Iranphobia, Iranphilia, and the Jacksonian approach
Jonathan Schanzer writes on ending Iran’s fictions:
Soleimani’s killing was, without question, the most consequential act of Trump’s presidency. It didn’t just punish Iran for the action of its proxies. After decades of the U.S. letting the Islamic Republic get away with murder, the Trump administration made it clear that America would no longer allow the regime to hide behind its militias…
As an author of [a US Army] study later summarized: “When evidence was becoming clearer that Iran was behind a deliberate and systematic series of attacks on Americans, the U.S. reviewed possible responses. The U.S. decided against a more aggressive response primarily out of fear of Iranian escalation.” In fact, when the Israelis actually had Soleimani in their crosshairs in 2008, the Bush administration asked them to stand down. All in all, the Pentagon assesses that at least 603 U.S. deaths in Iraq “were the result of Iran-backed militants.”
Upon ascending to office in 2009, Barack Obama almost immediately set into motion his plans for withdrawing a majority of U.S. forces from Iraq by 2011. Since the U.S. failed to solve the Iran-backed militia problem before leaving, our withdrawal precipitated a violent sectarian backlash against Iran’s Shiite proxies from Iraq’s Sunnis in the form of a new and brutal jihadist group: the Islamic State.
By 2014, the Obama administration quietly came to view Iran’s proxy groups as partners in the newly formed coalition to fight the Islamic State…
U.S. policy [under Obama] was also calibrated to accommodate the Iranians as we pushed for a nuclear deal from 2013 to 2015. After the deal was reached, there was no debating the role of these militias or the danger they posed to Iraqi sovereignty. There was even a veiled attempt to identify these groups as independent, not subservient to Iran. This was fiction…To add insult to injury, the militias were now funded, to one extent or another, by the $150 billion of frozen funds released by the Obama administration to Iran through the deal.
Under Soleimani’s guidance, Iran’s militias also operated well beyond Iraq…
…[W]ith his targeted strike on Qassim Soleimani, Trump upended this dynamic. In holding the terror master responsible for attacks carried out by his Iraqi proxies, the U.S. president torched the thin firewall that long hindered American decisionmakers from holding Iran accountable. And in so doing, he appears to have pushed Iran’s proxies to dispense with the fiction as well.
Unlike the presidents before him, Trump was unafraid of pulling back the Iranian wizards’ curtain and risking whatever Iran would do. That may be because of his faith in America and his faith in his own decisions, but it also sounds like to me like a realistic evaluation of Iran’s power or lack thereof, and its competence or lack thereof. Time will tell and the situation could change, but so far Iran appears to be reeling from the shock – not only of Trump’s audacity in undoing forty years of American policy in one fell swoop, but of their own military’s inability to know a passenger plane from a missile.
(That’s assuming the strike on Flight 352 really was a case of mistaken identity.)
People who don’t understand Trump’s military policy, or who say he’s a bumbling stumbling moron who happens to get lucky with surprising regularity, don’t seem to know what a Jacksonian is. But the Jacksonian approach seems to be the key to Trump, as this article by Walter Russell Mead – written right around the time of Trump’s inauguration – makes clear:
Since World War II, U.S. grand strategy has been shaped by two major schools of thought, both focused on achieving a stable international system with the United States at the center. Hamiltonians believed that it was in the American interest for the United States to replace the United Kingdom as “the gyroscope of world order,”…something that would both contain the Soviet Union and advance U.S. interests. When the Soviet Union fell, Hamiltonians responded by doubling down on the creation of a global liberal order, understood primarily in economic terms.
Wilsonians, meanwhile, also believed that the creation of a global liberal order was a vital U.S. interest, but they conceived of it in terms of values rather than economics. Seeing corrupt and authoritarian regimes abroad as a leading cause of conflict and violence, Wilsonians sought peace through the promotion of human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law…
The disputes between and among these factions were intense and consequential, but they took place within a common commitment to a common project of global order. As that project came under increasing strain in recent decades, however, the unquestioned grip of the globalists on U.S. foreign policy thinking began to loosen. More nationalist, less globally minded voices began to be heard, and a public increasingly disenchanted with what it saw as the costly failures the global order-building project began to challenge what the foreign policy establishment was preaching. The Jeffersonian and Jacksonian schools of thought, prominent before World War II but out of favor during the heyday of the liberal order, have come back with a vengeance…
For Jacksonians—who formed the core of Trump’s passionately supportive base—the United States is not a political entity created and defined by a set of intellectual propositions rooted in the Enlightenment and oriented toward the fulfillment of a universal mission. Rather, it is the nation-state of the American people, and its chief business lies at home. Jacksonians see American exceptionalism not as a function of the universal appeal of American ideas, or even as a function of a unique American vocation to transform the world, but rather as rooted in the country’s singular commitment to the equality and dignity of individual American citizens. The role of the U.S. government, Jacksonians believe, is to fulfill the country’s destiny by looking after the physical security and economic well-being of the American people in their national home—and to do that while interfering as little as possible with the individual freedom that makes the country unique.
