States plays the world police and if the country wants to keep the economic advantage and quality of life it has, they must realize the give and take that comes with it.

In my personal opinion, we are the greatest country in the world and with that comes responsibility. If we do not provide the security to those who need it, they will turn to China. It is not ideal at times, but our daily life would look completely different if China provided security and had the economic advantages that we have.

For this week I will be analyzing the New York Times article, “W.H.O. members agree to begin talks on a global pandemic treaty.”  In the 21^st century climate change has become at the forefront of political and economic decisions including being a key issue among presidential candidate decisions.

It appears the World Health Organization is taking the charge to address the growing climate change worries in the near future.  Their goal is to create a legally binding treaty of all 194 members of the World Health Organization to hold accountability in their effort for a cleaner future.  The United States is against the legal action the W.H.O. presents but in favor of an established committee seeking a cleaner world.  This could be because as of 2021, the United States is second behind China in global carbon emissions.  Although the United States is pushing for cleaner energy with electric vehicle policy and tax breaks, it may not be able to reduce its emissions without an effect on production and their economy.  The European Union and Britain also pushed for legal ramifications, but that could because they do not compare to other emission giants such as China, the United States and India.  This falls along the lines with discussions we have had in class about sovereignty.  The more multilateral organizations/treaties a country joins,  the les sovereign they become.

The problem with climate change is once country can’t commit to be cleaner, while others do not.  This push by the World Health Organization, if accepted by all countries, could make significant progress in global climate change.  The biggest factor in all of this is China.  According to a study in 2021, China lead the world in carbon emissions as of 2021 by double the next country.  Like many other multilateral organizations there are legal repercussions stated, but not enforced.  Unless China agrees to abide and adheres to the legal ramifications set by the W.H.O., the treaty will have minimal impact.

For this week’s post I will be responding to the article, “Critical Infrastructure Protection: Requirements for the 21st Century.” Published in 2015, this predicts and addresses the problems with the ever growing dependence on technology the United States and the world has.

The critical infrastructure consists of both physical and virtual systems that apply to a wide array of sectors for the United States. Certain sectors are crucial to our national security such as energy, transportation, communication, water, financial, and transportation. Any threat to these sectors can have a drastic effect on the American way of life. An attack on these would be a strategic and complex move by any adversary and has become common in the 21st century.

One of the most famous attacks in the 21st century was Stuxnet. This was a computer worm from 2010 that targeted the nuclear program in Iran. It was believed to be created by the United States and Israeli intelligence services who shares a common fear of Iran and their pursuit of nuclear armament. It was designed to destroy the centrifuges that are integral for the processing of uranium. It was estimated that Stuxnet set the program back by two years.

If we can do this to someone, it can be done to us. I believe this will be the future of passive aggressive warfare. If countries can successfully execute anonymous cyber attacks on infrastructure, trust among nations will suffer. It is crucial for the United States to lead the world in cyber defense so Stuxnet or worse does not happen to us.

This week I am analyzing the Washington Post article, “Are nuclear weapons keeping the India-Pakistan crisis from escalating — or making it more dangerous?” The main theme/question is poses is, do nuclear weapons promote hostility or maintain stabilization. The article references how this is shown from the United States vs Russia and Pakistan vs India.

Pakistan and India have been at odds over the past century. With multiple wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971, the feud continues today with various types of mutual attacks on the 21st century. This stems from the typical religious differences between Muslim and Hindus and the Jammu and Kashmir region. The fight for land is not something out of the ordinary for international conflicts, but what makes this special is that they border one another and are two of the nine countries with nuclear weapons. This article argues that although they have maintained a conflict, it will not escalate due to mutually assured destruction (MAD). This is the belief that one will not use nuclear weapons with the threat of being attacked by nuclear weapons because all will suffer. This is not the first time that the MAD concept has been displayed.

The Cold War was the first time that this concept was brought to light. With the development of nuclear weapons and the continuous conflict between communism and democracy, the United States and Soviet Union tested each other through their nuclear programs. This was on full display with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the crisis in Berlin. The result of this was no nuclear attacks due to the fear of a retaliatory attack.

