The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to as the Iran Deal, was the product of decades of delicate, multi-lateral diplomacy and negotiations between many of the world’s most prominent and powerful actors. It was signed by Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union with the purpose of preventing Iran from manufacturing and obtaining its own arsenal of nuclear weapons in return for relief of sanctions imposed on Iran by the other signatories, which were crippling its economy. Recently, the Trump administration has decided to pull the US out of the deal, despite objections from a majority of the global community as well as many within the US. If we look at this decision according to a rational decision-making model, while there may be some evidence to suggest that in this particular instance there is reason to believe otherwise, we must assume that these “hoof beats” are horses and not zebras, meaning that the leader is acting rationally in the interests of the nation, and not idiosyncratically based on personality or political calculation. Going by this assumption, one can posit that the decision makers considered several factors before making the decision to pull out of the deal. One likely factor considered was that the lifting of sanctions on Iran, in accordance with the JCPOA, was making it possible for the government of Iran to pursue the funding of organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria. Considering comments such as this: “The President should decline to certify – not primarily on the grounds related to Iran’s technical compliance, but rather based on the long catalogue of the regime’s crimes and perfidy against the United States…”(Oct 23rd, 2017) it is possible that the decision makers felt that this was putting an undue burden on US interests in the region, and putting allies opposed to the deal, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, in jeopardy and was therefore not in line with national interests. Based on comments such as the one from Senator Tom Cotton cited above, it can reasonably be assumed that the prescribed choice of action that would follow the rejection of the Iran Deal would be military intervention against Iran. This decision would be in line with the realist perspective of international relations on which the rational decision-making model is based. Speculating on the cognitive factors involved in this decision, when considering the overwhelming evidence suggesting that Iran was in fact complying with the terms of the agreement, based on reports from the United Nations nuclear agency inspectors monitoring reports, as well as the fact that the benefits of the US remaining within the terms of the JCPOA, certainly appear to outweigh the costs of refusing to remain within the terms of the agreement, it is possible that some cognitive dissonance may have played a factor. With the choice being to either have an Iran that was being heavily sanctioned and therefore resentful and adversarial towards the US and its allies, while also capable of un-monitored nuclear proliferation –or alternatively – to have an Iran willing to participate in negotiations and presumptively reasoned diplomacy in order to further take part in a global trade community and pursue the interests of its citizens and the nation overall, while simultaneously having its nuclear capabilities severely hampered and persistently monitored by UN nuclear inspectors, it would appear that another model of decision making may be in play. It is possible that the decision makers may have pursued what they see as being based on the rational model of decision making but is in fact a decision based on the “enemy image” belief set. This assumes that the perceived enemy is a calculating and inherently evil actor making decisions solely with the goal of advancing its own interest in the destruction of its adversary and that this actor will pursue this insidious agenda on every decision it makes. This theory is in line with the realist perspective commonly adhered to by the decision makers in question as well as the rhetoric they have publicly used to discuss this matter.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Diminishing Trump's Advantages is a Frustrating Task -- A quick and depressing read
The problem I have come up against while
researching ways to answer the relentlessly pertinent question of how to
diminish Trump’s advantages, is that many of the rules I thought might help do
that, already exist. For example – Jared Kushner is Trump’s son-in-law and is
now “White House Innovations Director” and Senior Advisor to the President; I thought one way to
hamper Trump’s cronyism and specifically nepotism tendencies would be to put in
place some rules about the President hiring family members. It turns out those
already very much exist. Under Federal Law at [1]5 U.S.C. § 3110, it states
– very clearly – that a federal employee –specifically mentioning that this
includes the President – may not appoint, employ, advocate for the appointment
of, etc., any family member – specifically mentioning that this includes a
son-in-law – to any position, in any agency that the federal employee in
question has jurisdiction over. It seems rather obvious that this part of
Federal Law has been blatantly violated. But, like in every other example I
have researched, Trumps lawyers dug up an obscure provision of the legal code
to suggest that, in this case, [2]3 U.S.C. § 105(a) of Federal Law
which involves the President’s ability to set salaries for employees,
supersedes the anti-nepotism statute. I personally don’t think this makes any
sense but the DOJ apparently does. Hence, Jared has a job, and I am still banging
my head against the wall.
The
rules around Presidential campaigns were even less of a problem for Trump.
There are myriad specific and structural reasons that the lack of regulations
and requirements for transparency benefitted Trumps candidacy. But as he is
already President, it seems more pertinent to focus on administrative/policymaking
changes.
Trump’s
tenuous alliance with the Republican Party leads him to use their ideological
aversion to big-government and support for an unfettered/unregulated free
market, void of supervision, to his advantage. This plays into his rampant
deregulation of every agency and sector of government. With less oversight,
regulation, and legal requirement for transparency, allows him to essentially
do as he pleases. This is one reason why “big-government” is a good thing, as
it would put enforceable rules in place to ensure that there are repercussions
for corruption. While apparently everyone thinks of "big-government" as an unquestionably terrible thing, that is only true if you hate the fire department, Medicare, Federal Government Disaster Relief, Public Schools, National Security, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, etc... So, yunno, let's maybe try to be more specific, and less broad-brush when we say vacuous things like "big-government."
Wracking
my brain, looking for ways to stop Trump, led me to the conclusion that a
statutory requirement for an adherence to political norms is the only way to
hinder his persistent obfuscation of the rules. Something that would make the
way that government is run, not simply a suggestion, enforceable only by way of
humility and public shaming, but legally adjudicative – because Trump does not
possess humility, or a capacity to feel shame. One thing that was a norm and would save us all a
headache on a daily basis, would be to make it a law that the President, being
privy to sensitive information, would not be allowed to participate on social
media while holding office. It’s not much, but it would at least make a lot of
people feel better and likely postpone what is continuing to look like a race toward a nuclear apocalypse, or whatever...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)