As we enter day three, we will need to wait and see if the House managers can come up with anymore heart-rending videos. Much of day two was spent showing videos of rioters rampaging through the building and sound bites of people looking for Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Pence. The House managers went so far in their emotional presentation to point out that the rioters had erected a gallows outside the building calling it a symbol of Americas racist past. Of course, those of us who pay attention know that hanging the bad guy was a staple of the American west. This last is a bit off subject but thought I would throw it in. The Trump defense also tried it had at videography showing several Democrat politicians calling for Trumps impeachment from the time he was elected to prove that impeachment has been the objective of the Democrats since the beginning. As I said yesterday this is not truly a trial, not the American sense.
In many courtroom scenes the attorney for one side will stand up and object to a line of questioning or a piece of evidence based on relevance. Trumps defense, in an actual court of law, would have likely had an objection of relevance sustained on yesterday’s video since it showed the fact that there were rioters in the building saying things that should and will lead to their arrests and conviction, but it failed to connect their actions to any actual direction from Trump. On the other side the video show given by the Trump defense would have similarly been disallowed since it did not connect to the current article of impeachment.
Today it is possible that arguments will in fact be turned to the actual article of impeachment. In part the article says that on January 6th “President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.” He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol.” Italics are mine. A problem with the video on the first day is its lack of a timeline or time stamps. If they had been included it would be apparent that there were two separate groups, the one listening to the President and those at the Capitol. Those at the Capitol had already breached the building so it was not the group that was listening to the president. We have also heard from law enforcement that the attack was preplanned and therefore not a result of the speech. Because of this the managers are arguing it is the result of his past speeches.
The true purpose of this “trial” is also seen in the indictment “Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] and office … under the United States.”
In the end we ask that you again PLEASEThink about the true
purposes of this action which is not to seek justice but for political purposes.
For those who do not recognize the picture above, it is Oliver Cromwell. Two years after his death his body was dug up and he was put on trial and beheaded.
As we move on to Impeachment day two, we should review day one. Since the last shall be first, the argument was made that the entire trial is unconstitutional because it is intended to remove a seating President who is already out of office. This motion was defeated by a 56-44 vote. The argument was made that Congress is not the body to decide constitutionality, that is the Supreme Court. In this instance under the rules of this trial they are in fact the body to make that decision. I remember a charge to a jury where the judge told them they are deciders of the facts; the judge is the decider of law. This indicates that this is not a “Trial” that is a reflection of US jurisprudence. The jury decides facts and law, the presiding officer is not a judge but in this case is also a member of the jury. One of the things they get to decide as well is rules of evidence. This brings us to the first presentation, the video.
For those of you who did not have the pleasure of seeing the video, it was a compilation of what transpired on January 6th in Washington. The problem with it was it was chopped together, out of order and censored to give the impression that the riot occurred while Trump was standing on a platform extolling his followers to take over the Capitol building. This video “evidence” would never have been allowed in a court of law in this country. This would-be tantamount reworking a police officers body cameras footage to reflect a series of events that did not happen. This is falsifying evidence. This was not intended to show facts but to elicit an emotional reaction. Then there is some pre-trial activity that must be addressed. The chief House impeachment manager, Rep Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md) in a letter to Trump stated that if he did not testify it would be seen as an admission of guilt. Raskin, a graduate of Harvard Law school, apparently never read the Constitution or understands the 5th amendment. I am sure that if any prosecutor made this statement elsewhere, they would face some disciplinary hearing.
I am not passing judgement on Trump who must bear some personnel responsibility for what took place, but not criminal liability for other people actions. Those who attacked the seat of government must be tried and convicted for their own actions.
I am asking my readers to PLEASEThink about how this trial is taking place. Detach yourselves from your emotions and judge this in the light of American culture and fairness. Trump is his own worst enemy, much of what he says is emotional rhetoric, but it is protected under the 1st amendment. We cannot become a country that puts people on trial for what they said that we disagree.
While the nation is consumed by the Impeachment trial, we have not heard much on Biden’s moves to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran deal. Since President Trump withdrew the US from the Iran deal there has been a massive hue and cry from certain segments of the political spectrum that Iran is going to go Nuclear and the people will starve with any return to sanctions. Iran has never stopped its nuclear program and its people were starving before the deal.
The US as well as the EU has requested re-negotiating the deal to allow for the addition of missile development, more stringent inspections and, very important, inclusion of human rights. In two on-air interviews/debates I have had recently with Iranian foreign policy people it was made clear that there would be no re-negotiation and the US must first recommit to full compliance before going any further.
The US and other allies went too fast and gave up too much in the original agreement. Those calling for a return to the original have never addressed what the problems are. I am not naive enough to believe that Iran will ever be in full compliance or that any attempt at reducing missile development or getting meaningful access to all sites will be successful. What can be hoped for is that the level of human rights abuses can be exposed to the world. The daily killing of Kurds and others as well as the destruction of any religion other then their version of Islam must be exposed and would-be during negotiations.
When so many call out for social justice to ignore the abuses in Iran for political means is disgusting. Iran is the chief supporter of terrorism in the world including facilitating al-Qaeda and ISIS supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and the killing and destruction of Kurdish culture and the Baha’i religion. These things must be addressed before any return to any negotiation,
In the past few of days, we have been treated to the news that Hilary Clinton and daughter Chelsea will be making a film based on a book about the female Peshmerga in Syria. Lots of comments on Twitter about this new book, to be published on 16th Feb 2021. Called Daughters of Kobani, it claims to detail the Women’s Protection Unit of the Syrian Democratic Forces known as the YPJ, and the YPJ’s struggle in Kobani against ISIS. Early reviews of the book indicate it looks promising and comes at a very timely moment in the struggle of Kurds, with Erdogan attacks in Rojava (NE Syria) on a nightly basis and threatening full-scale invasion.
We are both happy and disgusted by this. Happy that these fighters will get the exposure they need but disgusted that the person doing so spent the latter years of public service calling them terrorist and making every effort to deny the Kurds their rights and the country that should have been theirs to begin with. To make profit off the suffering she was a part of is hypocrisy in the highest.
We can understand the screams of frustration coming from women Kurdish filmmakers and accusations of hypocrisy and cultural appropriation but frankly, at this point of the Kurdish struggle, we warmly welcome this book as pro-Kurdish rights campaigners and hope that it will strengthen some people’s resolve to stand up to Erdogan’s attacks against NE Syria in the coming weeks and months. And to be honest, it is on that basis that Kurds welcome such policies, but at the same time, can disagree and want to ask where Hillary Clinton was when her husband, the then President of the US, were funding the Turkish government when it was at the height of the village depopulations in the 90s. It is a valid question and I’m sure we will face disappointment and anger in the coming months, but at least it gives some sort of hope that those around the President and Democrat circles will give recognition to the role the Kurdish people played in the defeat of ISIS and that they have sacrificed so much, that they have more than earned the inalienable right to be able to determine their own future and build the progressive society they fought for as a beacon of light, not only for women for who Rojava has been a revolution but for the future of the Middle East and beyond! We can only live-in hope and continue to defend the Democratic Nation through all its troubled times ahead. We hope this film can shine a light on the brave fighters of the YPJ. We hope however that the double dealing and hypocrisy of the Clintons is also brought to light.
Today the Left will take up the coup attempt that they began last year. Last year they attempted to unseat a sitting president for no good reason other then it was an election year. I should not say for no good reason this was an agenda item from the start. In an editorial in the Washington Post, 19 minutes after he was inaugurated the Post called for Trumps impeachment. Today the Senate will begin a trial on a former president whose only consequence would be denying Trump the right to run for office again. This time the impeachment is a blatant attack on one of Americas most sacred rights, Freedom of Speech. While it may be argued that Trump carried on too long in his claims that there was voter fraud, that is his right. No where in any speech did he call for the overthrow of the government. If individuals where driven to illegal acts that is on them as individuals. This is a hard argument to make to the left since their driving philosophy is that all actions must be collective with the individual removed from the equation.
This trial has no chance of finding Trump guilty, but it will move the thought process of many toward the left. This in and of itself is dangerous. We have spent far too long rewriting history. The left is now attempting to rewrite the culture of America. We should demand at the least that books such as 1984 be taught in classes as well as the history of authoritarian regimes and how many lost their freedom. Learn about propaganda and misinformation and understand how the left is using mirror imaging by claiming the right is authoritarian while in fact it is the actions of the left that show this. As well as claiming that the right is moving toward dictatorship when it is the left pushing in that direction. We already see “Newspeak” being used; equality is being replaced with equity. Education is powerful but when the educational institutions are being turned to brainwashing instead of education it becomes dangerous.
Before jumping to conclusions, I ask everyone to PLEASEThink. Both left and right do some incredibly stupid things and its time for those of us who can think to keep them from destroying the country.
The Democrat majority has removed a duly elected Member of the House from her committee seats because they think what she has said is not what the majority believe. I will start by saying I agree that her ideas are wrong and way outside the mainstream. She bought into the loony tune ideas of QAnon and let her passion and hatred of liberal ideas runaway. The fact is, however, that most if not all of what she is charged with happened prior to her being elected to the House. The people who voted for her know who she was and what she stood for but elected her anyway. Congress convened on January 3rd, 2021 and to my knowledge she has not broken house rules since then.
On January 3rd, the entire Congress took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We are not quite a month into the new Congress and have seen them violate that oath on several occasions. Supposedly Congress can only act against a Member for activities that occurred after they have taken the office. There is a clause in the Constitution, clause 3 of Article 9, that prohibits them from passing ex post facto laws. In other words, you cannot be held accountable for actions that were legal when you did them but were later made illegal. The actions taken by the majority also violate her first amendment right to free speech. Many of the things she said were widely inappropriate but not illegal.
While the words of Greene should be seen as reprehensible, she is none the less an elected official and her constituency should not be overruled for partisan reasons. If what she has said was enough to have her removed from her committee seats, then those of the so call “squad” should lose theirs as well. Why should an anti-Semite such as IIhan Omar be allowed to sit on the Foreign Affairs committee with her well-known hatred of Israel? The other members of the squad have, as well, shown disrespect for the US, acted in violation of congressional norms, and have made more egregious remarks then did Greene. The ever-popular Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has gone so far as to accuse a member of congress with trying to kill her.
Why then was Greene picked out? For one she is low hanging fruit with few supporting what she has said in he past, but more importantly she is a Trump supporter. The Democrat leadership knows it will not be able to win a conviction against President Trump in the Senate impeachment trial so this is an action they can take and show a victory.
I normally do not use the term slippery slope, as I see it usually used as a logical fallacy argument. This time however we need to keep a careful eye on Congress, before we lose what little input we have left. As I have said before, much of this stems from the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals always look for the collective answers while conservative tend more toward individual accountability. While Greene is responsible for her actions as an individual, she is allowed, within the law, her opinions. When the majority of one-party gangs up on her, or anyone, we see a violation of the intent of constitutional protections of minority thought, which is ensconced in Anglo-American culture and tradition. If the Democrat party wants her out, then prepare to run a better election in 2022.
One of the main tenets of conservatism is the belief that history and culture inform the present. We have just inaugurated a new president and have seen the Congress now controlled by a single party. The President is a liberal/ progressive as are those around him, as well as a majority of Congress, why is this a problem? To begin, unlike conservatives, liberals today do not look at history and seem to be at war with American culture. To that end they are more concerned with the Here and Now regardless of how it effects the future. Their concern with the Here and Now blinds them to cause and effect which drives their solutions to be based on emotional or political reasoning and to be short-term. Conservatism looks at smaller answers that do not shake the foundations of society or go against the prevailing culture. Which is the better way to govern, quick and short term or slow and steady? Not to highlight my nerdiness but in one of the Star Wars movies Luke asks Yoda if the dark side was stronger, the answer was “not stronger, quicker, easier more seductive.” People will always look for the quick solution, take the easy path and be seduced by ideas that sound good, except on close examination. What history has taught however is the path to dictatorship runs on quick and easy solutions. That the masses can be seduced by the sound of fairytale progress if it is coupled with an enemy, is something that must be examined and understood.
