The Republican Caucus at the Kennedy School
by Ray Martin on March 9, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
At a time when our country is facing its greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, it would be easy to give into xenophobia when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. The nativist wing of my party, the Republican Party, would have you believe that there is something hugely alarming, that we need to be afraid of illegal immigration. The Republican Party and the United States would instead be better to reject the rants coming from the nativists and turn their ear to the great communicator, Ronald Reagan, who said the following at the 1986 re-dedication of the Statue of Liberty:
“I have always believed there was some divine providence that placed this great land here between the two great oceans, to be found by a special kind of people from every corner of the world, who had a special love for freedom and a special courage that enabled them to leave their own land, leave their friends and their countrymen, and come to this new and strange land to build a New World of peace and freedom and hope.”
President Reagan’s words were not just the empty rhetoric of a president reading off of a teleprompter hoping for a bounce in the polls. Instead, they were backed up by action when he signed the November 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act that provided a path to citizenship for 2.6 million people. The Republican Party of 2010 would be wise to follow the words and actions of its most fabled president if it wants to remain relevant in future elections – the party will only be able to ride the mistakes of Barack Obama for so long.
The Latino vote will be instrumental in deciding upcoming elections and is a voting bloc that Republicans cannot afford to dismiss. Rather than advocating for the draconian round-ups and deportations advocated by the Minutemen and other fringe groups, Republicans should unite behind the immigration reforms advocated by former President George W. Bush. Providing a path to citizenship that favors skilled workers coupled with a fine that would ensure that no one would be allowed to flaunt the laws of the United States would help to protect America’s own vulnerable working class from the ills of illegal immigration.
In addition, a guest worker program along the lines of the 2007 bill would ensure that America would retain enough unskilled labor to avoid any adverse impacts on the agricultural industry. Such an immigration plan would also increase border security and help root out gang members and criminals from amongst our midst.
The benefits of adopting a Reagan-Bush immigration policy should be obvious to the party. By helping millions of Latinos gain citizenship, Republicans could draw many of these new citizens into the party. After all, it was only six years ago that President Bush captured 44 percent of the Latino vote during the 2004 election. This possible gain in the Latino vote would help to offset any loss from defections by nativists to the Tea Party movement or the Libertarian party.
A path to citizenship is consistent with Republican ideals. Upon signing the 1986 immigration bill, President Reagan said, “We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans.”
The sooner the Republican Party and the nation see that a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is the only tenable immigration policy, the sooner our society can move towards being more open, inclusive, and true to our founding principles.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on March 9, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
The American public has been simmering angrily on the issue of immigration for too many years. Conservatives have played politics with this issue, driving a wedge between voters while offering little in terms of real ideas on this issue. As Secretary Clinton highlights in her comments on this debate, what we are doing now is not working. Let’s drop the politics and talk seriously about the issue.
Immigration reform should be comprehensive, fair, and tough. Illegal immigrants are coming to the US for many reasons: in search of jobs, in search of the American dream, reconnecting with family members, and many other reasons. We have to address the immigration issue in a deep and complex way, or else we will solve one problem but potentially create several other problems.
The primary reason to have comprehensive reform is to secure US borders, and ensure the safety of our people. Reform must include prosecution for illegal trafficking of people into the United States and identification fraud, as well as tightened security at the borders. Reform packages, stalled over political wrangling, have highlighted the need for border security first before any current illegal immigrant can apply for legal status. But tightening border security alone will not solve the immigration issue. If we do not address the reasons people are illegally crossing the border, we will never achieve full security.
Many illegal immigrants are coming over the border because there are American companies that will purposefully hire undocumented workers. Reform must address businesses like the Agriprocessors company in Potsville, Iowa, which knowingly hired illegal immigrants and helped these illegal immigrants get false Social Security numbers. According to the Des Moines Register, the company paid workers below minimum wage, hired underage workers, and had many cases of unreported worker abuse, including a supervisor striking one employee with a meat hook. The federal government raided this company two years ago, and more than 300 undocumented workers were taken into custody. The behavior of this company is something that, as Americans, we should not condone.
If we gloss over such behavior, we will keep all of the same incentives in place that draw undocumented workers across the border in the first place. Businesses that hire illegal immigrants have shirked their public duty – taking advantage of low-wage immigrant workers, encouraging violation of laws, and avoiding payroll taxes. This must end, and comprehensive immigration reform should take a hard line against businesses that hire illegal workers. If we address the individual illegal immigrants, but ignore the businesses that purposefully hire illegal workers, we will not stem the tide of immigrants for very long.
We must acknowledge a harsh reality: there are more than 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Mass deportation of illegal immigrants is impractical and expensive. Illegal immigrants, searching for the American dream, have built lives here in the US for themselves and their families. We have to get beyond the political squabbling around the deportation issue and find a way that is fair to American citizens. I believe that an earned path to citizenship is a way to do that.
As proposed by some recent bi-partisan bills, illegal immigrants should be able to earn a path to citizenship by becoming taxpayers and paying off owed back taxes. This proposed reform will bring illegal immigrants out of the shadow economy and bring them forward as taxpaying members of society. If a reform package allows for this earned path to citizenship, this will be fair to current American citizens, while providing a practical solution to the 12 million people who have built lives in the US – making them honest, law-abiding members of American society.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on February 10, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
We can and should test the achievement of all students in American schools. School testing provides valuable data that can help us understand how well students, teachers, and schools are doing. Testing is an important part of a modern, accountable education system – a system that succeeds for our children and for our country.
But school testing is not a panacea. Testing provides one piece of data, a snapshot of a child on a specific day. Testing alone cannot encapsulate everything that happens within a school or even in a classroom.
A debate about testing is also a way to sidetrack from the real issue at stake – the future of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB has brought much needed attention to some serious issues in the education field, most particularly the achievement gap between white students and students of color.
Our schools should help all students learn and gain skills to be part of strong American workforce. Yet for the good that NCLB did, it did many other things very poor. NCLB requires that states set a proficiency standard that students must pass. NLCB requirements then focus on the gap of proficiency between the highest and lowest students. This gap is an important measure, but it is not the only measure.
Highlighting only the gap places intense focus on students at the lower end, ignoring the achievement needs and capabilities of higher scoring students. Shouldn’t an education system strive to improve the learning of all students, not simply those at the bottom? By using test scores in a multi-faceted way – instead of using them to measure proficiency levels or achievement gaps – you can not only close the achievement gap, but help students across the entire spectrum learn more and do better in their studies.
NCLB also used a false measure of “adequate yearly progress.” If schools do not meet this measure, the federal government will label schools to be “in need of improvement” That is simply semantics; people speak of these schools as failing. Those failing schools can face stiff financial penalties from the federal government. Adequate yearly progress is a measure that can penalize schools for what can often be statistical noise.
Education in the United States has a long-standing history as being under the purview of the states and localities. This national law tried to force a one-size-fits-all approach onto the states when it came to testing. The federal government has a valid interest to see that public education is of the highest quality across the country.
But NCLB has retrofitted an individualized educational system with constrictive standards. The testing requirements under NCLB encouraged states to make easy proficiency exams, so they can guarantee a high pass rate. The standards for students vary wildly across the United States. As one NEA spokesperson joked, “the fastest way for a sub-standard student in Massachusetts, a state where the bar is set high, to become ‘proficient’ is to move to a state where that word means something quite different.”
Recently, President Obama has announced new directions for the federal education agenda. As part of the recovery act, Obama included more than $4 billion of federal funds labeled for a Race to the Top. To improve schools, President Obama has decided on the carrot rather than stick approach. Rather than punishing schools for failing to meet set of standards that do not adequately measure progress, he is incentivizing reform, innovation, and improvement with new federal funds.
Coming out of the era of the unfunded NCLB mandate, this is a positive step for school districts and schools. These funds will be used to rewards school systems that are undergoing key reforms and making strides for their students. The federal government under Obama is looking to make the US educational system modern, innovative, and ready to meet the needs of the American economy going forward.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by MattShiraki on February 10, 2010 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
During his quest for the White House, Candidate Barack Obama incessantly characterized Senator John McCain as one who would perpetuate a “third Bush term.” Ironically, one year later, President Obama is being labeled by some in his own party as “Bush III,” not just for his position on Afghanistan and his anti-terrorism policies, but also for his approach to one of our nation’s most important and lingering challenges: education reform.
Last summer, the Administration launched its $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” grant competition to spur innovation in American education. This competition integrates standardized testing, school accountability, performance pay, and charter schools –not ideas that typically enthuse Democrats. After the launch, President Obama was criticized by the left for embracing some of what has actually worked in improving educational outcomes since the enactment of the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002.
Since President Bush signed NCLB, the results have been clear: children from nearly all backgrounds and schools are performing at higher levels, and low-income students, minority students, and students with disabilities are showing steady improvements, narrowing the achievement gap.
Consider fourth-graders. According to the 2007 Nation’s Report Card, nine and ten-year-olds achieved the highest reading and math scores in history. In reading, the achievement gap between white and African-American students was at an all-time low. In reading and math, Hispanic students made groundbreaking strides, and the average reading scores for fourth-graders with disabilities improved 23 points between 2000 and 2007. Achievement amongst eighth-graders also increased, and high school students are dropping out at the lowest rate in decades.
While NCLB has produced impressive results, serious challenges, especially in our inner-city schools, remain. They should be addressed soon to provide even more accountability and flexibility. Reform will not be easy. With the Democrats’ ambitious plan to “finish the job” on economic recovery, job creation, financial regulation, healthcare, energy, and immigration legislation, all before midterm elections in November, education could again be left to deal with another year.
Education reform depends on an outbreak of a rare condition these days: bipartisanship. Despite the tiresome finger-pointing we see in Washington, federal education policy has been a relatively bipartisan issue for the past twenty years. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who has received praise from Republicans since his confirmation hearings, continues to work well with Congressional Republicans and was recently applauded by Rep. Castle (R-Del.) for leading a meeting to discuss NCLB revisions that “couldn’t have been more bipartisan.”
Another issue that Republicans and Democrats should collaborate on is the spiraling cost of higher education. The President was right to address this in his State of the Union, but his proposal to continue to increase federal subsidies fails to address the fundamental problem of unsustainable college costs, which continue to rise at a much swifter rate than inflation. As precarious as it may be in this economic climate, with reductions in funding for state colleges and withering endowments, federal and state policymakers should take immediate action to reform higher education in a way that fosters efficiency and reduces costs.
In his State of the Union address, the President admitted he “never suggested that change would be easy, or that [he] can do it alone.” He is absolutely right; he certainly cannot do it alone. By working with Republicans and committing to cornerstones of reform that have proved successful – school and parental choice, accountability, and the prioritization of students over unions – the President has a real opportunity to keep his promise to America: to ensure that American children are once again leaders in the world in creativity and achievement.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Ray Martin and Josh Archambault on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” This excerpt from President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address sums up U.S. foreign policy from World War II until January, 2009. The foreign policy of being willing and able to support friends and oppose foes to assure the survival of liberty had served the U.S. very well.
The policy had directly led to ending the Cold War without a shot being fired and to the growth of one of the only democracies in the Middle East, Israel. Despite these great accomplishments, this foreign policy doctrine was inexplicably dropped by the Obama administration; it has been replaced by the Obama doctrine.
The Obama doctrine has several parts to it. Blame the U.S. for many of the world’s problems. Engage in discourse with mad men like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Abandon our allies in Eastern Europe. Assign all blame for the conflict in the Middle East to Israel. Bow and subject oneself to the rulers of other nations. And lastly, ignore other countries’ human rights violations when it’s convenient for Barack Obama.
At a time when the U.S. needs to stand tall in Asia and send a message to China that it will protect democracy and liberty in places like Japan and Taiwan, President Obama is too afraid to recognize the grave human rights violations that have been committed in Tibet by the Chinese. What sort of message does this send to the Chinese people? What sort of message does this send to Kim Jong-il?
