In The Media
John Judis
{
"authors": [
"John Judis"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Iranian Proliferation"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
The Neocons Are Losing
As the debate over intervention in Syria demonstrated, the American public is not eager to go to war in the Middle East when the United States itself is not in danger.
By John Judis
Published on Nov 26, 2013
Source: New Republic
I liked former New Republic writer Dana Milbank’s column this morning about how “Republicans mindlessly oppose Iran Nuclear Deal.” I liked it not just because it was witty, but because its prominence in the Washington Post—and its place when I woke up near the top of its list of the most popular stories—suggests that in this latest fracas over foreign policy, the conventional wisdom, as well as public opinion, is on the side of liberal internationalism rather than neo-conservative war-mongering. That this time it is the Bill Kristols and Ari Fleischers and Marco Rubios who are howling at the moon.
That’s especially important because in this case, there is an underlying truth—an emperor without any clothes, an elephant in the room—that no one in the administration or in the Republican opposition wants to openly acknowledge. It goes something like this: We all want Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons, and we hope that through sanctions and negotiations, and the threat of war, we can achieve that result. But we Americans also know that if negotiations fail, then war may not be a real option. As the debate over intervention in Syria showed, the American public is not eager to go to war in the Middle East when the United States itself is not in danger. The Obama administration would have a hell of a time carrying out its threat. And even if it did, it would have a hell of a time achieving its objective of knocking out Iran’s nuclear capabilities.So the various politicians and pundits who called for upping the sanctions as the interim deal was being negotiated, and who now denounce the deal as being woefully inadequate are doing a particular disservice. On one level, they are calling for war, which is the only alternative if we don’t pursue diplomacy. But on another level—if you consider the political and strategic difficulty, in this case of war—they are calling for a shutdown of our foreign policy—for the kind of national embarrassment and blow to our global standing from which we were saved in Syria by the Russians. So three cheers for Dana Milbank and for the good sense of the American people and the old foreign policy establishment of the Scowcrofts, Albrights, and Brzezinskis.
About the Author
John Judis
Former Visiting Scholar
As a visiting scholar at Carnegie, Judis wrote The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush Could Learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
- This Election Could be the Birth of a Trump-Sanders Constituency
- Policy ChopsIn The Media
John Judis
Recent Work
Political ReformSecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyArms ControlNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIran
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
- Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio PoliticsArticle
“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.
Jennifer B. Murtazashvili
- Palestine’s Climate Change Planning Faces Its LimitsArticle
Barriers ranging from weak legal frameworks to ongoing, occupation-related limitations are constraining Palestine from achieving its ambitious climate targets.
Joy Arkeh, Nabil Nasser
- In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone AttacksCommentary
The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National OutcomesPaper
Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.
Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan
