DOCSLIB.ORG

Possible Extension of the Un

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THE U.N. MANDATE FOR IRAQ: OPTIONS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 23, 2008 Serial No. 110–203 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–716PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 Sep 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072308\43716.000 HINTREL PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado DIANE E. WATSON, California RON PAUL, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington JEFF FLAKE, Arizona RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JOE WILSON, South Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas DAVID WU, Oregon TED POE, Texas BRAD MILLER, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ, California LUIS G. FORTUN˜ O, Puerto Rico DAVID SCOTT, Georgia GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida JIM COSTA, California VACANT ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RON KLEIN, Florida BARBARA LEE, California ROBERT R. KING, Staff Director YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts, Chairman RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, DANA ROHRABACHER, California Vice Chair RON PAUL, Texas DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey JEFF FLAKE, Arizona GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York CLIFF STAMMERMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director NATALIE COBURN, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member PAUL BERKOWITZ, Republican Professional Staff Member ELISA PERRY, Staff Associate (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 Sep 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072308\43716.000 HINTREL PsN: SHIRL C O N T E N T S Page WITNESSES Ms. Danielle Pletka, Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute ............................................................................ 19 Steven Kull, Ph.D., Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) .................................................................................................................... 22 Michael J. Matheson, Esq., Visiting Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School .................................................................... 27 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING The Honorable Bill Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from the Com- monwealth of Massachusetts, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Inter- national Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight: Statement and let- ter from Dr. Ayad Allawi, Head of the Iraqi National List .............................. 4 Ms. Danielle Pletka: Prepared statement .............................................................. 20 Steven Kull, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................................ 25 Michael J. Matheson, Esq.: Prepared statement .................................................. 29 (III) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 Sep 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072308\43716.000 HINTREL PsN: SHIRL POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THE U.N. MANDATE FOR IRAQ: OPTIONS WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William D. Delahunt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. DELAHUNT. The subcommittee will come to order. Today’s hearing is the seventh in a series held by this subcommittee re- garding the so-called Declaration of Principles and any possible agreements based on that document, which was signed by Presi- dent Bush and Prime Minister Maliki in November of last year. The Declaration of Principles initially embraced a pledge to es- tablish an indefinite, open-ended presence of United States combat forces in Iraq in order to, among other commitments, and I am quoting from that document, ‘‘Support the Republic of Iraq in de- fending its democratic system against internal and external threats, and to provide security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression.’’ These were extraordinary promises by President Bush. Many of us were taken aback not only by the breadth and depth of these commitments but by the position of the Bush administration that it was unnecessary to submit such an agreement to the United States Congress. This unprecedented claim to executive branch au- thority prompted Senator Clinton to file a bill in the Senate and our colleague, Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, who will join us later, to file a similar one in the House, the effect of which would be to require the submission of such an agreement to Congress for its ap- proval. In our first hearing on December 19, 2007, we reviewed the role that the Iraqi Parliament expected to play in the approval of the extension of the U.N. mandate to December 31, 2008, as expressed in a letter from a majority of members to Prime Minister Maliki and to the United Nations Security Council, calling for the inclu- sion of a timetable for the withdrawal of United States troops; oth- erwise, they registered their objection to the extension of the man- date. I would note for the record that all of the witnesses at this hear- ing agreed that Article 61 of the Iraqi Constitution, under that par- ticular Article, any United States-Iraq agreement which would sup- (1) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 Sep 03, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\072308\43716.000 HINTREL PsN: SHIRL 2 plant the U.N. mandate would have to be submitted to the Par- liament for approval. This was subsequently confirmed by cor- respondence with the United States Congress by members of the Iraqi Parliament representing a majority of that body and in the appearance before this subcommittee on June 3 of this year by two parliamentarians whose parties had signed this letter. Let me quote for the record from the letter: ‘‘We, the undersigned members of the council, wish to confirm your concerns that any international agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitu- tional and illegal in accordance with the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi public.’’ On Monday of this week, a statement by Prime Minister Maliki, which was reported in the newspaper Azaman, reaffirmed the con- stitutional requirement that the agreement, and, again, I am quoting from the Prime Minister himself, requires the approval of the representatives of the people in Parliament. Thus, it is indisputable that approval by the Iraqi Parliament is a prerequisite. When I was practicing law, we would describe it as a sina qua non, to any valid, legitimate, bilateral agreement. And yet, despite the recent dramatic change in public statements by both executive branches concerning a timetable for withdrawal of American troops by 2010, it is still very much in question whether an agreement can be consummated by December 31, 2008, given both the Iraqi Parliament’s limited calendar and the lack of even implementing legislation necessary for the consideration of any international agreement by that body. And such enacting legisla- tion requires a two-thirds vote itself. Furthermore, we hear from our colleagues in the Iraqi Par- liament that they feel that they have not been adequately informed as to the substance of the agreement and its implications for Iraqi sovereignty. I am not going to take any time today to debate what I feel to be the appropriate constitutional role of the U.S. Congress in this matter. We have had a hearing on that issue. However, most of the information that has come to Members both in the House and in the Senate has not come as a result of the detailed consultation with Congress that is provided for by the State Department’s own regulations that are described in Circular 175. As Chairman Berman of the full committee and Chairman Skel- ton of the Armed Services Committee recently said in a letter to President Bush dated June 12 of this year, and I am quoting from that letter, ‘‘Senior officials of the administration, including two Cabinet Secretaries, have pledged to keep Congress apprised of the progress of the negotiations throughout the course of those dis- cussions. Unfortunately, we do not believe that your adminis- tration has adequately fulfilled that pledge.’’
Recommended publications
  • Steven Kull's Comments at the US-Islamic World Forum in Doha

    Steven Kull's Comments at the US-Islamic World Forum in Doha

    How Muslims and Americans View Each Other Comments by Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org, at the US- Islamic Forum in Doha, Qatar, February 18, 2007. For some years now, as part of developing the web resource WorldPublicOpinion.org, we have been conducting studies of public opinion in the Muslim world and the United States. We have been conducting focus groups, and tracking the polls of other organizations, as well as conducting our own polls. As you may expect, the news is certainly not all good. There is a tremendous amount of mutual suspicion. The US is viewed negatively in virtually all Muslim countries. In a multi-country poll we just did for the BBC, we found that in all Muslim countries polled, majorities said that the US is having a mostly negative influence in the world and that the US military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents. In some polls, views of the American people are not quite as negative as views of the United States or its government, but they are still mostly on the negative side. When Americans are asked about Muslim countries as a whole, their views are fairly neutral. But when asked about some specific countries, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, majorities of Americans have unfavorable views. But despite all of these negative feelings, polls do reveal more common ground than one might expect and even some potential directions for resolving some conflicts. An example is a recent study that we did in Iran and in the US. Both Iranians and Americans expressed fairly negative views of each others’ country.
  • Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program

    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program

    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Robert E. Ebel E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org March 2010 ISBN 978-0-89206-600-1 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy066001zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program author Robert E. Ebel March 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decision- makers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.
  • Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka Is Senior Vice President for Foreign And

    Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka Is Senior Vice President for Foreign And

    Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka is senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she oversees the Institute’s work on foreign and defense issues. Ms. Pletka writes regularly on national security matters with a special focus on Iran, the Middle East (Syria, Israel, ISIS), and South Asia. She is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Before joining AEI, Ms. Pletka was a longtime senior professional staff member for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where she specialized in the Near East and South Asia as the point person on Middle East, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. Ms. Pletka has authored, coauthored, and coedited a variety of studies, monographs, and book chapters, including the report “Tehran Stands Atop the Syria-Iran Alliance” (Atlantic Council, 2017); the chapter “America in Decline” in “Debating the Obama Presidency” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016); “America vs. Iran: The Competition for the Future of the Middle East” (AEI, 2014); “Iranian Influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan” (AEI, 2012); “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran” (AEI, 2011); and “Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats” (AEI, 2008). A regular guest on television, Ms. Pletka appears frequently on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Her broadcast appearances also include CBS News, CNN, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. She has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Hill, and Politico, among other outlets. She has an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a B.A.
  • Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War Author(S): Steven Kull, Clay Ramsay, Evan Lewis Reviewed Work(S): Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol

    Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War Author(S): Steven Kull, Clay Ramsay, Evan Lewis Reviewed Work(S): Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol

    Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War Author(s): Steven Kull, Clay Ramsay, Evan Lewis Reviewed work(s): Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118, No. 4 (Winter, 2003/2004), pp. 569-598 Published by: The Academy of Political Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30035697 . Accessed: 27/02/2012 11:39 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Academy of Political Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Science Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org Misperceptions,the Media, and the IraqWar STEVEN KULL CLAY RAMSAY EVAN LEWIS The Iraq war and its aftermathhave raised compellingquestions about the capacityof the executive branchto elicit public consent for the use of militaryforce and about the role the media plays in this process. From the outset, the Bush administrationwas faced with unique challengesin its effort to legitimateits decisionto go to war.Because the warwas not promptedby an overt act againstthe United States or its interests,and was not approvedby the UN SecurityCouncil, the Bush administrationargued that the war was neces- sary on the basis of a potentialthreat. Because the evidence for this threatwas not fully manifest,the Bush administrationled the public to believe that Iraq was developingweapons of mass destruction(WMD) andproviding substantial supportto the al Qaeda terroristgroup.
  • Preliminary Findings from Sunday Talk Show Study

    Preliminary Findings from Sunday Talk Show Study

    Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy September 2017 Report on Network Sunday Morning Talk Show Content and Ratings, Comparing 1983, 1999, and 2015 By Matthew A. Baum Kalb Professor of Global Communication Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Program Content 5 3. Guests 7 4. Topics 9 5. Gender Preferences 13 6. Guest Demographics 19 7. Agenda Setting 20 a. Agenda Setting by Members of Congress (1980-2003) 20 b. Agenda Setting Overall (1983, 1999, 2015) 22 8. Conclusion 28 9. Acknowledgments 29 10. Appendix 1: Codebook 30 11. Appendix 2: Examples of Guest Categories 34 12. Appendix 3: Examples of Substance-Process and Politics-Policy Variables 36 2 Executive Summary We studied the content and Nielsen ratings for interviews on the three network Sunday morning talk shows—Meet the Press (henceforth MTP), Face the Nation (FTN), and This Week (TW). We compared three time periods—1983 (MTP, FTN), 1999 (all three shows), and 2015 (all three shows). In order to insure apples-to-apples comparisons, for over time comparisons, we either restricted our analyses to MTP and FTN or analyzed the data with and without TW. For “overall” snapshots we included all three shows (MTP, FTN, TW). Our goals were fourfold: (1) identify any discernable trends in the topics and types of guests featured on the Sunday talk shows, (2) identify any trends in audience ratings, (3) assess whether and to what extent trends in topics and guests correlate with audience ratings, and (4) assess whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances, the Sunday talk shows influence the subsequent news agenda.
  • Muslims in Different Countries Across the World Look on the United

    Muslims in Different Countries Across the World Look on the United

    Embargoed From Publication until 00:01 GMT Wednesday, December 3, 2008 People in Muslim Nations Conflicted About UN Favor More Active UN With Broader Powers, But See US Domination and Failure to Deal With Israeli-Palestinian Conflict For Release: 00:01 GMT Wednesday, December 3, 2008 Contact: Steven Kull, Director, WorldPublicOpinion.org, (202) 232-7500 College Park, MD—A poll of seven majority Muslim nations finds people conflicted about the United Nations. On one hand there is widespread support for a more active UN with much broader powers than it has today. On the other hand, there is a perception that the UN is dominated by the US and there is dissatisfaction with UN performance on several fronts, particularly in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These are the findings from a WorldPublicOpinion.org survey in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Indonesia, the Palestinian Territories, and Azerbaijan. Muslims in Nigeria (50% of the general population) were also polled. The survey was conducted in two waves in 2008. Overall, 6,175 respondents were interviewed in the first wave and 5,363 in the second; a total of 11,538 respondents participated in the study. The first wave was conducted January 12-February 18, 2008 though in two nations it was completed in late 2006. The second wave for all nations was completed July 21-August 31, 2008. Margins of error range from +/-2 to 5 percent. Not all questions were asked in all countries. “While many people in Muslim countries express disappointment with the UN, this actually masks their underlying desire for a UN that is robust and powerful,” comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
  • Transcript Prepared from a Tape Recording.]

