fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

How Sanders ‘Disquiets’ the Hawks

The attack on his foreign policy is little more than reheated hawkish talking points crying "weakness" and "appeasement" when it is neither.
bernie lee

Walter Russell Mead has written a predictably tedious attack on Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy:

What would a Bernie Sanders presidency mean for U.S. foreign policy? Observers around the world are beginning to ask this question as the socialist senator leads his rivals for the Democratic nomination. The answers are disquieting.

Mead gets one thing right, which is that “the new administration will seek radical changes in America’s conduct abroad.” Beyond that, Mead misleads his readers to think that a Sanders foreign policy amounts to a series of giveaways to other states. He is wrong in his overall assessment, and he is wrong in the particulars as well. The core problem with Mead’s “analysis” is that it treats everything in the most simplistic, zero-sum terms and casts any attempt to undo the damage done by Trump as a “gift” to foreign governments. Mead is “disquieted” by this because he has spent the last several years running interference for failed Trump policies.

It is true that Sanders would reverse the failed and dangerous Iran policy of the Trump administration, and that means finally putting U.S. interests ahead of the preferences of despotic clients. This would mean ending an unnecessary and cruel economic war against the Iranian people, and it would help to revive the JCPOA after years of relentless assaults from Washington. That would not only reduce tensions with Iran and relieve pressure on the civilian population, but it could serve as the beginning of constructive diplomatic engagement to address many other regional issues. It is very likely that he would reduce or end arms sales to regional clients, but that is clearly advantageous for the U.S. and reduces the likelihood of U.S. involvement in a new war. Insofar as U.S. arms sales to despotic clients have encouraged and fueled their regional recklessness, a reduction in these sales will contribute to regional stability. All of this is desirable and in the American interest, and it has nothing to do with “giving Iran’s regional ambitions a substantial boost.” The Iranian people, the region, and the U.S. are all clearly worse off because of the relentless hostility that the Trump administration has shown towards Iran over the last three years, and correcting this is one area where a “radical change” is most desperately needed. An end to the Iran obsession and a reduction in U.S. involvement in regional rivalries would have the added advantage of freeing up U.S. resources and attention to focus on parts of the world that matter much more to U.S. security.

Mead’s section on Russia is similarly misleading. He asserts that “Sanders would also help the Kremlin,” but his evidence for this is embarrassingly weak. Reviving arms control does not aid Russia. It would constrain them. Casting aside arms control treaties does not harm Russia. It frees them from the limits that these treaties imposed. Mead’s assessment of Sanders’ approach to Russia also ignores that he has emphasized the need to combat corruption and authoritarianism, and he has cited Russia as an example of what he is talking about. As Sanders said in his 2018 speech at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), “We need to understand that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle against kleptocracy and corruption.”

The attack on Sanders’ foreign policy is little more than reheated hawkish talking points that try to paint a more decent and sane foreign policy as “weakness” and “appeasement” when it is neither. It is no wonder that hawks are disquieted by that foreign policy, because it represents the most extensive repudiation of their bankrupt worldview that we have seen in a long time.

Advertisement

Comments

Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here