The geopolitical alliance we don't want to talk about: hearts and minds edition

U.S. aircraft carriers in the Arabian sea

The war in Vietnam was all about winning hearts and minds and in the early 21st century things are no different. But instead of dropping propaganda leaflets on enemy soldiers, today the battle for hearts and minds is waged online and in the media.

Recently I have become a fan of Russia Today, or as they are now known after their recent re-branding, simply RT. I started following them regularly after their site was the only place I could watch coverage of Kim Jong Il's funeral, which was awesome by the way.

Clearly this name change was meant to downplay the fact that Russia Today is a slick modern 24 hour cable news propoganda channel supported by the Russian government. Not only do they broadcast their news channel on satellite but they also do a pretty good job with social media. As you can see they even sponsor tweets and do so (shockingly) especially when the topic is an issue the President's liberal base vocally disagreed with him on.

Putin sees that the West dominates the international media discourse and he is using every tool at his disposal to try and level the playing field and force America to deal with the same level of scrutiny that Russia has to deal with. Putin wants to undermine the West's version of events and is still reeling from a serious loss when the West's intervention in Libya succeeded. Russia initially opposed action in Libya but later relented in the face of international pressure.

Russia and Putin don't want to see a repeat of what happened in Libya when dealing with Assad for a lot of reasons. Chief among them is Russia's decades old alliance with Syria, and oh yeah, their only naval base outside of the former Soviet Union just happens to be in Syria. Russia has sent one, possibly two aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean Sea in what seems to be an attempt to deter the United States from attacking Syria and possibly Iran at the same time.

On a deeper level, I think Russia has to support Syria in case Putin's brand of "soft authoritarianism" becomes inadequate as a mechanism for him to maintain power and he is forced to start using mass violence against his own people as Bashar Al-Assad is now. Putin fears that if another domino in what seems to be a wave of western supported revolutions is allowed to fall, the West will get a new puppet, Russia will lose an ally and the Russian people will be further emboldened to reclaim their country from Putin's corrupt grip.

So the RT probably wants to convince us to stop our government from attacking Iran and Syria. RT often posts about Iran's capabilities in an attempt to convince the American people that any military action would be suicide. I happen to agree with them. But in light of current events I am not sure a confrontation can be avoided. After the failure of the watered down UN resolution against Syria because of Russia and China's veto we have closed our Embassy in Syria and leveled new economic sanctions against the Iranian central bank. These are not encouraging developments.

I fear we may be headed inexorably toward conflict with Iran and Syria and by extension Russia and China. I don't understand why the President feels the needs to take such a belligerent stand on Iran. The American people are tired of war and don't want to see another military adventure in the Middle East even if it means Iran might be able to join the already pretty large nuclear club.

As the situation continues to deteriorate, the British government is banning an Iranian TV channel ostensibly because they failed to pay a fine. I predict we will see more stories like this one as the battle for international hearts and minds goes on. And now that Julian Assange will be getting a show on RT I worry that soon I won't be able to hear the admittedly biased version of events coming from Moscow and be forced to go back to the BBC for something a little closer to the truth than the mainstream media here in the United States is willing to tell.

Russia, China and Iran: the geopolitical alliance we don't want to talk about

I had a very interesting conversation with a friend from college the other day. Turns out she works for the Air Force doing political research and analysis.

My first response was "wow, do you know anyone in the industry who needs social media help?" The answer was no, but coincidentally the conversation prompted me to become a fan of Stratfor. If you have been keeping up with the news you will know why this caught me off guard.

The most interesting thing to come out of our conversation was when I said that "I have probably been flagged as a dissident so I probably won't ever be able to work in this industry" and she responded with "yeah the military was very skeptical of my foreign travel so I can't ever visit Russia, China or Iran."

That statement got me thinking. In the mainstream media China, Russia and Iran are all independently discussed and usually maligned, but rarely does the US news media draw any connections between these American rivals. Unlike the infamous Axis of Evil speech, it seems that our foreign policy objectives are being carried out clandestinely with assassinations and sabotage in the case of Iran and the media doesn't want to talk about the wider geopolitical implications of our belligerence.

However, the war drums seem to be beating louder and louder and many war hawks in the United States and Israel are calling for an all out military strike to prevent the Iranians from building nuclear weapons. It would be foolish to think such a strike would lead to anything but total global economic meltdown since the Iranians have been preparing for such an attack since 1979 and certainly learned from Iraq's mistake and constructed all of their facilities underground. Moreover the Iranians have been practicing closing the Strait of Hormuz which would prevent much of the world's oil from leaving the Persian gulf if they are attacked.

But beyond Iran's ability to survive and retaliate against such an attack, it seems to me that Russia and China have a lot to gain from the US and Israel (and whatever other Sunni autocracies we can get to go along with an attack plan) failing to destroy Iran.

China's first Aircraft Carrier

Sure China would suffer temporarily from the supply shortage just as everyone else would, but the propaganda victory of having the Iranians rebuff an attack by the world's sole remaining superpower would both embolden China and potentially deal a devastating blow to the US 5th fleet in the Gulf.

China clearly plans to exert more influence in the coming decades and a power vacuum in the Indian Ocean / Persian Gulf area would suit them quite nicely. The fact that they have activated their own GPS system means they are ready to track our naval forces around the world all by themselves.

Moreover, Russia has sent an Aircraft Carrier group to the Eastern Mediterranean to potentially help the embattled Syrian regime or merely as a deterrent to any NATO led Libya-esque style attack on their ally. Putin has a lot to gain from a confrontation with the West before the Presidential "election" that will be happening in March. Putin's carefully crafted image as a strong man capable of defending the Russian people from outside threats could be reinforced by a successful confrontation with the West.

Moreover, Russia as the world's top producer of oil (surprised?) stands to benefit enormously if the world oil price doubles or triples in the wake of the Strait of Hormuz closing.

I know Americans aren't particularly fond of acknowledging that other countries exist, but in an age of increased global competition, we can't afford to pretend that we can keep acting with impunity anytime and anywhere we like regardless of the consequences.

Obama's grand strategy

According to conventional political logic the President should be worried about his chances of re-election, very worried.

With an official unemployment rate of 9%, a massive deficit and a campaign finance system that is now officially completely broken, Axelrod and the president's other strategists must be nervous.

But there might might yet be a path to victory for the President. Besides having very good grassroots fundraising totals (I shelled out for my apron and beer koozie) and the promise to raise more than $1 billion for his campaign, there might be a few other reasons to be optimistic about the President's chances of securing a second term in the White House.

The path to victory I see relies on one fundamental assumption: voters are sick of the status quo and will vote for whichever candidate will bring change. In short, as with many elections in the past, whoever can run as an "outsider" and can credibly promise to "clean up Washington" and get things done will win.

Factor 1: The Super Committee

The Super Committee that was formed from the ashes of the debt ceiling debacle last summer is finally supposed to be releasing its budget balancing plan. Since the Republicans on this committee have sworn a blood oath to never raise taxes, this committee really doesn't have the capacity to balance the budget. The Republicans know that if they even allow old tax cuts to expire they will be crucified by a base who has been thoroughly convinced that raising taxes for any reason is treasonous.

So what is the likely outcome of the Super Committee's non-attempt to balance the budget? Huge cuts to both entitlements and defense. So who comes out on top when we cut both the military and social programs, the Republicans or the President? Well, since the Republicans have basically already come out in-favor of eliminating the programs that many of our seniors rely on with the Paul Ryan plan, I think President Obama will win this one. What about the defense cuts you ask? I think the liberal base would be excited about the prospect of cutting another $1 trillion over 10 years from the already bloated miliatry budget. And it is going to be hard to call the guy who killed Bin Laden "soft on defense."

So no matter what happens (unless there actually is some sort of compromise) the President will win this round and be able to promise to restore the entitlement program cuts while effectively endorsing the Pentagon cuts by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Factor 2: The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has immense power. From its ability to decide who the winner of elections will be (Bush vs. Gore) to shaping the history of the 20th century's greatest President (when FDR tried to pack the court and then ram through all of his new deal plans) the final fate of any President can be decided by the high court.

This year is no different. By agreeing to hear the challenges to the President's healthcare law, the 5-4 conservative majority has basically signaled their intention to invalidate at least some of the law, likely the insurance mandate.

At first glance this eventuality may seem like a serious set back for the President. But remember my assumption, whoever is the "outsider" will likely win this election. Paradoxically, if the Supreme Court strikes down the healthcare law the President might actually be in a better position. If Obama can convince the American people that he is the man of action and Congress and the Supreme Court are standing in his way, he could even return to the same campaign slogan for 2012 with a slight variation. "We tried, but in the second term, YES WE CAN!" And in the most optimistic scenario, repeal of the Affordable Care Act might actually energize the liberal base and lay the foundation for health CARE reform, instead of the health INSURANCE reform we got in 2009.

Winner? Despite the mainstream media who will undoubtedly spin the decision of an unaccountable and appointed group of wealthy elderly lawyers as a damaging blow to the President, I think giving Obama another enemy of progress for him to campaign against will help him more than it will hurt him.

Factor 3: The crazy Republican field and the potential for a third party candidate

By now we have experienced the Donald Trump fad, the Michelle Bachman fad, the Rick Perry fad, and the Herman Cain fad without the Republican primary voters being able to make up their minds. They just really don't like Mitt Romney even though they grudgingly know he is the best general election candidate, mainly because he doesn't openly advocate ending Social Security.

But as I have pointed out before, Romney is a Mormon and there is a large segment of the American public, in particular the Evangelical Christian right who will not vote for him because of his faith. This primary fight will likely last into the late spring forcing the candidates and their Super PACs to waste their valuable resources battling each other for the nomination. For the first time in living memory this nomination may come down to a convention floor fight which would obviously be the best possible scenario for the President.

There have also been rumblings that Ron Paul, the only real conservative libertarian in the race, might run as a third party candidate if he doesn't win the Republican nomination. Much like Ross Perot gave the 1992 election to Bill Clinton by splitting the conservative vote, a Ron Paul 3rd party bid would almost certainly guarantee a second term for the President.  

Romney will likely be the nominee. If he isn't, I think the Republicans will be in for a "Goldwatering" and President Obama will cruise to victory as the only remotely qualified candidate.

Factor 4: Foreign Policy (the total wild card)

Unbeknownst to most Americans, much of the world is pretty much falling apart. The European debt crisis is spiraling out of control and an Israeli attack on Iran seems increasingly likely. The geopolitical implications of a new war in the Middle East could change the race for President in ways I can't really predict.

Conventional wisdom would dictate that a sitting commander-in-chief would likely benefit from a war that doesn't see a large number of American causalities before election day. However, a wider war in the Middle East that might include both Turkey and Syria, not to mention the fact that the Iranians would likely move to close the straights of Hormuz would send world energy prices through the roof. Again, it is unclear but voters would almost certainly blame President Obama if gas prices doubled or tripled unless he somehow opened the eyes of Americans to our dependence on foreign oil and convinced us of the need to embark on a huge domestic clean energy infrastructure building project in the wake of a military disaster in the middle east.

In summary, the next year will provide the President with a slew of opportunities to position himself as the outsider and run against the dysfunction that is Washington D.C. and hopefully avoid a full scale war in the Middle East.