When discussing the mutually assured destruction concept, I am reminded a principle of economics. Upon the foundation of economics is the idea that you are dealing with rational individuals/groups. This applies to the MAD concept, expecting the other nations to think rationally. Where this falls apart is dealing with irrational groups such as terrorist organizations. I believe that will be a turning point in the world, when an irrational group acquires the nuclear capabilities. The closes we see right now is Iran and that is an experiment that might come sooner than anyone hopes for.

This week I will be analyzing the CNN article on the gathered US intel on Saudi Arabia’s ballistic missile locations.

As much of a fan I am of the United States being the dominant power in the world, I do think that countries should always act in their best interest and it is shown here with Saudi Arabia. Mainly, because I hope that the United States always acts in our best interest.

CNN reported that Saudi Arabia has received ballistic missiles from China, but now has their own program. The speculation is that this has only been accomplished from the intellectual property and technology given to Saudi Arabia from China. This is most likely a response to the development of Iran’s nuclear program, Saudi’s enemy. With tensions flaring in the Middle East upon the departure of the United States, it should not be a surprise for Saudi and other countries for focusing on their defense. The rise of influence of Iran in the region through Syria and Iraq has many Sunni countries, and the oil bearing friend of the United States on edge. The United States has and will always try to limit the armaments that other countries has, but will they defend Saudi Arabia from an attack from Iran. I think we are seeing this answer currently from the Israel Hamas conflict. Yes, the Biden administration is moving military assets closer to the region, but no direct action support from the United States has commenced. (Other than strikes in Syria and Iraq)

I think that the problem is not Saudi Arabia having a ballistic missile program, but that they turned to China instead of the United States. Is this decision based solely on the needs of the current climate in the Middle East, or a potential long-term partnership that could phase the United States out. As the United States is busy arguing about domestic social issues, China is playing the long game by intertwining themselves with as many countries as possible whether is it economically or militarily.

This week I would like to reference and analyze the New York Times article, “Biden and Mother Nature Have Reshaped the Middle East.” To begin, this was an interesting read with the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. The author, Thomas Friedman, provided and predicted two reasons for an unstable Middle East from 2021, United States withdrawal and Mother Nature.

The more classes I take in this program, the more I understand realism and do not trust alliances. The United States is as guilty as any one in these aspects. The United States sought revenge for 9/11 while attempting to create a political system for the people of Afghanistan. After the death of Osama Bin Laden and the realization that they could not change a decades old system, they abandoned those in Afghanistan that they partnered with for the past two decades. This sent a message to all other countries in the Middle East that the United States will act on behalf of the United States only. This is showing in today’s climate with Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and other countries in the Middle East seeking alliances with Iran out of fear. With the United States withdrawal from the Middle East, that means less protection to countries that once acted in their interest. If the current conflict expands, will they act in a country’s interest that is building a reputation of abandonment?

Mother Nature is now the diplomatic hegemony of the Middle East. An already low water environment got worse with a severe drought that crippled the region. This caused riots over water and food in Iran and other countries to become dependent on water-rich ones. This created an advantage for Israel who was able to provide freshwater to countries such as Jordan. Israel was criticized for this because Jordan provides Iran with oil, an enemy of Israel. With a growing world sentiment of going green, the Middle East is seeking ways to stay relevant and maintain the dependency the rest of the world has on them. The relationships in this region have revolved around resources and does not seem to change anytime soon.

This week I would like to focus on the New York Times article, “Trump’s Iran Policy Has Become a Disaster for the U.S. and Israel.” I believe we are seeing a direct relation to this article that was written in 2021 and the current events going on in the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The article addresses the Iran Nuclear deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This was between the United States, the U.K., France and China to address Iran and its nuclear programs. It was created in 2015 under the Obama administration. Under President Trump, the United Stated withdrew from the agreement in 2018. The article goes on to blame Trump for this policy decision which jeopardizes Israel and created even more of a threat out of Iran’s nuclear program.

