US-Soldaten in Afghanistan

The American Conservative


suche-links1 2 3 4 5 6suche-rechts


"Washington Quietly Increases Lethal Weapons to Ukraine"

Die US-Regierung plant offenbar, die Ukraine mit weiteren Waffenlieferungen zu unterstützen. Ted Galen Carpenter berichtet, dass dies neben den Anti-Panzer-Raketen vom Typ Javelin auch Waffensysteme für die Marine und die Luftverteidigung betreffen könnte. "One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to America’s borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in Canada’s internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government, and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S. relations with Ukraine."

Mehr lesen


"The Terrifying Take-Away From Maduro Assassination Attempt"

Das fehlgeschlagene Drohnen-Attentat auf den Präsidenten Venezuelas müsse als "game changer" betrachtet werden, ist Michael Horton überzeugt. "As these flying machines become a part of our everyday lives they will also become more of a threat. With what is likely to be hundreds if not thousands of drones in the skies above major cities, the opportunities for terrorists and militants to make use of them will only increase. Even the most secure and advanced can be hacked, as was demonstrated by the Iranians hacking one of the United States’ most advanced and stealthy drones (...) in December 2011. (...) Apart from the danger from hackers, the idea that drones will become 'normal' is a real fear. It will be very hard for individuals and government security services to distinguish between the drone dropping off a package and one that is dropping a bomb. A hacked or modified drone can easily join other drones in what drone manufacturers are calling 'drone corridors.' (...) The drones that were used to target Maduro are primitive compared with what will soon be on the market. Yet, one of them came very close to injuring, if not killing, a head of state."

Mehr lesen


"The Death of the Nation-State Was Greatly Exaggerated"

Noch vor wenigen Jahren waren viele Experten der Überzeugung, dass ein Kollaps des Sykes-Picot-Systems im Nahen Osten nur eine Frage der Zeit sei. Geoffrey Aronson schreibt, dass sich diese Prognosen heute zumindest als voreilig herausgestellt hätten. "The assumption that the national identities forged from Sykes-Picot’s template over the last century could be swept away like so much dust was, shall we say, premature. Washington, against its instincts, was forced to save Iraq from the Islamic State assault — in league with Iran no less — and to vote with Baghdad against the quixotic Kurdish quest for independence. (...) In Syria, Obama declared open season on Assad and the Baath Party, but failed to understand Assad’s secret to maintaining power (with critical Russian and Iranian support). That secret was that Assad reaffirmed the essential and enduring truth recognized and unleashed by Sykes-Picot, the superior evocative power of Syrian nationalism in the hearts of its people. Still, Washington, unlike Moscow, has yet to be convinced of the enduring value of Sykes-Picot and the primacy of state sovereignty. (...) The challenge posed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria has been contained if not annihilated. Before our very eyes, and whatever our preferences, the idea of the state is prevailing against the naysayers and those making war against it. This idea, and the single-minded drive to reaffirm sovereignty and authority against challengers, is the preeminent legacy of Sykes-Picot. Washington, take note."

Mehr lesen


"What if Russiagate is the New WMDs?"

Die "Russiagate"-Debatte in den USA erinnert Jack Hunter an die Diskussion über irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen vor der Invasion im Jahr 2003. Diesmal seien es die US-Demokraten, die ihren Standpunkt mit einer religiös wirkenden Parteilichkeit vertreten und ihren Gegnern "Verrat" vorwerfen. "With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security concerns to the level of existential threat based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind of thinking has already proven to be dangerous. We don’t know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come forth, but it’s easy to see how, even if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of fact, but political identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history. No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially damaging information about Trump and Russia that may yet emerge. Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans’ Iraq fantasy."