The Obama doctrine on human rights was first revealed during a tour of East Asia in February by Secretary Clinton who, when responding to a question pertaining the leveraging of human rights violations as a bargaining chip with the Chinese, laid out the Administration’s position. Clinton stated, “Our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”
Scholars from both the right and left considered this public pronouncement jarring for two reasons. Firstly, was she implying that the Chinese people’s liberty and the Chinese government’s human rights violations were not a major priority for President Obama? Simply put, Secretary Clinton was setting up a false dichotomy between the two issues.
To be fair, since the opening of China under President Nixon, past administrations have also paid insufficient attention to human rights when negotiating with China. However, with that being said, for most students of American foreign policy, Clinton’s standpoint was quite disconcerting.
Secondly, a foreign policy in which the U.S. does not strongly pressure a tyrannical regime on human rights is fundamentally different from one that doesn’t raise the issue at all. Some have termed this as a “unilateral moral disarmament.” As much as the Administration may hope otherwise, given the latest violence in Xinjiang and ongoing strain in Tibet, it appears that human rights will remain near the top of the global consciousness in the near future for China.
It would therefore makes sense for the President to articulate to Chinese leaders that America will maintain a robust commitment to freedom worldwide and not lose moral ground by backing down. President Obama and his advisors must ask themselves if trying to be the anti-Bush President is worth the reversal of 50 years of precedent first articulated by JFK. The U.S. should not risk losing its standing in the minds of oppressed people across the globe.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on December 6, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
China is a complex country with a history, a people, and an economy starkly different from the United States. China views this as its time to establish itself as a world leader. For these reasons, the United States has an interesting and difficult task ahead. The United States must figure out approaches which will help shape China’s growth. The United States does not intend to, indeed cannot, dictate how China develops, but resolution of contentious issues such as international security, global economic growth, and human rights are integral parts of our diplomatic relationship with China.
China wants to forge its own path, and part of its path is a different approach toward government. Politically, the Chinese have been very successful with their authoritarian regime and have no reason to reform their government. The Chinese do not want to emulate the United States’ rise to international prominence. They see no reason to copy the American democratic system, when their own system has been so successful.
This places the United States in a weak negotiating position. The United States feels strongly about the moral grounds of democracy, competition, and dissent. Our democracy may not always be very pretty, but we are immensely proud of our system. The Chinese have no practical reasons to adopt a tumultuous democratic system such as our own, when they have seen such developmental success with their own form of government.
For the sake of the Chinese people, we should continue to pressure China to open up their system of government. The Chinese need not adopt a system identical to the Americans, but we should strongly push for a system that allows political competition, free discussion of the media, and dissent by the people. The Chinese people, who comprise one-sixth of the world population, deserve an open and democratic government that reflects the diverse views of the citizens.
China is also a major force in international politics and is helping shape the development of nations all over the globe. Countries, looking to China rather than the Western powers, see the success of China’s authoritarian government. The spread of anti-democratic governments is a threat to everyone, including those under the rule of authoritarian regimes as well as the rest of the world community. We must negotiate forcefully with China on the issue of human rights in order to prevent the spread of authoritarian governments to the developing world. We must do this to protect the people in the developing world, ourselves, and the rest of the international community. We cannot let the 21st century be defined as the era of the spread of authoritarian rule and undemocratic governments.
Addressing the human rights situation in China is a top priority for the United States, but we are also trying to balance environmental safety, trade partnerships, monetary stability, and military dominance in our relationship with China. The U.S. relationship with China is not a simple discussion only about human rights; rather, it is a multifaceted discussion over the future of our countries and the direction in which we will lead the international community. An overemphasis on one issue may lead China to restrict the scope and extent of its diplomatic relationship with the United States. The United States must take a strong but nuanced position to pressure China into opening up their form of government.
The United States must consider several factors before determining its position on human rights. This does not imply that the United States should back down on the issue of human rights. We cannot let any of our short-term interests drown out our opposition to human rights violations perpetuated by the Chinese. Human rights concerns must remain a top priority and a major part of our diplomatic efforts towards China. The issue of human rights is just too important to the lives of the Chinese people as well as to the safety of the world community to ignore.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on November 11, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
Despite popular sentiment, it has been Democratic presidents who have historically made the difficult decisions to balance the budget and help reduce the national debt. Republican presidents, on the other hand, claim fiscal responsibility even as they spend the United States into a massive hole. Now, President Obama is coming under attack for fiscal irresponsibility from Republicans, when he is taking the necessary steps that will help save the American economy.
Looking at history, Republicans have consistently been enormous debtors. Even the champion of small government, President Reagan, spent without limit. In just eight years, Reagan was able to triple the national debt. He never once submitted a balanced budget to Congress during his presidency. He thought cutting taxes meant small government, but if you do not have the political will to follow that up with cuts in spending then you are fooling yourself and the American people. Reagan ran enormous budget deficits that drove the U.S. to its highest ever levels of debt.
After the massive spending years of Reagan and Bush 41, we finally got Bill Clinton. Republican love to accuse Democrats of being the teenager running around with America’s credit card, but by the end of the Clinton years, the government had balanced its budget and was headed towards paying down the national debt.
In the eight years after the Clinton administration, George W. Bush drove the national debt from just over $5 trillion to $10 trillion. In his two terms, Bush amassed more debt than any president did from George Washington through to his father’s administration, combined. Pulling a page from the Reagan playbook, Bush promised small government and his first step was to cut taxes. Unfortunately, he followed up, not with spending cuts, but with massive unfunded programs such as Medicare Part D.
The future of the United States may be bleak indeed because of our crushing debt load. We need to address the debt, but cannot do so at the expense of our economic recovery. We need to distinguish deficits for economic stimulus reasons, such as those proposed by President Obama, and deficits for irresponsible reasons, such as those presented by President Bush. The recovery bill set forth by President Obama is one of the only reasons there are some bright signs in our economic future. According to Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the recovery bill is one of the main reasons that we saw GDP growth this quarter. The current budget deficit and the mounting debt are a major concern for President Obama and the American people, but we cannot stomp on these green shoots of economic recovery by tightening up the federal budget too quickly. We must withstand these short-term deficits in order to address the longer-term debt problem after we have come out of this deep recession.
Putting it all into perspective, according to OMB estimates, the U.S. government will add another $9 trillion to its debt over the next decade. Of that $9 trillion, more than half comes from President Bush’s policies – the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the unfunded Medicare Part D. Only 10 percent comes from the Obama recovery bill. Once the United States comes out of this recession, we will see the Democrats, not the Republicans, making the tough but necessary choices to help pay off the debt.
President Obama faces a political storm, as the deficit hawks – silent for years now – will come down on the president for his economic recovery plans that include deficit spending. As politically difficult as this will be, I know that President Obama will withstand the political pressure and do what is best for the American economy and the future of our country. He will continue his short-term policies encouraging stabilization and economic growth and get serious about reducing the national debt once the economy is back up and running.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Michael Sechrist on November 11, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
During the 2008 presidential election cycle, President Bush took a beating by many on the growing deficit. In a 2007 interview, then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke with clarity and command when he said that, “[The Bush Administration] has been the fiscally most irresponsible administration that we have seen. We have increased the national debt, almost doubled it, since George Bush took office; it is now over $9 trillion dollars, and that is money that we are all going to have to pay back.”
Obama’s stance dovetailed nicely with a factsheet put out by House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at the time. His factsheet graphically showed that President Bush borrowed more from foreign governments and financial institutions than the first 42 U.S. presidents combined. It went on to say that the “increased amount of debt held by foreign creditors undermines America’s national security. The United States is more vulnerable to geopolitical pressures in unstable parts of the world.”
Most Republicans would agree that fiscal deficits make our government more vulnerable to global instability. In the past 20 years, foreign holdings of U.S. federal debt have increased from 19 percent to 49 percent. That means that over half of our federal debt is held by countries whose interests may not be our own. China, Japan, the U.K. and oil exporting countries are the biggest holders of U.S. Treasury securities.
