October 2009 Archives

The conventional wisdom at the beginning of the year was that Hillary Rodham Clinton might be sidelined by all the strong personalities among President Obama's "team of rivals" and his special envoys to the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Some analysts have said that doesn't seem to have happened.

Clinton has taken charge of relations with great powers China and Russia, and is a key player in reinforcing Obama's multilateral approach to international issues, one of the things that the Nobel committee cited in giving him the Peace Prize. People give her credit for giving this administration some spine. And she certainly is getting more resources for the State Department. David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote a piece in the Washington Post in August saying that Clinton is "rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions."

But we would like to know what you, the experts, think about Hillary's performance so far, what she has accomplished, and what more she could or should be doing. So what kind of report card do you give Hillary Rodham Clinton so far as secretary of State? Was she a good, or bad, choice as the nation's top diplomat?

12 responses: Michael F. Scheuer, Sam Worthington, Patrick B. Pexton, Christopher Preble, Michael F. Scheuer, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Gordon Adams, Ron Marks, Michael Brenner, Joseph J. Collins, James R. Locher III

As the repercussions from the summer's election fraud and its bitter aftermath continue to ripple through Iranian politics, it's become clear that the greatest fear of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies in the Revolutionary Guards and among hard-line clerics is a "velvet" people's revolution of the type that swept authoritarian regimes from power in Georgia with the 2003 "Rose Revolution," and in Ukraine with the "Orange Revolution" in 2004-2005.

Are those fears well-founded? Given a level of popular opposition to the theocratic regime that surprised many outside observers, especially on the part of the country's urban youth, is there a viable prospect that the regime can be swept from power by a people's revolution? Given the sensitivity and danger of any domestic group being associated with the "Great Satan," are there proactive and helpful steps -- secret or otherwise -- that the United States should take to improve the chances of a "velvet revolution"? What aspects of the velvet revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia might apply to Iran? Finally, is there likely any truth to Iranian charges that the United States or other outside players were behind the unrest surrounding the elections?

9 responses: Daniel Serwer, Paul R. Pillar, James Kitfield, Patrick Clawson, Daniel Serwer, Ron Marks, James Jay Carafano, Michael Brenner, Daniel Byman

The announcement that President Obama had received the Nobel Peace Prize was met with jaws dropping around the world. Does Obama's Nobel win give "momentum" -- to use the committee chairman's word -- to his efforts on such fronts as Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and nuclear disarmament? Or does the award raise expectations, already high, to a destructive degree? Will the prize end up being more of an embarrassment than an asset if Obama cannot deliver on the extraordinary goals that the Nobel committee believes he is pursuing? And is the award unjustified, given that Obama has sent more combat troops into Afghanistan and is contemplating sending more; that he has embraced the use of remote drones to kill terrorist suspects in Pakistan, a country with which we're not at war; and that he intends to indefinitely detain some terrorist suspects without charge?

13 responses: Michael Brenner, Stewart Verdery, James Jay Carafano, Rachel Kleinfeld, Eric Farnsworth, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Dov S. Zakheim, Michael F. Scheuer, Eric Farnsworth, James Jay Carafano, Ron Marks, Kellie A. Meiman

It's March 1, 2010, and you're the secretary of Defense. Sanctions, negotiations and all other forms of diplomacy have failed to get Iran to renounce its nuclear program. The president has directed you and the chairman of the joint chiefs to draw up a plan for striking at Qum and Iran's many other nuclear facilities within the next 90 days. How would you advise that they be taken out, and in such a way that they can't come back online, at least not for several years? What would such a strike look like? Bunker busters? Cyber attacks? Cruise missiles and fighter bombers? Would we keep Israel out of it? How much air-, sea- and manpower would we need in place to keep the entire region from exploding? And how would we prepare for the aftermath?

Or would you advise against the mission entirely and resign in protest rather than execute it -- perhaps telling the president that such a strike would likely fail, be counterproductive to other U.S. goals in the region, and push the Iranians into a faster nuclear arms race?

5 responses: Shane Harris, Michael Brenner, James Jay Carafano, Joseph J. Collins, Wayne White