Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The riots by pro-Hamas demonstrators across the U.S. are a dress rehearsal for plans by Progressives seeking to influence the 2024 presidential elections through violent protests.

Organizations such as Black Lives Matter are structurally organized to use any means necessary to keep GOP candidates, particularly Donald Trump, off the ballot. As their own website https://blacklivesmatter.com/blm-demands/ states: “Trump must also be banned from holding elected office in the future…Permanently ban Trump from all digital media platforms…”

It’s not a tactic restricted to domestic leftists. Mark Thornton, writing for the Mises wire calls it “direct violent revolutionary action against the institutions of capitalism, such as security forces, property, particularly business property, and the rule of law. This approach is often adopted by Marxists, socialists, and fascists as a means of gaining power. At the root of the chaos and upheaval on our streets is an attempt at disrupting society and taking more control of it by Marxists, socialists, and ‘anarchists.’

Sources both in government and in thoughtful organizations are beginning to comprehend the strategy.

Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability Chairman Dan Bishop (R-NC) recently noted that a “threat to free expression is the contemporaneous phenomenon of more and more left-wing, organized violence that likewise appears designed to co-opt and suppress open debate… mention left-wing violence and the prevarications begin: Some will claim that it’s not that big of a deal, or that Antifa is a myth. And we all remember state-aligned media’s fervent effort to label fiery, violent rioting as quote – “mostly peaceful…” Our colleges and universities – once the symbol of free and open debate – are increasingly scenes of violent intimidation by left-wing extremists to silence those with whom they disagree. It’s past time to recognize that these are not random or spontaneous outbursts of violence. Far from it. Self-styled anti-fascist and anarchist groups, often exploit bona fide causes deliberately to organize and deploy street violence for political ends. They use sophisticated tactics to assault law enforcement officers, destroy property, and spread fear and disorder…These groups are sophisticated. They are well-trained and financed. They have extensive logistical support. And, they are extremely clever in masking their activities.”

Writing  in City Journal, Christopher Rufo notes that “The resurgence of public protests in support of Hamas has revealed a disturbing truth: the left-wing rioting following George Floyd’s death in 2020 was not an anomaly, but a tactic that activists can repurpose for any cause. Whether by coincidence or design, these recent outbursts could be a dress rehearsal for possible violence during next year’s election campaign…Progressives are restless and ready. Left-wing activists have established a constellation of institutions to support public demonstrations. Protest NGOs, media entities, research centers, black-bloc (Antifa) networks, and bail funds are all finely tuned to mobilize mass movements. The Left carefully manages its licit and illicit factions: progressive political leaders tacitly delegate the dirty work to anarchist and racialist factions, which can change costumes—for example, from a BLM mask to a Palestinian keffiyeh—at any moment.”

A Heritage study notes “The relationship between Palestinians and the global Marxist networks that birthed Black Lives Matter has an old pedigree. Palestinian activists were in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, when BLM was forged into a global movement. But their ties with BLM’s architects actually precede BLM’s founding. This is something that must be borne in mind by people who—still, to this day, somehow—appear confused as to why BLM organizations defend the killing spree and gang rapes carried out by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Israel on Oct. 7… Steve Tamari, a professor of Middle East history at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, wrote that December of how he had run up to a black marcher waving the flag and said, ‘Hey, that’s my flag,’ and the man replied, ‘This is our intifada.’ According to Tamari, the Palestinian contingent was 200-strong and had its own superstar leaders. Among those who spoke were firebrands Linda Sarsour, Suhad Khatib, and artist Remi Kanazi, who performed at an Oct. 12 rally with Cornel West…”

Watch those city-closing pro-Hamas demonstrations carefully. They are what can be expected in the fall, as the 2024 presidential campaign enters its critical phase.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Heritage Foundation has released its  latest report on economic freedom. We provide the Executive Summary here.

The cumulative downward pressure on the world economy is the product of bad economic policy choices from the coronavirus pandemic period, higher inflation, Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and a broader conflict in the Middle East, among other economic and geopolitical tensions.

