The lead paragraph of a January 4 news article
reads, “The Middle East slid dangerously closer to regional conflict Monday
after Saudi Arabia rallied its Sunni allies to sever diplomatic ties with Iran…”
https://goo.gl/xGfqPs
. This is but one of many flashpoints throughout the Middle East. Indeed, with
the unprecedented entry of Russian military might in Syria and its belligerence
toward NATO ally Turkey, the world teeters on the parapet of a possible
international war with all the complexity of the First World War ratcheted up
by the nuclear threat, whether by rogue nations or superpowers.
The volatility of the Middle East has taken American
politics by surprise. There are a dozen Republicans running for president, yet the
impetus behind these campaigns is domestic; there is only one of them with extensive
interest, experience, and expertise in foreign relations. As Americans are
forced to turn their electoral attention to foreign affairs, this sets up a
general election scenario in which a Republican inexperienced in international
relations may face a Democrat who happens to be a former Secretary of State.
Does your candidate know who Bani Sadr is? |
The debates and campaigns will turn on obscurities
such as cities and regions, princes and foreign ministers, and apocalyptic theologies
and clerics in internecine conflict. Secretary Clinton will likely know the
name of the capital of Yemen and Qatar, and will be able to detail the
significance of ISIS’ destruction of Aleppo, and what its conquest might say
about the future of Assad. In contrast, does Donald Trump know anything about
the Saudi royal family? Does Ben Carson understand how Yemen’s water crisis
factors into its own civil war? Does Ted Cruz know the theological intricacies behind
Saudi Arabia’s execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Does Marco Rubio understand
the pressure Turkey’s government feels from its own Islamic clerics? Hillary
Clinton may have gotten all her policies wrong, but she spent several years dealing
with these details daily and is fluent in them.
The sole Republican candidate who has expertise in
foreign affairs is Rick Santorum. In a recent interview, a reporter pointed out
to Santorum that in 2012 he was noted as the social conservative. Santorum’s reply
was that at the time the news media seemed obsessed about social issues, and
that he wished they had asked him about foreign affairs back them. The reality
is that Santorum’s 2006 parting speech to the Senate focused on the Iranian
threat. One analyst reported on it and wrote, “The day will come when we will
re-read Santorum's words, and wish our leaders had listened” https://goo.gl/oc9Taa
.
In his hiatus from politics, Santorum researched the
Middle East as a Fellow at the Ethics for Public Policy and wrote 217 articles
on the threat of Islamic terror and toured the country giving speeches to
explain our situation. Even when all other Republicans were running away from
any issue pertaining to Iran and Islamic terror in the 2006 election, Santorum
stood on conviction, embracing it in every stump speech, sacrificing his bid
for re-election for the sake of the truth. He was a leader in US-Israeli
relations, and he authored both the “Syria Accountability Act” and the “Iran
Freedom and Support Act,” leading to the sanctions that the Obama
administration recently nullified in its Iran-Nuke deal.
In addition to this, Santorum served on the Senate Armed
Services Committee where he oversaw the modernization of the military in light
of challenges arising from foreign affairs.
As Republicans turn their attention to primary
season, they need to vet their candidates in light of these recent developments
in foreign affairs. Given the administration’s failure to lead in the Middle
East, and because of its incoherent foreign policy, the international relations
is likely to rise in prominence in the mind of the electorate. Santorum is the
only Republican fluent in these matters; he alone will be able to engage
Hillary in debate over the intricacies of Middle East policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment