Why Biden should renounce the Carter Doctrine

By Mark Kukis

 

President Biden has signaled a willingness to restrain U.S. involvement in Middle East conflicts in announcing an end to American support for Saudi military actions in Yemen. But the United States remains prone to entanglements even so, in Yemen and elsewhere, because fundamental U.S. strategy in the region remains unchanged. Biden, like presidents before him, remains locked in the Carter Doctrine — or, an overarching U.S. aim to prevent “any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region,” as President Carter put it in 1980 — which should be abandoned. 

For decades the Carter Doctrine has served as the organizing principle for U.S. actions in the Middle East, standing as a strategic imperative for all presidents. Conceived immediately after the energy crisis of the 1970s, the doctrine declared Middle East oil a vital U.S. interest to be protected militarily if needed. U.S. dependence on Middle East oil has waned in the decades since. But the United States nonetheless still regards itself as the protector of Middle East oil, which is viewed by Washington as a kind of global commons to be overseen by the U.S. military for the sake of the world economy. 

The underpinning logic of the doctrine was always unsound. The Carter administration in authoring the doctrine effectively mistook the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as a lunge toward the Persian Gulf and overreacted. The Kremlin was not seeking to dominate the region and monopolize its oil. The Soviet Union was concerned more about preserving internal order as its end neared. Moreover, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries had realized by 1975 that oil embargoes were self-defeating and voiced their intent to keep supplies open for the sake of their own economies. 

Nevertheless, the United States persisted with the Carter Doctrine, which in practice amounted to a military buildup around oil reserves and a series of armed interventions aimed at shaping the political order of the region. Pursuit of the Carter Doctrine through successive administrations ultimately gave rise to what has become an elaborate, endless military campaign intended to free up Middle East oil supplies, even though those supplies were not in real danger. And all of this stemmed from a remarkable assertion at the core of the Carter Doctrine that went unquestioned in Washington, namely that Middle East oil could rightly be considered a vital public good for modernity under the protection of America for the sake of all nations. 

People in the Middle East understandably have balked at the notion that foreign powers can claim their prime national resource in such a way. Outrage over perceived imperialism has been a driver of violent movements in the region for decades and remains so, forming a major source of instability. The people of the Middle East generally do not consider themselves obligated to produce oil for the sake of the world and resent armed threat for not doing so. As a national resource, the oil is theirs, to do with as they wish. The Carter Doctrine’s rejection of this basic tenet of national sovereignty represents its gravest sin and its irredeemable strategic flaw. The Biden administration should announce an end to this doctrine and embrace a new one that revolves around multinational cooperation rather than the seizure of resources. 

The one real global commons in the Middle East is the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway linking the Persian Gulf to the shipping lanes of world markets. The United States has a legitimate interest in ensuring that shipping through the strait is secure — as do many other nations. Iran may treat the strait as its own, but international law designating sea lanes as commons justify a multinational governance approach to this particular resource. That makes the United States just one of many stakeholders in managing the strait. Other nations relying on shipping through the strait, especially countries in the Middle East and East Asia, should all be involved in a multinational maritime mission aimed at ensuring trade flows smoothly in and out of the Persian Gulf. 

Any U.S. military presence in the region should revolve around this principle instead of the idea of controlling the whole of the oil in the region, a strategy that has led the United States into far too many fights. Controlling the oil requires installing and supporting pliable governments and, at times, doing their bidding in regional conflicts like the one in Yemen. Helping to safeguard the commons of the Strait of Hormuz, by contrast, makes the United States a partner to all nations of the region and involves other interested countries in a productive way.

Shifting from the Carter Doctrine to a commons doctrine requires some very different thinking about the Middle East from Washington policymakers and the American public alike. The United States currently keeps roughly 60,000 U.S. troops based in the region at an estimated cost of $65-70 billion annually. That massive military footprint would not be needed since the military mission would be mainly at sea. American military intervention in the region would only be contemplated in instances when trade through the strait was threatened. If undertaken, military efforts would be conducted with multinational authority and cooperation and limited to keeping the strait open. That means no regime change or involvement in internal conflicts like Syria, Iraq or Yemen. Counterterrorism missions should only be considered if terrorists are threatening the strait. Armed groups menacing the United States or other nations should be handled by the governments of the countries where they reside.

A full shift in doctrine would over time reduce the U.S. military presence in the Middle East to a naval mission much smaller than the current one keeping so many American warships in the region. On the ground, the countries of the region would largely be left to themselves as a matter of principle and strategy. The idea of America on the sidelines of the Middle East creates a lot of discomfort in Washington, where management of the region through armed force has long been a given for generations of national security officials. And certainly a receding U.S. military presence is no guarantee of a peaceful future for the Middle East. Rivalries like the one pitting Iran against Saudi Arabia are likely to intensify, but so is the incentive to find peaceful solutions. 

The truth is that the Middle East will remain a volatile region with or without a massive American military presence. Plenty of voters and policymakers now realize that U.S. troops do little to stabilize the region and wish to see American forces reduced. But a military retrenchment without a fundamental rethinking of overarching doctrine represents just another phase of a misguided military project. It is unjust and unwise to claim stewardship over the whole of a region’s key natural resource. It is reasonable, however, for the United States to stand up as a stakeholder in a legitimate global commons and seek peaceful cooperation. The U.S. military mission in the Middle East is unlikely to end any time soon. But it must change in intent and scope, leaving an ill conceived and outmoded doctrine behind.

 

Read more:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/02/12/why-biden-should-renounce-the-carter-doctrine/

 

by Anatol Lieven

The Biden administration has created an completely unnecessary confrontation with Russia at a time when reasonable working relations with Moscow are extremely important for achieving two immediate and key administration goals: rejoining the nuclear agreement with Iran, and a peace settlement in Afghanistan facilitating U.S. military withdrawal from that country and an end to America’s longest war. 

The administration approach combines many of the errors committed by Washington officials, politicians, and the media in recent years. First, you have an  intelligence report based on evidence that the public cannot see stating that it is “likely” that the Russian government ordered attempts to influence the elections. This report is then turned by the administration and much of the media into an absolute certainty. In a recent ABC News interview, Biden says Putin will “pay a price” for what the report says his government has done. As usual, the issue is personalized by attributing the decision to Putin himself, and the U.S. statement is accompanied by gratuitously insulting language which is likely to offend even many Russian opponents of Putin. Does nobody remember the advice of Teddy Roosevelt — hardly a weakling on U.S. security — to speak softly and carry a big stick?

President Biden’s public description of President Putin as a “killer” and having “no soul” in that interview recalls what has been described as  the “anti-diplomacy” of President Trump and elements of the George W. Bush administration — a seemingly willful determination to worsen relations with other states; but this is from an  administration that was supposed to restore dignity and decorum to the conduct of U.S. foreign relations. 

Meanwhile, Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the “killer” jab a “very bad statement by the U.S. president,” ​that indicated “he doesn’t want to normalize relations.”

It may be true that Putin is “a killer” but let us remember just how many actual or potential American allies today this term could be applied to. But above all, how does hurling personal insults serve the interests of the American state and people? Even more dangerous is the extraordinary blindness and lack of self-awareness — a lack so profound that it goes beyond the term “hypocrisy” — in Washington  condemning other countries for trying to influence U.S. politics and launching retaliation against them.

Nobody is suggesting that Russia tried to hack into the election computers to change the result, leaked U.S. state secrets, or did anything that can really be claimed to have seriously affected the outcome — unlike, for example, the work of American advisers on the ground in Russia in backing the Yeltsin government in the 1990s.

In essence (assuming that the allegations are true), Russia did what thousands of Washington lobbyists are paid to spend their lives doing (perfectly legally): influence U.S. politicians, media and policies in favor of particular foreign governments. 

Above all, successive U.S. administrations have backed huge influence operations in Russia (and Iran, China and elsewhere) openly intended to weaken the existing government and strengthen the opposition. This has sometimes been conducted by diplomats like Ambassador Michael McFaul, whether openly or off the record. It has been conducted continuously and openly by congressionally-funded media and institutions including Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and the National Endowment for Democracy, that have functioned virtually as media outlets for the Russian opposition. 

Let us set aside for a moment the issue of the evils or otherwise of the Russian government and the virtues or otherwise of the Russian government, and look at simple reality. Surely a group of people with the foreign policy experience of the Biden team must understand that if foreign governments are attacked in this way, they are bound to retaliate? 

It is the business of US diplomacy to defend the real interests of the American state and people — not to hurl insults around, however good this may make an administration feel. Those interests are best served by a combination of strength and calm; and the United States is still strong enough that it can afford to behave calmly, even under provocation.

 

Read more:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/03/18/calling-putin-a-killer-with-no-soul-is-not-exactly-the-best-way-to-reset-diplomacy/

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

When Joe Biden said whatever about Putin being a killer and that he will make him dearly pay for "interfering in the US 2020 presidential elections", the US "payment" is organising Al Qaeda to blow up things in Moscow. Be prepared:

 

 

The Western press commemorated the ten years of war against Syria by echoing over and over its version of events, according to which we have been witnesses to a revolt against the Alawite dictatorship of "Bashar" (read President al-Assad). A despot who purportedly practices widespread torture and is thus responsible for the death of half a million of his fellow citizens. The plethora of articles written to this effect are based on testimonies from "Democrats" who fled to Idlib.

However :

 What is happening in Syria is identical to what is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, which have not in a long time had a leader who can be accused of being a dictator. The real cause of their collapse is to be found outside their borders: it has nothing to do with civil war, but with the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski plan, dubbed as "endless war" by President George W. Bush. 
 Syria is not an Alawite dictatorship, but a Baathist Republic. While one may deride the party’s rigidity, its secular character and central role in the country are undeniable. 
 Torture is mainly perpetrated by the jihadists. It was practiced by Syria in the 1950s when the United States and the United Kingdom backed the coup d’etat of Adib Shishakli. At the time, NATO dispatched SS-member Alois Brunner to train the Syrian secret service, which as a result adopted the cruel methods of the Nazis. Hafez al-Assad did not rise to power until 1971, upon which he dismissed Brunner but kept the officers trained by him. When Bashar al-Assad became president in 2000, he had Brunner imprisoned and imposed a strict ban on torture. At the start of the war in 2011, some officials were independently engaged in torture. They were all removed from their posts and prosecuted. Most of them fled and were granted asylum in Europe. Some are currently on trial in Germany. 
 President Bashar al-Assad is in no way responsible for the deaths of his fellow citizens, whom he has consistently defended. On the contrary, it is the United States, the United Kingdom and France, which have supported the jihadists militarily and financially, who are responsible for them. 
 Today the Syrian Arab Republic is divided into three. Beyond the liberated territory, a small part in the northeast is occupied by the United States and its Kurdish mercenaries; in the northwest, the Idlib governorate is occupied by Al-Qaeda, locally known under the name of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (Levant Liberation Organization - HTS). The population of Idlib is estimated by the West to be several million; in reality it is unlikely to exceed 100,000. This Islamic Emirate is protected by the Turkish army. It is not possible to talk about democracy there without being beheaded. In the circumstances, the reports of the Western press can only be pure fabrications.

In recent weeks, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham has received instructions from Washington not to step up its operations against the Syrian Arab Republic, but to mount attacks in Moscow. For that purpose, it has just released the Uzbek jihadist Sirajuddin Mukhtarov (known as "Abu Salah al-Uzbeki") [photo], whom it had arrested nine months ago when it was fighting Abu Mohamad al-Julani. Mukhtarov was the perpetrator of the St. Petersburg metro bombing in 2017 (15 dead). He is now training suicide squads to operate in Russia.

 

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article212478.html

 

 

free assange, president biden...

 

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Americans have sent letters to the Russian Embassy in Washington slamming President Joe Biden’s insulting remarks about President Putin as "disgraceful" and "crass", adding that they do not want Russians to feel that he was speaking on behalf of the whole nation.

In a Tuesday interview, Biden told ABC News that Vladimir Putin would have to "pay a price" for alleged interference in the 2020 US presidential election. The US leader was also asked if he considers the Russian president a "killer" and he replied in the affirmative.

The remarks appear to have become the straw that broke the camel's back in a litany of uncorroborated US accusations against Russia – ranging from Putin-led "influence operations" to undermine Biden in the 2020 election and a massive cyberattack on US computer company SolarWinds to Russian bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan.

 

The next day after the interview, Russia invited its ambassador in Washington Anatoly Antonov back home for consultations on the future of bilateral relations. The ambassador landed in Moscow on Sunday morning.

Putin himself responded to Biden's comments the same day by wishing the US leader good health and suggesting that people often see their own traits in others. The Russian president invited Biden to hold an open online discussion on Friday or Monday. The US president said Friday he would certainly talk with Putin — "at some point."Letters From Americans

Following Biden’s scandalous remarks, the Russian embassy said that it started receiving letters from Americans with apologies.

Sputnik had an opportunity to see some of them, including one sent by a 74-year-old US Air Force veteran.

"Dear Mr. Ambassador,

As a citizen of the US I am deeply saddened by Biden's comment about Putin. I apologize for his crass, embarrassing, uncalled for and unfounded remark. I hold Mr. Putin in the highest regard and hope he accepts the apologies of many of the US citizens. As Mr. Putin said, this country has had centuries of poorly treating its own citizens. At 74 years of age, I have seen many US Presidents and many Russian leaders in office. Personally, I think Mr. Putin is one of the finest, if not the finest, you have had in my lifetime. Please do not take Biden's remarks as speaking from the heart of the people in this country. With deepest apologies," the air force veteran wrote.

Another letter was addressed to the entire nation of Russia.

"As an American, I want to apologize on behalf of myself and my family for the disgraceful disrespect and slander against Mr Putin by our President. Please know MANY Americans find this incident shameful. This is not a contact I would normally make, but felt it required as a matter of honour and respect," the letter read.

The letter similarly extended an apology to the Russian people and President Putin "in relation to the unkind remark" by the US leader.

"I truly believe President Putin is an excellent and honorable leader of a great nation. After listening to many of his speeches, I am impressed by his intellect, great knowledge, and insightful views. I am also very moved by his support of the Russian Orthodox Church," the letter continued.

Another American addressed the letter personally to Ambassador Antonov, expressing hope that Biden's unfriendly remark would not affect people-to-people diplomacy.

"Please be assured that the Russian people and country have many friends in the U.S. You have helped to foster this by your out-reach and availability visiting many parts of the country and speaking before many groups. I hope that it will be your approach to continue keeping channels open and encouraging people-to-people contacts at the sub-national level," the letter reads.

Ambassador Antonov has already expressed his deepest gratitude to the US citizens who felt obliged to write to the embassy over the "ill-considered "statements about Russia. The diplomat noted that he was "deeply touched by the caring and active position of ordinary Americans" who understand the need for a mutually respectful dialogue between the two countries.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/world/202103211082410941-disgraceful-disrespect-slander-americans-apologise-for-bidens-remarks-on-putin/

 

Meanwhile:

In his Telegram channel, Alexei Chesnakov, the director of the Center for Current Politics, asked Surkov to comment on Biden's verbal attack on the Russian leader:

"I don't even know what to answer to this question. Now, if they asked me: "Do you know that old chap Joe is a mothafucka?" I would answer: "Oohoo, I do"," he said, parodying the conversation that the US President had with an ABC journalist.

On March 17, US President Joe Biden, in an interview with ABC, said that he wanted to hold the Russian state accountable for alleged interference in US elections. The American president spoke about his conversation with the Russian president and added that he would "pay a price" if allegations of Russia's interference were found to be true. Biden also answered affirmatively when the host asked him whether he considered Putin a killer. 

A few hours after the publication of the interview, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that Russia's Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, was invited to Moscow for consultations. This decision was made in order to analyze the prospects of relations with Washington.

On March 16, the US Office of National Intelligence released a report that highlighted Russia's attempts to denigrate Biden's candidacy in the presidential election and aggravate socio-political divisions. The Kremlin denied all charges.

• Vladislav Surkov served as Putin's aide since 2013. He oversaw issues of socio-economic cooperation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as the settlement of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
• In February 2020, Surkov resigned.

Kremlin shocked by Biden's statements

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also commented on Biden's infamous remarks about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"These are very bad statements from the US President. He definitely does not want to improve relations with our country. We will proceed from this further," he said, adding that there was nothing like that in history before.

According to Russian Foreign Ministry representative, the relations between Russia and the United States have reached a deadlock.

Читайте больше на https://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/147441-surkov_biden/

 

 

Read from top, especially washington is organising terrorist acts in moscow...

 

 

free assange, president biden...

 

 

Putin, action man, goes on holidays...