Mehr lesen


"The Costs of Reneging on the Nuclear Deal"

Der iranische Religionsführer Ayatollah Ali Chamenei hat neuen Verhandlungen mit den USA eine unmissverständliche Absage erteilt. Daniel Larison ist von dieser Reaktion auf das amerikanische Auftreten seit dem Ausstieg aus dem internationalen Atomabkommen nicht überrascht. "Violating our government’s obligations under this agreement has a cost for the U.S., and part of that cost is that the possibility of negotiating with Iran about anything is dead for the foreseeable future. It isn’t possible to trash one of the most significant diplomatic agreements of the last several decades and then get the other parties that you just betrayed to come back to the table. (...) The danger for the U.S. is that many other governments in addition to Iran’s will be wary of making agreements with our government, at least as long as Trump is the president. That will cause the U.S. to miss numerous opportunities to secure and advance our interests, and it will give other states currently negotiating with the U.S. good reason not to believe the promises this administration is making to them."

Mehr lesen


"Why America’s Allies Should Develop Nuclear Weapons"

Doug Bandow vom Cato Institute würde es dagegen begrüßen, wenn amerikanische Verbündete wie Deutschland oder Japan eigene Atomwaffen entwickeln. "While friendly proliferation could create instability and encourage competing arms build-ups, it would also be the most effective way to constrain China without forcing the U.S. into a military confrontation over primarily allied interests with what will be soon a great power, perhaps eventually even a superpower. Enabling more nuclear states would be unfortunate, but it still might be the best among bad options. If nothing else, Americans should debate Washington’s multiple nuclear guarantees. Recipient nations increasingly recognize that the nuclear umbrella offers an imperfect defense at best. And the U.S. government’s nuclear commitments create enormous, disproportionate costs and risks for Americans. When the issue is nuclear war, without question America must come first."

Mehr lesen


"Trump’s Latest Weird Offer to Meet Rouhani"

Daniel Larison ist sicher, dass dem überraschenden Gesprächsangebot des US-Präsidenten an den Iran kein neues Gipfeltreffen folgen wird. Ein ähnliches Angebot sei von Teheran bereits im November abgelehnt worden, da Trump nicht wirklich an einem Kompromiss interessiert sei. "Trump has routinely feigned interest in getting a 'better' deal from Iran while making maximalist demands that amount to calling for Iran’s surrender. He is not interested in any compromise that Iran would be willing to accept, and Iran’s government cannot agree to the demands that he and Pompeo have made. Trump has already proven to the Iranian side that he will violate past agreements for no good reason, so there is no reason for them to negotiate anything with a president who can’t be trusted."

Mehr lesen


"The Subtle Return of German Hegemony"

Will Collins hält den Aufstieg Deutschlands zur europäischen Hegemonialmacht für unaufhaltsam und erwartet, dass dies künftig auch auf außenpolitischer Ebene stärker zum Vorschein treten wird. "A newly assertive Germany does not mean the return of a Nazi- or even Wilhelmine-era foreign policy. Traditional spurs to German expansionism no longer exist. (...) Besides, why resort to crude political or military pressure when such areas are already accessible to German capital and amenable to German influence through the mechanisms of the European Union? Instead, the return of German hegemony on the European continent will be subtle, incremental, and largely benign. Germany’s economic clout is already masked by the European Union, and there is ample scope to expand this influence through pre-existing 'multilateral' institutions. (...) In the constellation of American foreign policy relationships, Germany may come to resemble a country like India or Brazil: not overtly hostile, inclined to amicability by shared political traditions, and willing to cooperate on areas of mutual interest without slavishly adhering to Washington’s dictates."

Mehr lesen


"Trump Calls Off Cold War II"

Patrick J. Buchanan zieht im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Kommentatoren in den USA ein positives Fazit des Gipfeltreffens in Helsinki. Donald Trump habe einem "Kalten Krieg 2.0" eine klare Absage erteilt und eine "historische Wende" in der US-Außenpolitik vorangetrieben. "With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation and the fate of his presidency. He has rejected the fundamental premises of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and blamed our wretched relations with Russia, not on Vladimir Putin, but squarely on the U.S. establishment. (...) Trump thereby repudiated the records and agendas of the neocons and their liberal interventionist allies, as well as the archipelago of War Party think tanks beavering away inside the Beltway. Looking back over the week, from Brussels to Britain to Helsinki, Trump’s message has been clear, consistent and startling. NATO is obsolete. European allies have freeloaded off U.S. defense while rolling up huge trade surpluses at our expense. Those days are over. Europeans are going to stop stealing our markets and start paying for their own defense. And there will be no Cold War II."