But according to The New York Times this past summer, “…Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.” His plans to halve the federal budget by 2013 means little considering that the federal budget will be twice what it is today even after such a reduction. Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package contradicts a key DNC tenet that “[Democrats] will maintain fiscal responsibility, so that we do not mortgage our children’s future on a mountain of debt.”
In fairness, President Bush raised the national debt $1.8 trillion in his first seven years in office. By the time his second term ended, the national debt stood almost $4.9 trillion higher than when he first entered. Obama recently said he “found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.” Well he is re-gifting it now for future generations.
Since taking office, President Obama has added $1.8 trillion to the national debt. What President Bush did in seven years, Obama is doing in his first year. If the Obama administration’s budget projections are right, it will take the national debt four years to rise to what it did in eight under President Bush. But White House economists’ projections are subject to change. For instance, the deepening recession made the Office of Management and Budget recalculate the national debt this summer. In just five months, from February to August 2009, OMB calculated that $2 trillion was added to the national debt. This will require the national debt limit, which Congress approves, to be increased by another trillion dollars this month to $13 trillion. This is the second increase since Obama took office in February.
As discussed, the problem does not lie with one party. It is a problem that all Americans, on both sides of the aisle, need to address. Right now, there is no light at the end of the tunnel. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, beyond our explicit liabilities of $13 trillion, implicit liabilities in Medicare and Social Security run close to $43 trillion. The total deficit then, all told, runs closer to $56 trillion, which comes down to $184,000 for every person living in the U.S.
The GAO describes this path as “unsustainable.” They estimate that government debt as a percentage of GDP will rise from 90 percent today to “170 percent by 2040 to over 600 percent by 2080 – far exceeding the historical high of 109 percent that occurred immediately following WWII.” By comparison, the E.U. does not let countries accede to it if debt levels exceed 60 percent of GDP; so by all accounts, we would not be let in.
Right now, when you type in “national debt” on the DNC website, you get a broken link. As voters, we need to demand that our elected officials move from this broken path of spending and burdening future generations. We must demand that a plan be produced and executed. Our security, in all areas, is at stake.
To further highlight this important issue, the HKS GOP caucus will host a series of events next semester, during National Debt Week. Details are currently being finalized, but we encourage the HKS Democratic Caucus to join us in supporting the events. We hope that all students will attend at least one event so that we can collaborate on fixing this important issue. Stay tuned.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Ray Martin on October 27, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
The procurement of a nuclear bomb by Iran poses a threat to the continued existence of the State of Israel. The recent reports that Iran may be close to procuring nuclear arms have led the Israeli government to call the Iranian nuclear program an “existential threat.” A nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel in two ways.
First, Iran may carry out a direct nuclear attack on Israel. The Supreme Leaders of Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei — have made no secret of their desire to destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad has said that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” while Khamenei has compared the State of Israel to a “cancer.” If Iran is allowed to procure nuclear arms, it will likely only be a matter of time before Iran uses those weapons against Israel. Iran already possesses the missile systems necessary to deliver such a nuclear attack.
Second, a nuclear Iran poses a threat to Israel given its capability to carry out an indirect attack by giving a nuclear bomb to one of its state-sponsored terrorist surrogates. Iran has connections to terrorist organizations that would allow it to easily deliver a covert nuclear attack on Israel. Iran has already sponsored Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades in carrying out numerous terrorist attacks on Israel. These attacks have included suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aries. Furthermore, a nuclear Iran will give Iran’s terrorist allies a nuclear umbrella under which to operate, and will likely embolden these organizations to ratchet up their terrorist attacks against Israel, both nuclear and non-nuclear.
Consequently, the United States must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. The current administration’s use of dialog and engagement is unlikely to be effective. Diplomacy rarely works with dictators. The United States must instead wield a heavy hand to ensure the continued existence of the State of Israel.
Congress and the administration have pursued a path of economic sanctions, such as the newly- passed Iran Sanctions Enabling Act and the long-stalled Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act. While these sanctions are a step in the right direction, President Obama must call for and broker stern economic sanctions supported by the entire international community (in particular from Russia and China) if sanctions are to have any meaningful impact. Although the recent agreement to ship low enriched Iranian uranium to Russia is a step in the right direction, it is only a temporary stopgap. Tehran can replace the 2,600 pounds of uranium that it is giving up in less than a year.