For Jacksonian America, certain events galvanize intense interest and political engagement, however brief. One of these is war; when an enemy attacks, Jacksonians spring to the country’s defense. The most powerful driver of Jacksonian political engagement in domestic politics, similarly, is the perception that Jacksonians are being attacked by internal enemies, such as an elite cabal or immigrants from different backgrounds. Jacksonians worry about the U.S. government being taken over by malevolent forces bent on transforming the United States’ essential character. They are not obsessed with corruption, seeing it as an ineradicable part of politics. But they care deeply about what they see as perversion—when politicians try to use the government to oppress the people rather than protect them. And that is what many Jacksonians came to feel was happening in recent years, with powerful forces in the American elite, including the political establishments of both major parties, in cahoots against them.
Many Jacksonians came to believe that the American establishment was no longer reliably patriotic, with “patriotism” defined as an instinctive loyalty to the well-being and values of Jacksonian America. And they were not wholly wrong…
Although I disagree with some of what Mead writes – for example, I do see Jacksonians as believing that the US is “a political entity created and defined by a set of intellectual propositions rooted in the Enlightenment.” But my quibbles with him are relatively minor compared with my general agreements with his description of the worldview of the Jacksoninans.
Since Mead wrote the words I quoted above, events have only solidified the perception that there are “malevolent forces bent on transforming the United States’ essential character” who already have a great deal of power and who would like to obtain much more. And it seems to me that Mead was particularly good at describing the method in what to so many other people may seem like Trump’s madness, both in foreign policy and elsewhere.
About a year after that essay was written, Mead gave this interview, in which he said:
For “a scholar of foreign policy,” says Mead, who is today a distinguished fellow at the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute, watching Trump’s rise was sort of an out-of-body experience, a once-in-a-career moment “where these abstract typologies that you write about suddenly seems to be happening in front of you.”
Mead was also courted by Steve Bannon – for the short time Bannon was a Trump advisor. But Bannon made the error of thinking that because Mead could describe Jacksonians so well (and for the most part, although not entirely, without condescension or error), that he must be a Jacksonian. But Mead corrected him:
As he told Bannon, “Well, you know, Steve, I write about Jacksonianism. That doesn’t mean I am a Jacksonian,” Mead remembers telling the Trump strategist. Not only that, but “actually, I voted for Clinton in the election.”
Bannon, he said, was a “little bit shocked.”
That puts Mead squarely in the camp of people such as Alan Dershowitz, whom I respect because – although I disagree strongly with them politically – they seem to retain a sense of objectivity when they write about politics, and they try to be (and usually succeed in being) fair even to those with whom they differ. This should be standard operating procedure, but these days it is vanishingly rare.
Trump’s policy here is just a gloss on: “Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.”
Robert Kennedy
Jacksonialism = Charity begins at home. First things first.
Hamiltonialism = No man is an island. Modern civilization is composed of an interdependent world.
Wilsonialism = What do we, as a nation, stand for?
How are these inherently antithetical?
Where we err is when we reject all but one.
America is the world’s “Shining City Upon a Hill”, humanity’s “last, best hope”. Without an America as envisioned the world is doomed to totalitarianism. Whether 1984 or Shariah; “it’s a boot stomping on (liberty’s) face… forever”
America’s founding principles are the finest platform upon which to ‘stand’, yet conceived.
If I’m only for me, then what am I? If I’m not for me, then who will be?
To fail to see the core truth in each viewpoint is to philosophically, throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Excellent treatise.
I will pass this along to people who should, but probably won’t, read it. With attribution, of course.
Soleimani’s killing was, without question, the most consequential act of Trump’s presidency.
What are the difference between Soeleimani and other terrorist killings :
– Obama – Bin Laden
– G.W. Bush – Alzarqawi
– Trump – Al-Baghdadi
“What do we, as a nation, stand for?”
To me the answer is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously, I am old school. America does have a very important role in global relations, but as Trump often mentions, the safety and welfare of American citizens comes first.
What are the difference between Soeleimani and other terrorist killings
First, he was a state actor who could call upon state resources. Second, he was a trained and competent military man. In short, he was a professional pursuing state ends, not a terrorist.
I’m shocked that anyone would think Walter Russell Mead anything but a liberal, it colors all of his writing.
Geoffrey Britain: the point is precisely that these archetypal schools of thought each tend to overreach. IMO, a good follow-up conversation to a chat with Walter Russell Mead would be one with Victor Davis Hanson about the ways in modern American political history in which hubris begets nemesis—a central theme in much of his writing.
Chuck,
Yes, Mead and Deshowitz are liberals, but they are liberals I can politely disagree with, and most importantly they don’t want me and mine in a gulag or a gas chamber.
But for neo, I would not know of Mead.
parker’s description of Dershowitz echoes my thoughts.
By the way, Dershowitz makes me proud of Jews. Schumer, Nadler, Schiff, Vindman, Wasserman Schultz, not at all.
KEEP AMERICA GREAT.
Jonathan is wrong:
“Soleimani’s killing was, without question, the most consequential act of Trump’s presidency.”
The Trump Tax Cuts are the most consequential, boosting the economy hugely as those who created the new wealth are allowed to keep more of it.
Even if one is talking international “most consequential foreign policy”, it might be the early visit to Saudi Arabia; or moving the embassy to Jerusalem; or building the Wall.
Mead wrote a long, fine essay about Bush that used “Jacksonion”, along with other US Founders, as archetypes, which is understandable and seems to align with reality well. Jacksonians put America First — so does Trump.
Ira:
Well, at least Pelosi and Comey and Brennan aren’t Jewish.
“What are the difference between Soeleimani and other terrorist killings :”
It destabilizes Iran and could well lead to regime change.
Ira
But for neo, I would not know of Mead.
He used to write a lot at The American Interest blog, but hasn’t published anything there since 2017. IIRC, he basically was writing that the liberal model of governance needed some tweaking- and he wasn’t talking about the direction of Obama/Sanders/Warren. One of his books is Special Providence:American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World.
And it would seem that Trump’s Iran policy is catching:
“Masked gunmen on Wednesday ambushed and killed the local commander of a paramilitary security force in southwestern Iran, an associate of Iran’s top general recently killed in an American drone strike in Baghdad, the official IRNA news agency reported.
The slain commander, Abdolhossein Mojaddami, headed the Basij forces, a paramilitary wing of the Revolutionary Guard used for internal security and other tasks, in the town of Darkhoein. He was gunned down in front of his home in the town in the country’s oil rich Khuzestan province.
Two gunmen on a motorcycle, armed with an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, ambushed Mojaddami, IRNA reported. Other Iranian media said the gunmen’s faces were covered with masks and that four shots were fired.”
https://www.egyptindependent.com/masked-gunmen-kill-local-commander-of-irans-security-forces/
Chuck on January 22, 2020 at 7:26 pm said:
not a terrorist
What about his killing in the region not in his own state?
The state he is blongs to is asponcer of terrorst? Isn’t?
The problem is that the elites in the uniparty believe they must manage world affairs. It provides for their sustenance and identity. They never seek to impose any system on the world beyond some vague “Democracy”. The differences described between the European West and the Anglosphere so well by Daniel Hannan in Inventing Freedom is unknown to them, and treated as extremism when encountered.
Jacksonianism as described above may be a factor. A larger one IMO is that someone like Trump has spent his life actually finishing large complex projects, bringing them to life, and seeing them operate profitably. The idea of endlessly dragging them out is only available to government.
Trump will change Iran and North Korea. He will establish a free trade zone with the UK which will be very beneficial to all. If he wins both houses this fall he will end the Russian estrangement, but will never get an ounce of credit from the elites. He is destroying their reason for existence.
The commercial world, which voted for Trump, finishes things continually. It sees that as the natural and necessary order of things.
Future historians will call this period the Trump Restoration.
I had never seen the different political views on foreign policy summarized in this manner before. I found it refreshing. In particular, it reminded me of my observations from my time in Africa.
Africa is full of international charity, public and private. At one time, the U.S. and the USSR competed in giving aid to the African countries hoping to to sway (bribe?) them into their sphere of influence. The USSR died, but the plethora of Western Charity organizations didn’t.
I was there as a Project Manager of a construction project, a completely non-altruistic pursuit. Yet, I am convinced that my team of Americans and I were better ambassadors of good will than the U.S. professional diplomats. We did more training and skills transfer than all of the AID programs could ever hope to. And we taught American values by example, person to person, not isolated from contact with the Africans like many of the diplomats and aid workers.
In my example and experience, it is the Jacksonian approach that produces results in the foreign policy arena. Pretending to some sort altruistic objective is not believed nor respected abroad.
F.B.,
The difference? Souleimani was an Iranian General. His actions were official acts of the nation of Iran.
State sponsored terrorist, aka, revered military leader, poet, lightworker, ….. Well maybe not lightworker; that one is already taken (although some here haven’t heard how it was used). He was well and truly lit up in passing. He was at last on the wrong side of brightness (Austin Bay book).
Roy Nathanson:
Having spent 20 years as an American diplomat in Africa (seven different countries), I take exception to your blanket condemnation of me and my colleagues. If you want to list it to USAID employees, I’ll agree with you. But if you think to include State Department and USIA employees, your comment is too general and broad. Some of us did a damn good job, and accomplished quite a bit of good for the American government and people.