Mehr lesen


"The Helsinki Debacle and U.S.-Russian Relations"

Daniel Larison kritisiert das Auftreten des US-Präsidenten in Helsinki, weil das groß angekündigte Gipfeltreffen mit dem russischen Präsidenten einmal mehr keine handfesten Vereinbarungen hervorgebracht habe. Trumps "unterwürfige" Haltung während der abschließenden Pressekonferenz werde künftige Verständigungsversuche mit Russland weiter erschweren, so seine Befürchtung. "Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can’t be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments. If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding a way to work through or around them."

Mehr lesen


"The Media’s Brazen Dishonesty About North Korean Nuclear Violations"

Gareth Porter wirft führenden US-Medien vor, mit ihrer Berichterstattung über Nordkorea alles daran zu setzen, um US-Präsident Trumps Verhandlungen mit Kim Jong-un zum Scheitern zu bringen. "In late June and early July, NBC News, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal published stories that appeared at first glance to shed a lurid light on Donald Trump’s flirtation with Kim Jong-un. They contained satellite imagery showing that North Korea was making rapid upgrades to its nuclear weapons complex at Yongbyon and expanding its missile production program just as Trump and Kim were getting chummy at their Singapore summit. In fact, those media outlets were selling journalistic snake oil. By misrepresenting the diplomatic context of the images they were hyping, the press launched a false narrative around the Trump-Kim summit and the negotiations therein. (...) A media complex so determined to discredit negotiations with North Korea and so unfettered by political-diplomatic reality seriously threatens the ability of the United States to deliver on any agreement with Pyongyang. That means alternative media must make more aggressive efforts to challenge the corporate press’s coverage."

Mehr lesen


"Why NATO Needs a MAGA Foreign Policy"

Anlässlich des NATO-Gipfels empfiehlt Bruce Fein dem US-Präsidenten, den in Artikel 5 vertraglich festgelegten Bündnisfall praktisch für ungültig zu erklären. Die USA sollten demnach deutlich machen, dass sie ohne Zustimmung des Kongresses keinen Krieg zur Unterstützung anderer NATO-Länder erklären werden. "President Trump should tell the other NATO nations that the United States will no longer defend them from external aggression unless Congress declares war as is constitutionally required by the Declare War Clause of Article I, section 8, clause 11. Then Trump should announce a Make America Great Again (MAGA) doctrine of 'Invincible Self-Defense.' That means he will engage the armed forces only in self-defense against actual or imminent aggressors towards the United States, and only if Congress declares war or directs the offensive use of the military. (...) Article V of the NATO treaty, which requires signatories to treat an attack on one as an attack on all, cannot override the Constitution. (...) Contrary to what the critics might say, the MAGA doctrine of Invincible Self-Defense would not give birth to existential threats caused by Chinese or Russian aggression."

Mehr lesen


"For Peace With Putin, End America’s Pointless Wars"

George D. O'Neill Jr. hofft, dass US-Präsident Trump beim Gipfeltreffen mit Präsident Putin nicht auf das außenpolitische Establishment in Washington hört und die Gelegenheit für einige diplomatische Fortschritte nutzt. "President Trump should propose a drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan in exchange for a drawdown of Russian troops in Syria (along with a pledge that America has no interest in reengaging in the Syrian Civil War). This would be consistent with Trump’s oft-stated observation that America’s wars (declared and undeclared) in the Middle East have been a waste. Trump need not 'recognize' the Russian annexation of Crimea but he should assert that a resolution to the situation on the ground in Ukraine is a European matter — to be settled by bilateral negotiations between Russia and Europe. (...) The American public is not interested in diplomatic and media theater. They know two things to be true: the failing 'Trump-Russia collusion' hysteria is proving baseless (and distracting from concerns over economic growth and jobs); and whatever America’s international security interests are in the Middle East, we are all better protected with allies that face similar threats."

Mehr lesen


"Another Saudi Coalition Wedding Massacre in Yemen"

In Jemen ist Berichten zufolge erneut eine Hochzeitsgesellschaft durch einen saudi-arabischen Luftangriff getroffen worden. Daniel Larison weist darauf hin, wie häufig diese Angriffe auf Zivilisten vorkämen. "The coalition has illegally treated all of Saada as a military target for three years, and it has routinely struck civilian targets ever since. (...) The coalition has consistently shown flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians in Yemen. A similar wedding massacre in a small village in Hajjah in April of this year killed 23 people, including the bride. (...) The Trump administration frequently complains about Yemeni missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, but no one from this administration ever says anything about the numerous documented war crimes committed by the Saudis and Emiratis against innocent civilians in Yemen. The U.S. simply ignores the evidence of coalition war crimes in order to continue providing military assistance to them, and the result is that hundreds and thousands of Yemeni civilians are killed with our help."

Mehr lesen


"Bolton’s Iran Regime Collapse Fantasy"

Der Nationale Sicherheitsberater im Weißen Haus John Bolton glaubt offenbar immer noch, dass das Regime in Teheran auf tönernen Füßen stehe und durch einen "kleinen Tritt" zum Kollaps gebracht werden könnte. Daniel Larison hält dies für Wunschdenken und warnt zudem vor den Folgen eines Zusammenbruchs der staatlichen Ordnung in Iran. "Iran is one of the last relatively stable countries in the region, so it is insane to want to foment more upheaval and disorder there. Trying to collapse of a government in a country of more than eighty million people would have huge and unforeseen consequences for the population and for Iran’s many neighbors. Having set much of the rest of the region ablaze, the U.S. would be trying to burn down one of the few structures in the neighborhood that hasn’t yet caught on fire. If Bolton really thinks that all it will take is 'one little kick' to bring down the Iranian government, he is more deluded than I thought."

Mehr lesen


"The Destructive Iran Obsession Gets Even Worse"

Daniel Larison hält den Plan der US-Regierung, Importe von iranischem Erdöl global zu verhindern, für "irrational" und "unnötig". Es sei kaum zu erwarten, dass z.B. China und Indien der amerikanischen Forderung nachgeben werden. "Many of the countries that import Iranian oil won’t comply with this diktat, and we should expect some of them to respond to U.S. sanctions with retaliatory measures. The U.S. isn’t just proposing to wage economic war on Iran, but threatens to extend that war to all of Iran’s major trading partners. India has already indicated that it isn’t going to respect U.S. sanctions on Iran, and I can’t imagine that China will be any more cooperative on this front. (...) When the U.S. was working with its allies and other major powers to pressure Iran to agree to restrictions on its nuclear program, other governments cooperated with U.S. requests by reducing their purchases of oil from Iran, but they never stopped them all together. The U.S. under Trump has reneged on the nuclear deal that came from that, and now our government is back demanding that other countries forego Iranian oil entirely just because Washington says so."

Mehr lesen


"Are al-Qaeda Affiliates Fighting Alongside U.S. Rebels in Syria’s South?"

Vor der aktuellen Eskalation der Kämpfe im Süden Syriens hätten Rebellengruppen, die durch den Westen unterstützt werden, eine von Russland vermittelte Verhandlungslösung ausgeschlagen, berichtet Sharmine Narwani. Diese Gruppen seien nun dabei, an der Seite des syrischen Al-Qaida-Ablegers Nusra-Front gegen die syrischen Regierungstruppen zu kämpfen. "It’s highly doubtful that the U.S. military remains unaware of this. The Americans operate on a 'don’t ask, don’t tell' basis with regard to FSA-Nusra cooperation. In a 2015 interview with this reporter, CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why Pentagon-vetted fighters’ weapons were showing up in Nusra hands. Raines responded: 'We don’t ‘command and control’ these forces — we only 'train and enable' them. Who they say they’re allying with, that’s their business.' In practice, the U.S. doesn’t appear to mind the Nusra affiliation — regardless of the fact that the group is a terror organization — as long as the job gets done. (...) This essentially means that the Syrian army and its allies can tear apart any areas in the south of Syria where Nusra fighters — and 'entities associated' with it — are based. In effect, international law provides a free hand for a Syrian military assault against U.S.-backed militias co-located with Nusra, and undermines the ability of their foreign sponsors to take retaliatory measures. That’s why the Nusra Front doesn’t show up on U.S. maps."

Mehr lesen


"Bolton Keeps Trying to Sabotage North Korea Diplomacy"

John Bolton, Nationaler Sicherheitsberater des US-Präsidenten, hat noch einmal bekräftigt, dass die US-Regierung an langwierigen Verhandlungen mit Nordkorea nicht interessiert sei. Nach Ansicht von Daniel Larison könnten diese Äußerungen bestätigen, dass die USA kein echtes Interesse an einer diplomatischen Lösung der Krise haben. "Any productive negotiations are going to take a long while. When Bolton says that the U.S. has no interest in lengthy talks, he is confirming that the administration isn’t going to take the time and make the effort required to secure an agreement on anything. Combined with Trump’s delusion that the problem has already been 'solved' and the danger eliminated, Bolton’s statements make it less likely that talks between the U.S. and North Korea will be productive. Since North Korea isn’t going to make the 'decisive and dramatic choice' that Bolton wants, he is setting up the negotiations to fail. (...) Bolton is counting on the disappointment of unrealistic expectations to derail all diplomatic engagement with North Korea, and everyone that wants to thwart Bolton needs to make it as clear as can be that North Korea’s disarmament is not in the cards."

Mehr lesen


"Withdrawing from the Human Rights Council Is a Mistake"

Daniel Larison hält den Austritt der USA aus dem UN-Menschenrechtsrat dagegen trotz manch berechtigter Kritik an dem Gremium für einen Fehler. "There are legitimate reasons to criticize the U.N. Human Rights Council, but as usual the administration has managed to find the least compelling reason for its bad decision. The Human Rights Council’s failing is not that it criticizes Israel for its abuses, but that it frequently fails to hold other member states accountable for theirs. It is ridiculous to have some of the most abusive governments in the world as part of this body, but that is all the more reason why the U.S. should remain a member and seek to hold those states accountable for what they are doing. It is embarrassing that the U.S. now joins a handful of some of the most abusive governments in the world in refusing to participate. Withdrawing from the council can only benefit the worst governments in the world."

Mehr lesen


"The U.S. Doesn’t Need a 'Space Force'"

US-Präsident Trump hat die Bildung einer weiteren Teilstreitkraft des US-Militärs angekündigt, die für künftige militärische Konflikte im Weltraum zuständig sei soll. Daniel Larison zufolge wird dieser Schritt von einigen Politikern und Generälen für völlig unnötig und sogar für gefährlich gehalten. "Further militarizing outer space for the purposes of fighting wars there is a very dangerous proposition that the U.S. should flatly reject. Peter Wismer explains why: 'The laws of war try to make sure that the consequences of a war are generally restricted to the countries fighting the war. A war in space could never achieve that. It would affect the global community and create significant damage to all. The United States would be the country to suffer the most because its dependence on space is by far the greatest, as it possesses the most satellites. It is in the interest of the United States and the rest of the world to make sure that space never becomes a war-fighting domain. We can achieve that by continuing to make sure it is neither permissible nor opportune.'"