 

This from the Daily Telegraph, 23/03/2021...:

 

Meanwhile in the USA:

 

joe goes on a trip...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/19/joe-biden-trips-stumbles-three-times-boarding-air-force-one/

Amazing to see the Murdoch media (DT) "promote" Putin. But we know that the Murdoch media does not like Biden and hate the other sycophantic media that refused to publish Hunter Biden's laptop story...

 

Read from top...

 

 

free assange, president biden...

 

Prosecutors Investigating Whether Ukrainians Meddled in 2020 Election

 

 

The Brooklyn federal inquiry has examined whether former and current Ukrainian officials tried to interfere in the election, including funneling misleading information through Rudolph W. Giuliani.

 

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have been investigating whether several Ukrainian officials helped orchestrate a wide-ranging plan to meddle in the 2020 presidential campaign, including using Rudolph W. Giuliani to spread their misleading claims about President Biden and tilt the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

 

The criminal investigation, which began during the final months of the Trump administration and has not been previously reported, underscores the federal government’s increasingly aggressive approach toward rooting out foreign interference in American electoral politics. Much of that effort is focused on Russian intelligence, which has suspected ties to at least one of the Ukrainians now under investigation.

The investigation is unfolding separately from a long-running federal inquiry in Manhattan that is aimed at Mr. Giuliani. While the two investigations have a similar cast of characters and overlap in some ways, Mr. Giuliani is not a subject of the Brooklyn investigation, the people said.

Instead, the Brooklyn prosecutors, along with the F.B.I., are focused on current and former Ukrainian officials suspected of trying to influence the election by spreading unsubstantiated claims of corruption about Mr. Biden through a number of channels, including Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer at the time. It is unclear whether the Brooklyn prosecutors will ultimately charge any of the Ukrainians.

At one point in the investigation, the authorities examined a trip Mr. Giuliani took to Europe in December 2019, when he met with several Ukrainians, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry.

At least one of the current and former officials Mr. Giuliani met, a Ukrainian member of parliament named Andriy Derkach, is now a focus of the Brooklyn investigation, the people said.

The trip was the culmination of a yearlong effort by Mr. Giuliani, with support from Mr. Trump, to undermine Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign. The effort proceeded primarily on two parallel tracks: collecting information from Ukraine to attack Mr. Biden’s diplomatic efforts there as vice president, and pressing Ukraine to announce investigations into Mr. Biden and other Trump critics.

The effort ultimately backfired, leading to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment.

Amid the impeachment proceedings, U.S. intelligence officials warned Mr. Trump that Mr. Derkach was seeking to use Mr. Giuliani to spread disinformation. Mr. Giuliani, who has said he did not receive a similar warning at the time, continued to vouch for the authenticity of information he received, even after Mr. Trump’s Treasury Department imposed sanctions against Mr. Derkach for election interference, and accused him of being “an active Russian agent.”

In an interview last year, Mr. Giuliani said there was nothing to dissuade him from meeting with Mr. Derkach, who was not under sanctions at the time. “I have no reason to believe he is a Russian agent,” Mr. Giuliani said.

On Thursday, Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer defended the search for information about Mr. Biden, disputing that he relied on misleading information. “When you investigate allegations of corruption, you talk to all sorts of people; some are credible, and some are not,” the lawyer, Robert J. Costello, said. He added that “some day the truth will come out” about Mr. Biden’s dealings in Ukraine.

Together, the Manhattan and Brooklyn investigations present a challenge for the Biden Justice Department, which has pledged to remain above the political fray even as it inherited a number of sensitive investigations linked to Ukraine and Russia.

Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, for example, is facing a federal criminal tax investigation that appears to be partly related to work he did in Ukraine, and a Justice Department special counsel is investigating the origins of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The investigation into Mr. Giuliani in Manhattan — which entered an aggressive new phase last month when F.B.I. agents executed search warrants at his home and office — centers on whether he lobbied the Trump administration to remove the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv on behalf of Ukrainian officials who wanted her gone. It is a violation of federal law to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of foreign officials without registering with the Justice Department, and Mr. Giuliani never registered.

 

Read more soft bullshit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/nyregion/trump-ukraine-rudy-giuliani-2020-presidential-election.html

 

Read from top.

 

See also:

https://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35235

 

especially:  biden's sacrifice...

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%!!!!