To ensure Israel’s safety, President Obama must provide a timeline for Tehran to give up its nuclear program in its entirety. At the same time, the President must convince Israel to forego any preemptive attack on Iran before Iran has the chance to begin dismantling its nuclear program.
If economic sanctions fail, then President Obama must tell Iran’s leaders that he supports a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran. In my conversation with Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, he articulated that President Obama has made a “terrible mistake in taking the military option off the table,” and that the President should “leave it up to Israel to determine its self defense.” By supporting a preemptive Israeli strike, President Obama will instill fear in Iran’s leaders over the possibility of war. Such a war would likely end with a regime change and the trial of the Iranian leaders, not in an international tribunal, but in an Israeli court of justice — much as did Adolf Eichmann in 1962. As Professor Dershowitz pointed out in 2006, “leaders, even religious leaders, fear imprisonment and death.”
The threat of a regime change in Iran, coupled with the fear of capital retribution, may be the only action that will make President Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Khamenei give pause in their pursuit of aggression and terror towards Israel.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on October 27, 2009 in Dems v. Reps, Opinion
President Obama recognizes the threat that a nuclear Iran poses. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made some dangerous comments regarding Israel and the Holocaust, and Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah is a threat to the safety of the Israeli people. But a nuclear Iran also puts the entire world in jeopardy. We stand against Iran’s nuclear program, both as an ally of Israel and as members of the world community.
There are glimmers of hope within Iran. As we saw this summer with the protests of the presidential elections, the political and religious leadership does not speak for all Iranian citizens. It is myopic to view Iran as a caricature within the Axis of Evil that Bush painted so dramatically just a few years ago.
As a nation, Iran is layered and complex, and the U.S. must reflect this complexity in its multi-faceted approach. Since his days as senator, the president has recommended that we do just that – take a comprehensive approach to Iran. The plans that President Obama has proposed for the past few years take an intelligent and strong approach to helping prevent the nuclear armament of Iran.
One key feature of Obama’s plan is diplomacy. Obama would not back away from his faith in the diplomatic process even under the enormous political pressures of the 2008 presidential election. Diplomacy is a strong tool for American foreign policy, and we should not take it off the table just because it may be politically expedient. Many Republicans agree with President Obama on this point, and they will even admit that when not trying to score political points – like McCain and Palin – by reiterating that diplomacy is dangerous.
Diplomacy can only work when it is conducted on the world stage. The United States will have little success unless it is able to build a united and coordinated plan with the cooperation of many parties, including the E.U., Russia, and China. China, in particular, is an important aspect to the diplomacy plan. China is a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council and has growing economic and political interests in the region. China has also heavily invested in the Iranian oil industry. Without buy-in from China, the U.S. will not be able to succeed in its diplomatic tactics.
Diplomacy is also an important part of a larger plan that Obama has been emphasizing for years. He recommends “more than just tough talk.” As a senator, he sponsored legislation that takes a strong approach to Iran. His ideas include divestment from Iranian businesses and putting increased pressure on the Iranian oil trade.
Yet, oftentimes under economic sanctions, those who can afford it the least are those who suffer the most. Although we agree with President Obama that we need “bigger sticks and bigger carrots” in our approach to Iran, we need to ensure that we do not bring harm to the Iranian people. The nascent democracy movement spurred by the protests of this past summer are the exact actions that we should encourage within Iran. And we are afraid that poorly thought out sanctions may stifle such positive social movements.
We stand with President Obama and his multi-faceted approach to Iran. He is not using this issue to score political points. He knows that this decision is too important, and the idea of a nuclear Iran is too dangerous to withstand. Any approach to Iran will likely be difficult and drawn-out, and so will the domestic and international politics required to deal with the issue of a nuclear Iran. The United States must take a strong stand against this issue or endure an enhanced threat to global security. Under President Obama, we believe we will make that strong, balanced stand.