There’s something to this. The colonists, and later the early Americans, needed a way to redefine themselves as something other than just skycaps for British… or whatever other European… cultural and political baggage.
To be free of Europe and its demands meant creating a new American aboriginal identity, one that transcends both old world civilization and new world savagery. According to Philip DeLoria, author of Playing Indian:
https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Indian-Yale-Historical-Publications/dp/0300080670
Playing Indian is an important aspect of American national identity and finds expression through many contemporary cultural forms.
Looking forward to seeing the Kansas City Chiefs and the ol Tomahawk Chop at Super Bowl LIV:
No, cheering for the Chiefs isn’t racist
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cheering-for-kansas-city-chiefs-in-the-super-bowl-isnt-racist%3f_amp=true
F,
You shouldn’t be so sensitive. If you will re-read my comments, I specifically said that my team and I were better “ambassadors of good will”. I did not say or claim that we were better diplomats. At work, you and your colleagues are largely insulated from the general population by a layer of FSNs. When you socialize, you tend to do so with the elites of the host nation. We, however, interacted directly with people from all stratas of the society on a daily basis (and, no, I am not referring to the maid, the askari, and the driver).
I met and have worked with many of your colleagues. Some of them I respected immensely. But, the job of the State Department is to represent the American Government, not Americans. There is a very big difference.
And, by the way, I do think that the State Department is full of a lot of dead wood and is in dire need of a major reform, but that was not the issue that I referred to in my original comment. Even in the best of conditions, the improvements in fundamental conditions in Africa are being achieved through private investment. The job of the diplomats is to achieve the conditions that make that investment possible.
Roy Nathanson:
Generalize much? Or do you really know all about F and his service abroad? I would venture when you were abroad your main purpose was to make a profit for your employer, not to “represent” the American people.
To understand Mullah and their long arms in the region I advise to read this:
Mullahs, Money, and Militias.pdf
Let’s read what this guy who is Iranian propagandist from London although he says he is an Iraqi but the fact he is Iranian heart and mind.
Najah Muhammed Ali
Iraqi Journalist/expert on Iran, regional affairs, human rights activist &Terrorism expert.Ex-Iran Desk Editor in
@AlArabiya Tv. A columnist in @alqudsalarabi.
@najahmali
“Yes, Mead and Deshowitz are liberals, but they are liberals I can politely disagree with, and most importantly they don’t want me and mine in a gulag or a gas chamber.”-parker
I agree, and would add Turley to that list, but they are still people (despite their high intellect) who think they can pick up one end of the progressive/socialist stick and not get the other one as well.
That’s what Hayek knew when he showed that you can’t just have socialism (democratic or liberal or otherwise), because you always up with totalitarianism.
Soleimani in Syria.
Syrian Defense Minister Ali Ayub now reveals just how deep was Soleimani’s involvement in slaughtering Syrians. Until now, it’s been customary to date Iran’s involvement in the Syrian civil war from the summer of 2012, a year and a half after it began.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1218924635502325761
om,
Of course, I was there to earn my salary by making money for my employer. But, that is my point. The improvement in conditions in Africa is not the result of charities and high-minded altruism. They are more the result of foreign investment and the resulting technology, skills, and values transfer.
This is the Jacksonian view of the world. The entrepreneur does not start a business for the purpose of providing employment. He does it to make money, and shouldn’t have to pretend otherwise. That his efforts and investments are, in fact, good for the economy is because wealth creation benefits everyone.
The United States shouldn’t have to pretend that it is engaged in the world out of high minded ideals. It is engaged in the world to expand its markets and power. Our success benefits the whole world, but that is not our reason for doing it. If that is “Imperialism”, then let us wear the label proudly.
Roy Nathanson:
So this is the view from the high horse, economic self interest trumps all other concerns? You seemed to have claimed to be a better representative of American values. Not like those cloud coo coo land Dept of State diplomats.
BTW your grasp of basic economics is astounding.
I know Christian missionaries who are teaching in Malawi the basic technologies of potable water supply and sanitation practices and the private enterprise skills so that the development of clean water and sanitation (less disease, local development) becomes endemic and self sustaining. Not some big project run by non natives. Who is a better representative of America again?
Geoffrey Britain on January 22, 2020 at 4:48 pm said:
Jacksonialism = Charity begins at home. First things first.
Hamiltonialism = No man is an island. Modern civilization is composed of an interdependent world.
Wilsonialism = What do we, as a nation, stand for?
…
Where we err is when we reject all but one.
…
To fail to see the core truth in each viewpoint is to philosophically, throw the baby out with the bathwater.
* * *
Interesting concept.
What would a synthesis of all the core truths look like?
AesopFan on January 23, 2020 at 8:16 pm:
Good point.