Mehr lesen


"How Donald Trump Just Ended the Cold War for Good"

Mit seinem Zugehen auf Nordkorea habe US-Präsident Trump den Kalten Krieg endgültig beendet, stellt James P. Pinkerton fest. Trump sei dabei, die jahrzehntelang gewohnten Strukturen der geopolitischen Ordnung zu verändern. "For the entire existence of most people living today, Korean tensions have been a running sore of stubborn hostility. And that hostility helped perpetuate the Cold War arrangements of NATO, and later, the G-7, and all the other American-sponsored geopolitical mechanisms of the Cold War. (...) Interestingly, all of this structure survived the collapse of the Soviet Union; in the 90s, many argued that it was time for a military drawdown and an economic rethink. Yet in fact, the opposite happened (...). the basic geopolitical foundations of the last seven decades are being challenged and shifted — or, as critics would prefer to say, being subverted and betrayed. Yet in the meantime, even as his myriad foes prepare their next political, legal, and punditical attacks, Trump is the man astride the world stage, smiling, shaking hands, signing deals — and unmistakably remaking the old order."

Mehr lesen


"What if the Trump-Moon-Kim Summit Fails?"

Peter van Buren erwartet beim bevorstehenden Gipfeltreffen zwischen Donald Trump und Kim Jong-un keinen spektakulären Durchbruch. Dies sollte seiner Ansicht nach aber nicht als Scheitern, sondern als Teil des normalen diplomatischen Prozesses betrachtet werden. "Success in Singapore will be an agreement to meet again, and again after that. It should not be forgotten that the more modest 2015 Iranian Accord took 20 months to negotiate. Success means forwarding the process of building trust and creating an infrastructure to solve the inevitable problems (sadly, yes, there will likely be tweets) that accompany the often herky-jerky path forward. Anyone demanding more than that from the June 12 meeting wants it to fail."

Mehr lesen


"Europe’s Hypocritical Fury Towards Trump’s Ambassador"

Bill Wirtz hält die europäische Aufregung über den neuen US-Botschafter in Berlin, Richard Grenell, für "hysterisch" und "heuchlerisch". Grenell müsse tatsächlich noch lernen, dass er nicht mehr für den TV-Sender Fox News kommentiert. Allerdings hätten viele Europäer offenbar vergessen, dass sich auch US-Präsident Obama aktiv in europäische Belange eingemischt habe. "The same people who are up in arms about the comments made by Richard Grenell were comparably silent about President Obama’s remarks in April 2016 prior to the Brexit referendum. Not only did Obama declare against Brexit, he also made clear that, if Britain left the EU, a U.S.-UK trade agreement 'would not happen anytime soon,' which was a political threat and a direct statement against the Leave campaign. (...) Yet there was no condemnation from Brussels over the meddling of an American president in EU affairs."

Mehr lesen


"Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn’t Enough"

Während sich Stephen M. Walt in einem Beitrag für das Magazin Foreign Policy für eine realpolitische Analyse der internationalen Sicherheitspolitik stark gemacht hat, besteht William S. Smith darauf, dass der kalte Fokus auf Machtgleichgewichte ohne eine Beachtung der moralischen Dimension der Politik in die Irre führe. "Realist thinkers (...) tend to deny the moral nature of human beings and the role that this may play in world events. Because they have seen the great danger of moralistic idealism in foreign policy, they sometimes don’t think morality should be considered at all. Realist theory has a cold, inhumane quality that makes it inattentive to the moral dimension of human existence. (...) Because some realists have adopted the philosophically untenable position that morality has no role in world affairs, many Americans have signed on with the moralists’ disastrous crusades instead. The realists have the stronger policy case, but they have ceded the moral ground to the idealists. Ironically, it may be the work of Henry Kissinger that can show realists an intellectual path toward restoring a sense of morality in foreign policy."

