Tim Talks Politics - The Weekly Brief, January 3, 2020
The Weekly Brief - January 3, 2020
Decade in, Decade out
So, here we are in 2020. Does it look like you imagined? Well, if you happen to be a member of the U.S. intelligence community, yeah, there are some things that look like you expected.
Predictably, postmortems on the past decade have been pouring in and range from the pessimistic (we’re less free) to the optimistic (we’re less poor), with future predictions more or less in line with that pessimism or optimism. Where people land in their assessment of the past decade and their anticipation of the the new one seems to be largely a function of what data they’re emphasizing. What does that mean for you? Hopefully, if you’re a regular reader of this brief, you’ll have a more measured outlook. There are certainly major concerns to keep track of, but there are also some intriguing developments and reasons for hope.
The Dems and the Presidency
As the Democratic Party heads into the marathon of state primaries and caucuses to pick a presidential nominee, moves and countermoves are the order of the day. Julian Castro has dropped out leaving Dem voters with a 14-flavor buffet, but there are some indications that Warren may be losing her edge in the home stretch.
Beyond the presidential candidates, Democratic Party leaders are also trying to ensure a favorable Electoral College as America gets set to take a new census. The effects of such a census on representation for blue states won’t be felt until 2024, but the Party could be in a very different place by then. The future of the Democratic Party (short and long term) is one of the biggest stories in American politics right now.
The President and Impeachment
But the upheavals and transitions the Democrats face should not make you think Trump and the Republicans are in the clear. Politico argues that the Trump impeachment saga has exposed hypocrisy at the core of conservative politics, and that hypocrisy could have a - wait for it - trickle down effect to the Republican base. Fallout surrounding a Christianity Today editorial calling for Trump’s removal is one such lead indicator of a GOP base in flux.
Former George W. Bush advisor and elections mastermind Karl Rove argues that the populism of Trumpism is necessarily an unsustainable base, which means the GOP needs to adapt to the realignment currently affecting Western democracies. For President Trump, that means continuing to score policy victories on the economic front while avoiding any major foreign policy failures like a war….
China and Russia = Iran and North Korea
But wait, it just got real with Iran. Yesterday, the Pentagon announced that it had successfully carried out a drone strike in Iraq, killing Iranian militia members including Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s leading military figure. The strike comes in the wake of another series of escalatory events between America and Iran as America carried out air strikes on Iranian backed militias, which Iran responded to with a protest/attack on the American embassy in Baghdad.
The embassy attack appeared to be called off as the US announced it would be deploying extra troops to the neighborhood, and then this happened. Much of the analysis is being taken up with what this means for US-Iran relations, but I think there is a bigger strategic picture that American decision makers are contemplating here and it’s one that involves Russia and China. It may be too simple to look at US-Iran conflict in a vacuum.
Given the increasing coziness of Russia and China as the Eurasian powers, it stands to reason that they’ll seek out client states to keep the US off balance. Iran and North Korea are ideal candidates for such strategy.
Here’s a breakdown of that strategic picture that I outlined in a Facebook post:
Iran is not just a creator of proxies in the region, but is increasingly a proxy itself - of China and Russia.
For a Trump administration that has made great power competition with Russia and China the cornerstone of its foreign policy, this move serves multiple purposes:
1) It's retaliation on Iran not just for the embassy attack, but for the Saudi oil attacks, the drone downing, and all the other pin pricks of last year. And its a retaliation aimed squarely at the source and meant to cow Iran (which is unlikely to succeed).
2) It sends a strong signal to Russia and China that encouraging Iranian aggression in the region will not be tolerated, and therefore should not be aided and abetted. Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military components participated in join war games for the first time last year, so this is a pretty unmistakable signal that America considers the Middle East its region of influence.
3) It also sends a strong signal to the other significant proxy in this great power competition - North Korea. Kim Jong Un announced this week that he's lifting the moratorium on nuclear testing.
4) The strike gives our regional allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, unmistakable proof of America's resolve to stay invested in the regional security structure.
I think that's the bigger strategic picture the Trump administration is looking at. Indeed, designating the IRGC as a terrorist group last year teed up this exact move. This was not impulsive or done without thought.
That being said, these kinds of gambles are always dangerous because it's impossible to predict the response. Given Iran's use of proxies that response is even harder to predict, but it will fall into certain categories: non-response (not likely); proportional (most likely); escalatory (most dangerous). Proportional retaliation may look like a strike on a military target in the region or a top ranking US official. Escalatory could be something like a coordinated wave of strikes by Iranian proxies across the region on US and allied targets. It could mean a strike on US soil, but that would certainly take what has been a "gray zone" conflict into a general war.
Tax exemption and churches (and mosques, synagogues, temples, etc.)
Christianity Today made waves a couple weeks ago with an editorial calling for President Trump’s removal from office. The evangelical publication followed up that one with a full issue dedicated to the tax exemption status of churches.
It’s a conversation worth having, but what made this particularly interesting was the apparent focus on the “hidden costs” of tax exemption, indicating a potentially growing movement within some corners of American Christianity supporting the end of tax exemption status.
The Federalist supplies a “dark side” perspective of this possibility with a story on how tax exemption status can be weaponized against churches.
Update: Turkey’s Libyan intervention
Last week, I shared information on Turkey’s move to involve itself in the Libyan civil war. That policy has moved closer to a reality as a deployment bill is now before the Turkish parliament.