A review of a detailed account of how antipathy toward Tehran has assumed a life and logic of its own in Washington, DC.
Jane Darby Menton
{
"authors": [],
"type": "scholarSpotlight",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "americanStatecraft",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "ASP",
"programs": [
"American Statecraft"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
This is a moment of opportunity to have more of an open debate about what U.S. foreign policy is really for, what it aims to achieve, and for whom.
As the last several years have shown, Americans of all political persuasions have profound questions and concerns about U.S. foreign policy. They see incredibly destructive and costly military interventions of the past twenty years that have achieved very little beyond destabilizing the Middle East. They see global trade deals that have shipped manufacturing jobs overseas and hollowed out once-thriving cities and towns. They wonder whether and how America’s expansive global role is actually helping them, their families, and their communities.
This is a moment of opportunity to have more of an open debate about what U.S. foreign policy is really for, what it aims to achieve, and for whom. I’m glad to be able to join Carnegie to participate in this conversation, both in the United States and with colleagues around the world.
In the past five and a half years, I’ve had the chance to delve into numerous global issues as foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. One of the very first foreign policy speeches Sanders delivered after I joined his team was at the Carnegie Endowment in June 2017. The speech focused on the interlinked threats of authoritarianism, oligarchy, and corruption, and many of the ideas presented in it have now become mainstream.
Over fifteen years in Washington, DC, I’ve had the opportunity to work closely with colleagues in the Middle East and hear how communities there have been impacted by American foreign policy, as well as how these policies have impacted communities here in the United States. In 2011 and 2015, I co-authored Fear, Inc., a series of reports that researched and analyzed the prevalence of anti-Muslim rhetoric in U.S. media and political discourse.
The main global challenges of today—climate change, pandemics, food insecurity, corruption, and soaring inequality—are shared, and our response must be shared as well. No one country can address these challenges alone. But in order to do that we need to forge a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve in the world, of what American foreign policy is actually for. I hope my work at Carnegie can continue to constructively challenging outdated notions and offer ideas toward a new and durable foreign policy consensus that both promotes the security and prosperity of the American people and a more peaceful and just interaction with the world.
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.
A review of a detailed account of how antipathy toward Tehran has assumed a life and logic of its own in Washington, DC.
Jane Darby Menton
Turkish right-wing populists have been trying to advance the country’s middle-power goals based on perceptions of what the public wants, but they have been doing so in ways that reinforce their project of autocratic political consolidation.
Murat Somer
In Colombia and elsewhere in the region, the United States is trying to shape election outcomes—but at what cost?
Oliver Stuenkel, Adrian Feinberg
Russia looks set to reap economic benefits from closer ties with Southeast Asian countries that are keen to find reliable energy suppliers and diversify trade ties.
Alexander Gabuev
There is an elephant in the room when it comes to the EU’s upcoming security strategy: Donald Trump. Unless European leaders acknowledge the depth of the transatlantic crisis, true autonomy will remain out of reach.
Stefan Lehne