Mehr lesen


"Most Iranians Reject Pompeo’s Preposterous Demands"

Die USA betonen bei ihren harten Forderungen gegenüber dem Iran immer wieder, dass sie auch die Interessen der iranischen Bevölkerung vertreten. Daniel Larison schreibt, dass dies Umfragen zufolge keineswegs zutreffe. "(...) most Iranians don’t support Pompeo’s demands or the administration’s goals for Iran according to the best information that we have. On the contrary, the January 2018 survey conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and IranPoll found broad Iranian public support for many of the things that Pompeo insists that the Iranian government stop doing. (...) Unsurprisingly, most Iranians don’t favor having their government abandon its allies, disarm, and dismantle their nuclear program. It is also not surprising that this administration doesn’t know or care about any of this, and their feigned interest in what the Iranian people want is just a way of disguising their unremitting hostility. That hostility is hard to miss, and 69% of respondents characterized the Trump administration’s policies towards Iran as 'completely hostile' and another 15% saw them at least somewhat hostile. (...) The Trump administration isn’t really interested in helping the people of Iran, and the vast majority wouldn’t want our government’s help in any case."

Mehr lesen


"Trump and Pompeo Are Spitting in the Faces of Our Allies"

Daniel Larison betrachtet den mit der jüngsten Rede von Außenminister Pompeo bekräftigten Iran-Kurs der US-Regierung als Schlag ins Gesicht der europäischen Verbündeten. Den Europäern gehe es dabei nicht nur um drohende wirtschaftliche Verluste durch neue US-Sanktionen, sondern um die Souveränität der eigenen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. "Trump and Pompeo have been spitting in the faces of our allies, and it is no wonder that they object to it in the strongest terms. The issue for our allies is that Washington is trying to force them to do something against their will for no good reason, and they naturally oppose attempts to penalize them for adhering to agreement that the U.S. encouraged them to support just a few years ago. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has betrayed several of its genuine treaty allies for the sake of placating bad clients that wish to ratchet up tensions with Iran."

Mehr lesen


"North Korea Rejects a 'Libya-Style' Deal"

Nordkorea hat bekräftigt, dass ein Abrüstungsabkommen mit den USA nach libyschem Vorbild nicht in Frage komme. Damit ist nach Ansicht von Daniel Larison klar, dass US-Präsident Trump seine weitreichenden Ansprüche auf dem geplanten Gipfeltreffen auf keinen Fall durchsetzen wird. "As long as the administration insists on 'complete, verifiable, and irreversible' denuclearization, it is difficult to see what agreement the U.S. and North Korea could reach in the months and years to come. Disarming North Korea of its nuclear weapons is and has long been an unrealistic goal, and if the U.S. wants to get anything out of talks with North Korea it should be willing to settle for much more modest concessions. Diplomacy with North Korea is definitely the right way forward, but the administration and all other parties have to approach negotiations with the understanding that North Korea is going to remain a nuclear-armed state for the foreseeable future. Once that is understood and accepted, the U.S. and its allies may be able to secure important limitations on North Korea’s weapons and missile programs and it makes real progress towards a lasting peace treaty possible."

Mehr lesen


"Bolton’s Push for Regime Change in Iran"

Daniel Larison glaubt nicht, dass John Bolton seine "extreme" Haltung gegenüber dem Iran seit seinem Amtsantritt als Nationaler Sicherheitsberater tatsächlich aufgegeben hat. "Bolton’s handling of the run-up to Trump’s decision on the nuclear deal shows that he isn’t interested in presenting a range of opposing views to the president and the president is content to let Bolton limit the information he receives. One of the reasons to be worried about having Bolton as National Security Advisor is that he will not be an honest broker when it comes to presenting the president with all the facts. That worry was obviously well-founded. Because Bolton is an ideologue and has extremely hardline views on Iran in particular, he isn’t going to allow the president to hear views that contradict his own, and that means that Iran policy in particular and U.S. foreign policy in general is going to become more aggressive and ideologically-driven than they already were. This is all the more disturbing because of reports that Bolton’s NSC is circulating plans to foment regime change in Iran (...). Bolton is a longtime advocate for the Mujahideen-e Khalq, a deranged totalitarian cult that he would like to install as the next government of Iran, and he has made no secret of his desire to topple the Iranian government. It was just a matter of time before he started trying to make this official policy."

Mehr lesen


"Did Israel Inadvertently Make Case for Staying in Nuke Agreement?"

Trita Parsi meint, dass Israels Premierminister Netanjahu mit seiner öffentlichkeitswirksamen Präsentation von Geheiminformationen zum iranischen Atomprogramm vor allem das Atomabkommen unterminieren wollte. Tatsächlich habe Netanjahu aber demonstriert, warum das Abkommen effektiv sei und beibehalten werden sollte. "The IAEA issued its report on December 2, 2015 concluding that Iran had pursued a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003, but that this organized program ended that year and that there was no evidence that any undeclared activities had taken place since 2009. Following the report, the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors voted unanimously to conclude the investigation into Iran’s past weaponization work. The case was officially closed. Now, without presenting any new information – and without even attempting to claim that Iran’s undeclared activities had continued beyond 2009 or 2015 – Bibi wants to convince the world that he has discovered something new. He hasn’t. As one former IAEA official publicly commented: 'I just saw a lot of pictures I had seen before.' Iran’s past military activities is precisely why the JCPOA is needed: The deal significantly limited Iran’s program and closed off all of Tehran’s pathways to a bomb. And thanks to the inspections regime, Iran cannot engage in any such clandestine activities without getting caught."

Mehr lesen


"America’s Fling With the Kurds Could Cause Turkey and NATO to Split"

Die amerikanische Unterstützung der Kurden in Syrien werde in Washington mit zunehmender Skepsis betrachtet, schreibt Mark Perry. Im Vordergrund stehe die Sorge, dass die Türkei aus der NATO austreten könnte, dem Bündnis, das aus amerikanischer Sicht seit drei Generationen den Frieden in Europa garantiere. "In fact, just how 'ugly' the relationship has become is fast becoming a matter of public debate. During his March visit, [General Curtis Scaparrotti, the head of the European Command and the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,] appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to give testimony on the challenges facing his command. While most members focused on Russia and cyberwar issues, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine explored the U.S.-Turkey dust-up, hinting that it might be time for the U.S. to dampen its YPG ties. Scaparrotti didn’t disagree, while soft-pedaling the disagreements over the issue that he’s had with Votel and Centcom. 'Where do we want to be in a year, two years and five years?' he asked. 'With a close NATO ally like Turkey, we know that we want to maintain and strengthen our relationship. So that’s the long-term objective and if we look at the long-term objective, it can begin to inform what we’re doing today with respect to NATO.' The senior military officer with whom I spoke proved a willing translator: 'What Scaparrotti is saying is that the real marriage here is between the U.S. and Turkey. The YPG is just a fling.'"

Mehr lesen

suche-links1 2 3 4 5 6suche-rechts

Hier finden Sie die Redaktion der Sicherheitspolitischen Presseschau.

Mehr lesen



Europa, Asien, Afrika, Amerika und weltweite Phänomene und Institutionen. Die bpb bietet ein breites Angebot zu internationalen Themen.

Mehr lesen


Informationsportal Krieg und Frieden

Wo gibt es Kriege und Gewaltkonflikte? Und wo herrscht am längsten Frieden? Welches Land gibt am meisten für Rüstung aus? liefert wichtige Daten und Fakten zu Krieg und Frieden.

Mehr lesen auf


Innerstaatliche Konflikte

Vom Kosovo nach Kolumbien, von Somalia nach Süd-Thailand: Weltweit schwelen über 280 politische Konflikte. Und immer wieder droht die Lage gewaltsam zu eskalieren.

Mehr lesen

Zahlen und Fakten


Kaum ein Thema wird so intensiv und kontrovers diskutiert wie die Globalisierung. "Zahlen und Fakten" liefert Grafiken, Texte und Tabellen zu einem der wichtigsten und vielschichtigsten Prozesse der Gegenwart.

Mehr lesen

Publikationen zum Thema

Coverbild Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Die internationale Sicherheit ist fragil und bedroht. Wie können und müssen demokratische Systeme ...

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik Cover

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik

Seit Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts hat sich die internationale Sicherheitspolitik deutlich verändert....

Zum Shop