    Transcript Prepared from a Tape Recording.]

    1 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION SABAN CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY TOWARD A NEW IRAN POLICY A SABAN CENTER SYMPOSIUM Tuesday, November 23, 2004 The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003-2802 (202) 546-6666 2 [TRANSCRIPT PREPARED FROM A TAPE RECORDING.] MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003-2802 (202) 546-6666 3 A G E N D A Introductory Remarks Martin Indyk, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Opening Address "U.S. Policy Toward Iran in a Second Bush Administration" Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute Panel 1: Iran's Foreign Policy and Motives Moderator: Shaul Bakhash, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Ray Takeyh, Council on Foreign Relations M. Hadi Semati, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Panel 2: The Lay of the Land: The Threat from Iran and the International Perspective Moderator: Martin Indyk, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution Daniel Byman, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group Philip Gordon, The Brookings Institution Lunch Address "An Alternative Approach to Iran" Ken Pollack, Saban Center at the Brookings Institution MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 735 8th STREET, S.E. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003-2802 (202) 546-6666 4 P R O C E E D I N G S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS MR. INDYK: Welcome to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and to the symposium that we are hosting today entitled "Towards a New Iran Policy." We've gathered a group of experts on Iran and on U.S.
  • Attacking the Leader, Missing the Mark Attacking the Leader, Jenna Jordan Missing the Mark Why Terrorist Groups Survive Decapitation Strikes

    Attacking the Leader, Missing the Mark Attacking the Leader, Jenna Jordan Missing the Mark Why Terrorist Groups Survive Decapitation Strikes

    Attacking the Leader, Missing the Mark Attacking the Leader, Jenna Jordan Missing the Mark Why Terrorist Groups Survive Decapitation Strikes Does leadership de- capitation lead to the demise of terrorist organizations? Can the United States undermine or destroy terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida by arresting or killing their leaders? What explains organizational resilience to leadership tar- geting? Leadership decapitation, or the killing or capturing of the leaders of terrorist organizations, has become a core feature of U.S. counterterrorism policy. Many scholars and analysts claim that it weakens terrorist organiza- tions and reduces the threat they pose. Unsurprisingly, they saw the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan, as a major tactical victory for President Barack Obama and for the broader war on terrorism. De- spite the success of this operation and subsequent attacks on al-Qaida leaders, decapitation is unlikely to diminish the ability of al-Qaida to continue its activ- ities in the long run. Rather, it may have counterproductive consequences, em- boldening or strengthening the organization. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has killed or captured many al-Qaida leaders as part of a general campaign to de- capitate the organization. It has employed a variety of military operations to achieve this objective, including raids by Special Operations forces. Both bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, were killed as a result of such raids. On October 5, 2012, U.S. forces captured Abu Anas al-Libi, an al-Qaida leader, in a raid in Libya.
  • Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain

    Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain

    WTH is going on with peace in the Middle East? Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain Episode #71 | September 29, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Amb. Ron Dermer Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: he Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on? Marc Thiessen: Peace in the Middle East! Danielle Pletka: God I never thought we'd have this podcast. Marc Thiessen: Who would ever believe we'd have a podcast on peace in the Middle East? Danielle Pletka: It really is ridiculous. People always ask me, "So why did you get into the Middle East as a region of study?" And I always say because it's a gift that keeps on giving. The problems there will never be solved. But in fact, it shows, sometimes they get solved. Marc Thiessen: Absolutely they do. First of all, just for a housekeeping note, this is going to be the first of two podcasts on this subject because we have today the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer who's joining us and then on the next episode we have the ambassadors of Bahrain and the UAE who are going to join us. So we have the three ambassadors from three countries that have reached this historic deal and it's going to be a pair of epic podcasts. Danielle Pletka: So, you know, there's been a lot of arguing because in Washington of course even peace in the Middle East isn't something that people can agree is a good thing, at least not when Donald Trump is involved.
  • Ginsburg's Successor and the History of Supreme Court Vacancies in an Election Year

    Ginsburg's Successor and the History of Supreme Court Vacancies in an Election Year

    WTH is going on with SCOTUS? Ginsburg's successor and the history of Supreme Court vacancies in an election year Episode #70 | September 24, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Dan McLaughlin Danielle Pletka: Hi. I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: going on? Marc Thiessen: What the hell is going on is there are charges of hypocrisy in Washington, Dany. Danielle Pletka: No! Wait, wait. Stop the presses. Good god. I am scandalized. Marc Thiessen: Yes. So the Democrats are accusing Mitch McConnell and the Republicans of hypocrisy because they held up the nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia for the Supreme Court, and said that it should be decided by the voters, but now they are going to rush through a confirmation of President Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Is that hypocritical, Dany? Danielle Pletka: Look, I guess, having worked on the Senate, I would say that my view of the Senate is if you have the power to do it, and the people elected you to exercise that power, it's more of a dereliction of duty not to. Not only that, but I think we all know, we all know, that if the shoe were on the other foot... Marc Thiessen: Amen. Danielle Pletka: ... this would be exactly the same. Chuck Schumer with his pious adherence to precedent, which, by the way of course, he has totally done a switcheroo on because he made the exact opposite argument, so does everybody look a little bit two-faced? Kinda.
  • Iran and the Nuclear Deal April 29, 2015 Contents

    Iran and the Nuclear Deal April 29, 2015 Contents

    POMEPS STUDIES 13 Iran and the Nuclear Deal April 29, 2015 Contents Iran’s Domestic Politics Where Iran’s hard-liners diverge from the moderates . 5 By Shervin Malekzadeh, Swarthmore College Iran’s grass-roots politics and the nuclear deal . 8 By Mohammad Ali Kadivar, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Ali Honari, VU University Amsterdam Iran’s political economy under and after the sanctions . 10 By Kevan Harris, Princeton University How Iranians are debating the nuclear deal . 12 By Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar, Texas A&M University Iran’s conservative consensus on the nuclear deal . 15 By Farzan Sabet, Graduate Institute, Geneva and Georgetown University Understanding Iran’s supreme leader on the nuclear deal . .. 18 By Eric Lob, Florida International University and Amir Hossein Mahdavi, Brandeis University Will Iran’s parliament block the nuclear deal? . 20 By Paasha Mahdavi, University of California, Los Angeles The Negotiations and Nonproliferation If you really want to bomb Iran, take the deal . 23 By Austin Long, Columbia University Why the Iran deal is a logical extension of U .S . nonproliferation policy . 24 By Nick Miller, Brown University and Or Rabinowitz, Tel Aviv University Why U .S . intelligence is right about Iran . 26 By Joshua Rovner, Southern Methodist University What Americans really think about an Iran deal . .. 28 By Steven Kull and Shibley Telhami, University of Maryland Iranian scientists and the nuclear deal . 31 By Alexander H. Montgomery, Reed College The Iranian nuclear controversy is also about saving face . 33 By Thomas E. Doyle, II, Texas State University The real vs . the surreal options on Iran .
  • Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy

    Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy

    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Fall 2009 Neo-conservatism and foreign policy Ted Boettner University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Boettner, Ted, "Neo-conservatism and foreign policy" (2009). Master's Theses and Capstones. 116. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/116 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy BY TED BOETTNER BS, West Virginia University, 2002 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Political Science September, 2009 UMI Number: 1472051 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI" UMI Microform 1472051 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.