The abrupt and shortsighted renunciation of the principles of economic freedom in many countries has further risked not only undercutting much-needed stronger economic recovery, but also sacrificing long-term economic resilience and prosperity. Many countries around the world, for example, are already mired in a greater debt burden that prolongs economic stagnation.

A return to business as usual will not suffice. In addition to the impacts of the pandemic on public finances, countries face many long-term structural challenges in the policy areas of transparency, efficiency, openness, and government effectiveness.

More than ever, it should be remembered that a nation’s true capacity for lasting growth and prosperity hinges on the quality of its institutions and economic system. Many nations around the globe are now at a crossroads. The question is whether they will recognize the paramount need to correct the current policy course and reinvigorate their commitment to preserving and advancing economic freedom, which has proven to be crucial to human flourishing and the achievement of real progress.

KEY FINDINGS OF THE 2024 INDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM

• The 2024 Index, which considers economic policies and conditions in 184 sovereign countries from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, reveals a world economy that, taken as a whole, is “mostly unfree.” Regrettably, the global average score for economic freedom has fallen further from the previous year’s 59.3 and is now the lowest it has been since 2001: only 58.6.
• Globally, fiscal soundness has deteriorated significantly. Rising deficits and mounting public debt in many countries have undermined and will likely further undercut their overall productivity growth and ultimately lead to economic sluggishness rather than vibrant growth.
• Despite the notable downturn in global economic freedom, there continues to be a clear relationship between improved economic freedom and improved economic dynamism as well as greater overall well-being. No matter what their existing level of development may be, countries can measurably boost their economic growth by implementing policies that reduce taxes, rationalize the regulatory environment, open the economy to greater competition, and fight corruption, all of which will also help to advance their overall economic freedom.
• The standard of living, measured by incomes per capita, is much higher in economically freer countries. Countries rated “free,” “mostly free,” or “moderately free” in the 2024 Index generate incomes that are more than double the average levels in other countries and more than three times higher than the incomes of people living in economically “repressed” countries.
• As documented once again in the 2024 Index, economic freedom also correlates significantly with overall well-being, which includes such factors as health, education, the environment, innovation, societal progress, and democratic governance.
• As shown in the ranking table below, only four countries (down from seven in the 2022 Index) recorded economic freedom scores of 80 or more, putting them in the ranks of the economically “free;” 22 countries earned a designation of “mostly free” by recording scores of 70.0 to 79.9; and an additional 55 countries were considered at least “moderately free” with scores of 60.0 to 69.9. Thus, a total of 81 countries, or slightly less than half of the 176 countries graded in the 2024 Index, have institutional environments in which individuals and private enterprises benefit from at least a moderate degree of economic freedom in the pursuit of greater economic development and prosperity.
• On the opposite side of the spectrum, more than 50 percent of the countries graded in the 2024 Index (95 economies) have registered economic freedom scores below 60. Of those, 62 are considered “mostly unfree” (scores of 50.0 to 59.9), and 33, including China and Iran, are in the economically “repressed” category.
• Within the top 10 rankings, a notable reshuffling has taken place. Singapore has maintained its status as the world’s freest economy, demonstrating a high level of economic resilience. Switzerland is the world’s second freest economy, followed by Ireland, and Taiwan has moved up to the fourth slot, the highest rank the country has ever achieved in the Index of Economic Freedom. Both New Zealand and Australia have lost their top-tier economic freedom status, with Australia no longer among the world’s 10 freest economies.
• Especially notable is the continuing decline within the “mostly free” category of the United States, whose score plummeted to 70.1, its lowest level ever in the 30-year history of the Index. The U.S. is now the world’s 25th freest economy. The major causative factor in the erosion of America’s economic freedom is excessive government spending, which has resulted in mounting deficit and debt burdens.

All in all, the ongoing recovery remains uneven and uncertain with strikingly different outcomes across countries, sectors, and demographic groups. Output and employment gaps remain in many countries, particularly in emerging markets and developing economies, suggesting that countries face vastly different policy challenges during recovery and beyond.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, some believed that the threat of nuclear war was over, or at least substantially reduced. Sadly, that was not accurate. Today, the United States is in greater danger than ever of an atomic attack, not just from Russia, but from China,  North Korea and Iran. General Anthony Cotton, U.S. Strategic Forces Commander, testified about the danger before the Senate Armed Forces Committee.  We reproduce key portions of his statement:

Strategic competition is on the rise, including in the nuclear domain, as evidenced by Russia’s comprehensive nuclear modernization efforts and the PRC’s rapid and opaque nuclear weapons buildup. The emphasis on nuclear capabilities by potential adversaries, coupled with the incorporation of technologies like hypersonic weapons (HSW) and fractional orbital bombardment (FOB) capabilities, significantly escalates global security risks. As noted in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, the PRC and Russia also likely possess capabilities relevant to chemical and biological warfare that pose a threat to U.S., Allied, and partner forces, military operations, and civilian populations.

Taken individually, these developments are concerning; they are only exacerbated by the increasing levels of cooperation between and among the PRC, Russian Federation, DPRK, and Islamic Republic of Iran, which creates the possibility for simultaneous crises and raises the risk of opportunistic aggression. For example, Russian and PRC bombers flew joint patrols over the western Pacific this past November and conducted a joint maritime patrol near the Aleutian Islands over the summer. The DPRK and Iran have also delivered arms to Russia to support its war against Ukraine. This increasing cooperation and the risk of simultaneous crisis or conflict place a premium on credible, robust, and flexible joint force response options that signal our readiness and commitment to potential adversaries, Allies, and partners.

THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

   The 2022 NDS identified the PRC as the Department’s pacing challenge and our most consequential strategic competitor. PRC leadership has stated that the expansion of nuclear UNCLASSIFIED 4 capabilities is necessary to achieve “great power status,” and potentially perceives its nuclear arsenal as a key deterrent to U.S. intervention in the region. While the PRC’s long-term nuclear strategy and requirements remain unclear, the trajectory of its efforts points toward a large nuclear and more diverse force with a high degree of survivability, reliability, and effectiveness. The PRC currently has a nuclear triad consisting of bombers, submarines, and land-based missiles. Its H-6N bomber is equipped to carry air-launched ballistic and cruise missiles, and the PRC is actively developing a strategic stealth bomber, the H-20. The PRC also has six JIN-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) equipped with new third-generation JL-3 submarinelaunched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), capable of striking the continental United States from PRC littoral waters. Additionally, the PRC has approximately 1,000 medium and intermediate-range dual-capable conventional or nuclear ballistic missiles capable of inflicting significant damage to U.S., Allied, or partner forces and homelands in the Indo-Pacific.

As I reported to Congress in January 2023, the PRC’s arsenal of land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers currently exceeds that of the United States. Today, the PRC likely has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads and, should it continue building weapons at its current pace, could have more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. In 2022, it built three new ICBM fields, with at least 300 missile silos, each capable of housing the solid-propellant CSS-10 Mod 2 ICBM. The PRC also maintains road mobile CSS-20 ICBMs, each armed with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), and is developing a new generation of mobile ICBMs. These developments, combined with the PRC’s increasing counter-space and cyber capabilities, pose a complex, but not insurmountable challenge to U.S. strategic deterrence

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

The 2022 NDS identified Russia as an acute threat. Its unprovoked war against Ukraine has caused the largest conflict on the European continent since World War II and undermines the rules-based international system. The invasion has also highlighted Russia’s willingness to employ nuclear coercion and attempt to influence decision making within the United States and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Allies. Russia’s violation of specific obligations within the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) further exacerbates this issue.

Russia is currently in possession of the largest and most diverse nuclear arsenal of any nation. In September 2023, it proclaimed the RS-28 SARMAT ICBM had been placed on combat duty. Additionally, Russia continues to field new SEVERODVINSK-class nuclearpowered cruise missile submarines, as well as DOLGORUKIY-class SSBNs, armed with the SSN-32 Bulava SLBM.

Beyond Russia’s traditional strategic triad, it is expanding and modernizing its nuclear options. These include nuclear-capable hypersonic systems such as the Tsirkon land attack cruise missile and the Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missile, the last of which Russia has employed frequently against Ukraine in a conventional role. These hypersonic systems add diversity and flexibility to Russia’s nuclear arsenal and complement its stockpile of approximately 2,000 theater nuclear weapons that do not fall under New START limits.

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

The DPRK views its nuclear arsenal as a means to ensure regime survival and influence Republic of Korea and U.S. forces in the area. The DPRK is developing and fielding mobile short-,intermediate-, and intercontinental-range nuclear capabilities that place the United States homeland and regional Allies and partners at risk. DPRK leadership recently declared that the country’s status as a nuclear weapons state “has now become irreversible,” and it is possible the DPRK will resume nuclear testing in order to demonstrate its capabilities.

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to expand its nuclear program by increasing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and deploying additional advanced centrifuges, which has shortened the time Iran would need to acquire enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Iran already possesses the region’s largest arsenal of conventional ballistic missiles, which threaten U.S. regional bases and are capable of reaching as far as Southern Europe. Iran also continues to proliferate advanced conventional weapons to non-state militia groups across the Middle East— which have been used in countless attacks against U.S. and partner personnel and interests across the region, undermining regional stability.

Photo: Pixabay

The Department of Defense (DoD) is taking note of the “unique challenges” posed by Russia in Latin America.

Daniel P. Erikson, deputy assistant Secretary of defense for the Western Hemisphere, warned of the danger at an Atlantic Council event on “China and Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

There are some very important elements to the challenges posed by both China and Russia that require a whole-of-government response because they are pursuing economic, political and diplomatic interests, he said, noting that “With so many challenges, the department has had to prioritize and deal with core risks or threats to U.S. and allies’ interests.”

Besides military partnerships, Erickson outlined, “…it’s critical that the U.S. private sector, U.S. industry and relevant U.S. agencies are engaging with this region to ensure that we can make available offerings — whether it’s in defense, cyber, or in other areas — to meet the core national security needs of the countries there.”

Countries in the region are facing transnational criminal organizations, climate threats, and border disputes. “So, they look at the risk posed by as something that is going to come, perhaps, in the future — but not today. And so, really, educating our partners and making sure they’re aware of how some of the decisions that they make today could create long-term risk for them is really critical,” Erickson explained.

The intensified push by Moscow and Beijing in the western hemisphere has many concerned both at the Pentagon and elsewhere. The United States Institute for Peace warns that “Russia’s information operations in Latin American are much deeper and more complex than what is commonly understood. Using a variety of instruments, Moscow has worked to create an environment favorable to Russia and to keep Latin American elites from aligning with Washington on a variety of issues, particularly the war in Ukraine.”

That concern was noted several years ago in a U.S. Army analysis. which stressed that earlier this century, “Russian inroads into Latin America have increased significantly in recent years…with Putin’s rise to power in 2000 after Yeltsin’s resignation, Latin America began to occupy an increasingly prominent role in the Kremlin’s foreign policy priorities…These growing ties coupled with the increased Russian presence in Latin America, especially in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba, triggered discussions about Russia’s return to Latin America.” Now,  Argentina, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, and other Latin American and Caribbean countries are increasing military ties with Russia.

In this sense, Russia’s military cooperation with Latin America is not only technical, but also politico-military, in that it has an important political component.¹⁸ However, it is important to take into account the relative low volume of military spending across the region, as well as the tendency among most countries to buy armaments from the United States or Europe.¹⁹ For example, arms sales to Latin American countries accounts for less than 15 percent of Russian total arms exports and, in trade terms, countries like Nicaragua and Venezuela are not among the first destinations of Russian exports.²⁰

The Army study cites a number of examples. Two that stand out include Moscow sending “Tu-160 bombers to carry out military exercises with Venezuela, and conducting war games with Caracas in which a small Russian fleet was sent to the Caribbean to participate in joint military maneuvers with the Venezuelan navy.”

Evan Ellis, from The Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) Evan Ellis, Senior Associate (Non-resident) with the Americas Program, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, Migration and International Economic Policy on the topic of Russian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean.

He informed Congress that “Russia has demonstrated its intent and capability, however limited, to conduct military and other strategic activities oriented against the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere. Its key vehicle for doing so has been collusion with anti-U.S. authoritarian regimes in the region, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba.

“Recent demonstrations of Russia’s hostile intent toward the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere include Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s January 2022 suggestion that Russia might deploy military forces to Venezuela or Cuba,  Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov’s February 2022 signing of a pact to increase military cooperation with Venezuela,3 and Nicaragua’s June 2022 re-authorization for limited numbers of Russian troops and equipment to enter the country for training missions and other forms of support. Most recently, Russian actions also include announced participation by a team of snipers, along with teams from China, Iran, and seven other countries, in an upcoming military sniper competition in Venezuela, the first time the competition has been held in the country.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Too many in Washington are far less interested in protecting against foreign military threats than in pushing a separate agenda. The defense budget may hold steady, but accounting for inflation, even a small increase is actually a cut.

It’s a bad time to underfund national security. How defense dollars are used is vital.  While key, front-line needs are crucial, the Defense Department spends money on items such as placing solar panels on the Pentagon and pursuing nonexistent internal threats from its own service personnel.  Even as dangers lurk in Ukraine, the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific and on America’s own southern border, some of those entrusted with the defense of the nation are using the their budget to pursue political goals.

The most important element of our defense, the men and women who serve, is in deep trouble. In 2023, the military fell short of its recruitment goal by an astounding 41,000. A Military Times report stated that “One possibility [for missing recruitment goals]  that is increasingly resonating with veterans is that the military is too ‘woke.’ Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., for example, is among a group of Republican senators who have repeatedly blamed recruiting problems on the Biden administration for trying to build a ‘woke Army.’

Key defense fundamentals, both conventional and strategic, are facing challenges.

An essential element of updating our nuclear deterrent is behind schedule. According to Rep. Mike Rogers, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, the Sentinel land-based missile program, a key part of the modernization program, is not doing well.   “Sentinel is absolutely necessary for the future of our nuclear deterrent… The Department must ensure that Sentinel is ready in time to replace the current ICBMs before they reach the end of their lives. Failure is not an option.”

As an actual assault on U.S. interests becomes more likely than at any time since the Cold War, eyes that should be focused on the threat are looking elsewhere.

In an August address to West Point cadets, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said “Climate change is a national security issue…”

A Heritage Foundation study reports that “The Department of Defense has taken on the most ambitious climate change policy agenda in its history. On January 27, 2021, President Joe Biden declared by executive order “that climate considerations shall be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security” and directed that: ’The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall consider the security implications of climate change.’”

Our major adversary, China, grows stronger at sea as the U.S. falls behind. Beijing has built a navy larger than America’s. In fact, the U.S. Navy’s fleet is now smaller than it was in 2007.

 Mackenzie Eaglen, writing for the American Enterprise Institute reports that “The Navy has been making ends meet for now, but can only surge at this tempo for a limited period of time as deployment extensions continue to place additional wear and tear on overworked crews and aging ships. Furthermore, the fleet is set to slowly but steadily get smaller before it gets any bigger, as early retirements pile up and replacements slow….Battle force retirements have largely outpaced new procurement for the past two decades. Unstable funding and changing demands have left industry to cut down their shipbuilding operations to stay profitable, hollowing out domestic shipbuilding capacity and limiting our ability to build the fleet of the future. As former Chief of Naval Operations…Adm. Mike Gilday bluntly put it… ‘’The fleet is aging. As ships become older, they become more expensive and difficult to maintain. Ships are being tied in up in compounded maintenance delays, taking numerous ships off the line. Copious maintenance delays for the surface fleet resulted in less than 68 percent surface fleet ships deemed “mission-capable,” last year. Submarines face a similar situation, with just 63 percent of attack submarines available in the last year, further shrinking the true size of our Navy.”