The withdrawal of the JCPOA had multiple effects. First is the reissuing of sanctions from the United States on Iran as a way to force their hand with their nuclear program. This caused a major economic hit to the country with their oil exports and difficulty accessing the international financial system. Outside countries were forced to deal with Iran less due to the current sanctions and the uncertainty of how far the United States will go against them. Another major effect was the growth of Iran’s nuclear program. Subsequent to the United States’ withdrawal, Iran began to increase its enriched uranium stockpiles and exceed the limits of heavy water. This directly effect’s Israel’s national security. Iran has through action and policy taken stances against Israel. Now that Israel is at a full scale war, all eyes are on Iran. How much support will Iran give to Hamas and other military proxies? Will they directly engage in war with Israel? And how much of this is due to the security Iran feels, now that the United States withdrew from the JCPOA. Only time will tell if Trump’s sanctions will work better or worse than the JCPOA, but the state of the Iran nuclear program has the entire world on the edge of its seat with the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

In this week’s posts I will be commenting on Thomas Weiss’ article, “Would the world be better without the UN.”

A common thought I have involving the United States government and now these multilateral institutions that they are apart of is, “what is the purpose of government.” I know everyone will have a different view on this, but I believe government’s purpose is to maintain order, provide security and protect human rights. This thought is my driving force when evaluating governments and these global institutions.

The stated purpose of the United Nations is, “to maintain international peace and security. to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” I believe that aligns right with my value of the government, but I don’t think that is what the institution is anymore. The current UN is trying to get more involved in global economic governance and I think that is out of their scope. (I have have a strong capital mindset) These multilateral institutions are intersecting goals nowadays such as the WTO. I believe the UN is drifting towards a regulatory agency and that is no the purpose of it.

I approve of the UN having a military and legal capacity, but only to take action against a clear act of human rights violations. Other than that, I feel that the UN should be treated as an open space for countries to partake in discussions to better their wants and needs. I believe the UN is essential to the world, but think it needs to restructure itself back to its original intent.

This week I will focus on the reading on multilateralism, “We’ve Been Here Before: The Durability of Multilateralism.” Before I start this article mentioned the involvement of global powers views/support for and against Israel. Obviously this has been a central topic for multilateral institutions and I hope to further discuss the reasons for that in class, or if someone with more knowledge or that topic could respond to this post due to Israel’s current state.

The article begins by focusing on Trump’s isolationist views. The reason for these views by Trump came down to finances. He felt that other countries involved whether it was the United Nations or NATO were not contributing their part financially and that the United States was pulling everyone’s weight. Trump was also trying to fight regulatory agencies such as the WTO, World Bank and the IMF. He did not like the idea of other entities placing more regulations on the United States that could not be aligned with their economic or national security interest.

Trump has a good point on these issues, but I believe the question is, how much are you willing to pay for security/quality of life? The last century has evolved the world into an interlaced economic powerhouse. The cause of this is relationships that have spanned the entire globe due to these institutions. The United States has also thrived being the hegemonic power and with that comes more responsibility. I do think the other countries should be withholding their ends of these institutions such as defense spending percentages and trade agreements, but the reason the rest of the world typically caters to the United States is because of the economic influence brought about through these institutions due to our contributions. In order to remain/continue to pursue being the hegemonic power of the world, I think having the most influence in these multilateral institutions is where it starts.

Procrastinating this week’s blog post paid off because now Israel-Hamas has given me and I am sure every other classmate more than enough to analyze and write about.

An unstable world just became exponentially more unstable. The recent attacks on Israel Hamas has awakened a recently stable conflict that has been occurring over centuries. I believe we all know the reason for any conflict involving Israel and its neighbors is due to religion. I believe this is the start of a long conflict in the Middle East due to the severity of it. I think there will be future time in the semester to analyze what it will evolve into, so for now I would just like to examine why Hamas decided to take action now.

I suspect it is because of the current state of the United States. The United States is viewed as Israel’s biggest ally and is one of the countries that receives the most aid from the United States. I do not believe Hamas would make this attack if they were not prepared for it, had the backing of other countries (i.e. Iran and Lebanon) and believed the United States would intervene. The United States has shown lack of commitment to Ukraine (only providing armament) and to Taiwan. It is also the unpopular opinion of the American people to get involved in another war that does not directly effect them. The United States also has many issues at home including an unstable economy, societal issues and a split political institution. Due to these reason stated above, I believe Hamas viewed the perfect time to attack now hoping for a lack of intervention on behalf of the United States.