
World War III!!!
This week, we are making an intentional effort not to react to the story that has dominated recent news cycles, specifically the targeted bombing by the United States of Iranian facilities dedicated to developing and implementing nuclear capabilities. Even among independent media, for which we have always strongly advocated, the information reaching the audience/public is quite muddled — partly because there is no solid information to report.
Coverage has vacillated from reports of complete destruction to doubts about the bombings’ success to confirmation by watchdog organizations of devastating destruction to questions of how devastating the devastation actually was. Reactions have varied from declarations of World War III to “isn’t it so obvious” explanations that this is what “peace through strength” looks like. Enough time has passed to arrive at the conclusion that this act did not initiate World War III.
Trump haters have also had plenty of opportunity to denounce his tactics as reckless, inflammatory, destabilizing, and a violation of what they pretend to be a mandatory process for declarations of war — they also are unwilling to acknowledge the parallels to actions taken by the Democrat presidents who preceded both of Trump’s terms. Trump supporters/apologists have had plenty of opportunity to abandon their disdain for supporting wars and unnecessary military action in favor of the mantra that sometimes you have to show your adversaries that you mean business.
For years, the reports (especially those coming out of our ethically ambiguous ally, Israel) have been that Iran is months if not weeks away from having nuclear weapons. Yet it never happened. The narrative that the U.S. had to do something about Iran’s impending nuclear weapons seems pretty thin. Questions remain about the efficacy of Trump’s bombing of Iran and whether the world actually became a safer place as a result of the attack.
By the way, that single bombing strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities cost the U.S. taxpayers an $581 million (according to thepricer.org). Suppose the U.S. instead made an infrastructure investment in Iran in which we shared the cost of building a nuclear reactor facility, one that was built and operated by U.S. companies and was located on a U.S. military base in Iran. This would eliminate the need for Iran to develop nuclear technology, it would provide stability in the region via the U.S. military, and it would yield an intrinsic alliance with a previously intensely adversarial country. Most importantly, a contingency would be the unequivocal termination of Iran’s nuclear technology development efforts. Nuclear facilities are expensive to build (roughly $25 billion), but relatively cheap to operate. Considering the obscene cost of engaging in a hot war, such an investment might be very wise long term for the American taxpayer — one that would save the taxpayers billions and would promote peace and stability that could save millions of lives.
No More NATO??
In early May, the world saw the 40th anniversary of President Ronald Reagan’s historic address to European Parliament in Strasbourg. By no coincidence, his speech came on the 40th anniversary of an historic event in World War II: the unconditional surrender by the German military to Allied forces, which marked the end of war in Europe — this was VE-Day. Reagan expounded on the value and importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Reagan reflected on hearing the news while at his post in an Army Air Corps installation that , “Ladies and gentlemen, the war in Europe is over.” He reflected on Europe’s agony during and after the war. He reflected on the ruins left across the continent, the tens of millions that died, and the suffering of the survivors. And he noted that even still at the time, “[W]e wonder: How did this happen? How did civilization take such a terrible turn? After all the books and documentaries, after all the histories and studies, we still wonder: How?”
Reagan said this:
“We know of the existence of evil in the human heart, and we know that in Nazi Germany that evil was institutionalized, given power and direction by the state and those who did its bidding. We also know that early attempts to placate the totalitarians did not save us from war. They didn't save us from war; in fact they guaranteed war. There are lessons to be learned in this and never forgotten.”
He had some observations on NATO:
“NATO was a triumph of organization and effort, but is was also something very new and very different. For NATO derived its strength directly from the moral values of the people it represented, from their high ideals, their love of liberty, and their commitment to peace. But perhaps the greatest triumph of all was not in the realm of a sound defense or material achievement. No, the greatest triumph after the war is that in spite of all of the chaos, poverty, sickness, and misfortune that plagued this continent, the people of Western Europe resisted the call of new tyrants and the lure of their seductive ideologies. Your nations did not become the breeding ground for new extremist philosophies. You resisted the totalitarian temptation. Your people embraced democracy, the dream the Fascists could not kill. They chose freedom.”
After reflecting on the history that motivated the formation of NATO and some of the organizations triumphs, Reagan switched gears to a topic that is relevant today: deescalating tensions with the Soviet Union, which has obviously dissolved and given way to a Putin-led Russia.
All of these topics are worthy of reflection today, 40 years after Reagan pondered them. Here is an interesting nugget from his speech:
“The United States will insist upon compliance with past agreements, both for their own sake and to strengthen confidence in the possibility of future accords.”