While Democrats have engaged in diverting military funds and attention away from defense and towards environmental and woke goals, Republicans have made their share of mistakes, as well. The border is a key issue and Biden’s negligence continues to produce current harm and future threats. But the GOP’s leveraging withholding of support for Ukraine and Israel for border policy reform is a poor strategy, simply replacing one threat with another.

The current National Defense Authorization Act has been criticized as one that fails to address the threat from America’ “Pacing challenger,” China. A Heritage analysis points out that ‘Not long ago, House Republicans could have credibly argued that they were Capitol Hill’s toughest China hawks. Despite that track record, lame-duck Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and a few cronies were allowed to strip out virtually all of the important China-related national security provisions from this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).”

Photo: Chinese frigate firing. (China Defense agency)

Iran’s missile attack on Israel, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s maritime assaults on the Philippines are not isolated issues. They are the direct result of the projection of weakness that began with the Obama Administration and reasserted by President Biden.

Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang are strengthening their armed forces and meeting closely to strengthen their ability to work as a unified front to engage in current and planned armed assaults against the United States

While the U.S. has protected its ships in the Mideast from attacks and worked with Israeli forces to shoot down the Iranian missiles and drones, its has taken little action to deflect further attacks other than pinpoint attacks on the antiship launch sites. Biden has informed Israel that America would not assist Netanyahu in any counterattack that would dissuade future assaults.  

The Axis partners perceived Biden’s feckless withdrawal from Afghanistan, his excessively hesitant provision of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, his reluctance to confront China despite numerous serious provocations as indications of an Administration that does not take military threats seriously, similar to the nonresponse by the Obama Administration’s failure to respond even diplomatically to Putin’s takeover of Crimea and Xi’s invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, which was condemned by the World Court at the Hague.

Regarding Ukraine, U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has stated “Since the start of the war, President Biden’s Ukraine policy has been plagued by hesitation. Every major weapons system the United States has provided—from Stingers, to Abrams, to ATACMS —only came after serious Congressional pressure. And it usually arrived months late and in insufficient numbers.”

Of course, political wrangling tying Ukraine aide to attempts to get Biden to reverse his open border policy didn’t help matters.
 

Those nonactions, combined with the President’s inadequate defense budget proposals and the reality that the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force will be smaller at the end of his first term than at the beginning of it have greenlighted aggression across the globe. In April, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown, Jr., about the failures of President Biden’s proposed defense budget and the need to update America’s strategic posture, including by modernizing its nuclear deterrent.

Biden’s increased defense cooperation with several Pacific nations including Japan, Australia, New Zealand North Korea and the Philippines, as well as his approval of the admission of Sweden and Finland into NATO are all excellent moves. But it can also be seen as a way to push off America’s role as defender of the free world onto other nations.

Michael Rubin, writing for the American Enterprise Institute noted that “Aggressors perceive weakness when they see Biden. At issue is not only his physical frailty and declining mental acuity. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan looked shell-shocked after Chinese Politburo Member Yang Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi dressed them down in a March 2021 summit in Anchorage. The two Biden aides came in overconfident and cocky and did not understand how much older Chinese officials would both perceive them and test them. The desperation with which Biden, Blinken, and Sullivan approached Iran nuclear negotiations and hostage-taking further solidified the perception of America’s enemies that Washington was profoundly unserious and that its redlines ephemeral.  Mishandling the Afghanistan withdrawal will haunt America for decades…Irredentists have taken notice. Not only does Iran believe it and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah can act with impunity, but so do many other dictators.”

Seth Cropsey, in an article for The Hill explains that “…searches for a chimerical relaxation of tensions with China where none is to be found except in Washington’s accession to Beijing’s wishes. The efforts imply a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of statecraft. President Joe Biden and his closest advisers seem to believe that their role is to win a war of words, and that the hard edge of statecraft — military force — is an aberration, not a fundamental reality of international politics. The danger is that the Biden administration’s genteel convictions will smooth the nation’s path into a much larger and more dangerous contest of wills.”

If Biden fails to support Israel in its response to Iran, the “Axis of Evil” powers may perceive it to be a prominent example that the current White House has embraced a neo-pacifist philosophy that frees them to take hostile action.