What would President Reagan think of NATO today. It is NATO that failed to honor past agreements not to expand eastward toward Russia.
From the National Security Archive:
“U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous ‘not one inch eastward’ assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.”
And on the collapse of Eastern Germany:
“President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests.”
NATO (and more specifically, the United States) abandoned these past assurances. That is the thing, isn’t it? They were not agreements, just promises. Now here we are 32 years later, having witnessed FIVE rounds of eastward expansion toward Russia that added 13 new NATO members (three of which were former Soviet regions). Since the late 1990s, Putin repeatedly expressed concerns that NATO expansion poses a threat to Russia's security. He warned that further NATO expansion could lead to a deterioration of relations between Russia and the West. He indicated that Russia would take measures to protect its national interests in response. Is it a surprise that Russian aggression toward NATO escalated as a result of these broken promises?
Enter Representative Mike Lee (R-Utah). Lee has this to say on the subject of NATO:
“If Ukraine is in NATO, the United States should be out.”
The rationale of this statement is that accepting Ukraine as a member of NATO would introduce too great of a risk of nuclear war. Lee recently introduced the “Not A Trusted Organization” (NATO) Act to withdraw the U.S. from NATO.
“America’s withdrawal from NATO is long overdue. NATO has run its course – the threats that existed at its inception are no longer relevant 76 years later. If they were, Europe would be paying their fair share instead of making American taxpayers pick up the check for decades. My legislation will put America first by withdrawing us from the raw deal NATO has become.”
According to his website, Lee’s act accomplishes the following:
“Directs the President to provide notice of denunciation of U.S. membership in NATO, consistent with Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty
“Satisfies the requirement for congressional authorization of withdrawal, consistent with section 1250A of the FY24 NDAA
“Prohibits the use of U.S. funds to directly or indirectly contribute to NATO’s common-funded budgets”
Every organization changes over time. Some get better. But some get worse. What trajectory is NATO on? Has NATO continued in the direction that President Reagan envisioned? What does our current president think?
President Trump continues to emphasize the need for NATO members to increase their defense spending. He recently secured an agreement for a target of 5% of NATO members’ GDP by 2035. Now that the Europeans are playing ball, he seems to be fine with the organization. Most have agreed to the increase in defense spending. And what could that possibly mean? Perhaps more profit for American weapons manufacturers? Did Trump just get our allies to agree to funnel money into the U.S. economy?
What does the future of NATO look like? What is the vision? Further expansion? More broken promises? More aggression with Russia?
Peace in Gaza?
News broke late last week that President Trump brokered an agreement to end hostilities in Gaza within two weeks. The deal is to bring in a joint Arab administration body that includes Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and two additional Arab nations. This alliance will exile Hamas leadership and all hostages will be released. Multiple countries have agreed to accept large numbers of voluntary refugees from Gaza.
This agreement also expands the Abraham Accords, which adds additional countries to group of Arab and Muslim nations that have agreed to recognize Israel and establish diplomacy with Israel.
Also, Israel is now open to a two-state solution, contingent upon a reformed Palestinian Authority.
Bringing It On Home
In his speech, President Reagan also had this to say:
“Our ideals of freedom and democracy and our economic systems have proven their ability to meet the needs of our people. Our adversaries can offer their people only economic stagnation and the corrupt hand of a state and party bureaucracy which ultimately satisfy neither material nor spiritual needs.
“I want to reaffirm to the people of Europe the constancy of the American purpose. We were at your side through two great wars; we have been at your side through 40 years of a sometimes painful peace. We're at your side today, because, like you, we have not veered from the ideals of the West -- the ideals of freedom, liberty, and peace. Let no one -- no one -- doubt our purpose.”
It is not that the purpose of NATO is in doubt by the people of the member countries. It is that NATO’s modern purpose is not clear. Is the purpose of NATO to lead us to World War III? It seems like it might be. If so, maybe Representative Lee is correct that NATO has run its course. Are new alliances in order?
It is not crystal clear how we meet in the middle on NATO. Perhaps some common ground is the desire to avoid World War III. Is a more heavily armed NATO taking us in that direction? Even if you believe the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a success that made the world safer and more secure, might the arming up of our NATO allies seem like a provocation to an adversary like Russia?
President Trump, you claim you want to end wars. Maybe you deserve credit for peace in Gaza — time will tell how that plays out. But you also claimed you would end the war with Russia before you were even sworn in. Yet it continues. It is high time to get it done. If you can end the war AND get NATO allies to pour 5% of their GDP into purchasing American weapons, then you might be a double winner. But if people keep dying… Well, that’s not a winning record. Get it done, sir.