While the country was reeling from the impact of Covid-19 the liberals stood firm, for eight months, in their position to block any relief to negatively impact the re-election of Donald Trump. After a riot that took place on the Hill and some idiots waving Trump flags broke into the Capital Building, it took seven days for the liberal congress to draw up and vote on an article of impeachment. On January 25th, the article of Impeachment was delivered to the Senate The single article is “incitement of insurrection.” This is a very serious charge but wholly unprovable. There is no evidence that the President ever spoke any words that would have called on the people to march on the In fact, he said to peacefully protest. So, we see two problems, one an emotional overreaction and a move toward thought police. As stated, history drives the future and a failure to understand the underlying philosophies that were used to set up the United States makes it difficult to understand what the problems are today.
Our founding fathers were students of political thinkers such as Locke and Hobbes, and contemporary writers such as Edmond Burke. They were also students of history and understood the success and failures of past political systems.
While the Declaration of Independence showed Jefferson’s liberal thinking. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, believing in a strong central government, feared that the government could become too strong, thus the separation of powers. Beyond Madison was the more conservative Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton having learned from European history the horror of an unrestricted government in Federalist 84 Hamilton argued for the inclusion of a bill of rights limiting governments power over the people and the individual States. As is well known the first amendment protects freedom of speech as well as the right to peacefully. This brings us back to some of the major problems we see today in liberal governing techniques.
Going back to the current impeachment trial. The charge against the former President is that, through his words, it is perceived that he incited a crowd to march on the Capitol in an act of insurrection. Without direct evidence the Senate will be trying Trump for his words, which without direct evidence of calling for an insurrection should be considered protected speech. Here again we see an example of short-term thinking as well as an emotional response, without concern for how this will affect the future. This is a violation of the first amendments protection of free speech as well. It also strikes at the right to peaceful assembly., since most of the people at the stop the steal rally did not march on the Capitol. It also violates Article 1 Section 3 of the constitution which states, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Beyond the impeachment we see calls from the left to censor or remove from congress the leaders of the attempt to review what they considered fraudulent votes. I do not know what the results of an unbiased investigation would reveal but I think there was enough circumstantial evidence to launch an investigation. If they just declared it a fair election the liberal would not have to face what may have been an embarrassing result. By not even attempting to show some interest in an investigation they could take the quicker, easier path and seduce the public into accepting any “facts” they put out.
It is obvious that liberals move quickly to find the easiest short-term solution, are conservatives the direct opposite. According to the famous American conservative, William F. Buckley, “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!” I am not sure it is truly ‘stop’ but at least slowdown.
As a country we need to use history and reason as well as stay true to our founding philosophies and continue to move forward at a pace that does not destroy the country.
Democracy is a social and governmental system that allows for the people to be in charge of their own life, with restrictions, to allow for minority opinions and to protect those in the minority. There are those who say that the United States is not a democracy but a republic which is a misnomer. It is true the US is not a pure democracy in the sense that everyone has a voice in every decision, but rather it has taken the form of a representative democracy where everyone has the chance to elect a body that will represent the views and wishes of the population. This is the way it is suppose to work, in reality in this day and time we have entered into an era of identity politics, were ideology supersedes all. It could be argued that we have always been a nation of identity politics in so much as we have generally voted along party lines, those lines were laid down for us by our parents. This is not set in stone as my parents were liberal democrats and I am a conservative republican, but it fits a general pattern. Today however we have taken a broad set of party ideologies and reduced them to small very exclusive alliances.
It is important to understand what we mean when we say democracy. Considering the ongoing political situation regarding the Presidential Election we have heard many on the left declare that what Trump is doing is trying to destroy democracy. We have heard this over and over in the last four years that everything he does is an attack on democracy. The fact is that what he is doing and the way he is doing it is purely democratic in nature. Much of what is argued and the way it is presented by the left is in fact attempts to subvert democracy at its core.
The individuals right to challenge the government is at the center of all we hold dear. When Donald J Trump feels that there has been criminal activity that has cost him the election, he has every right to say so. If he can show indicators of criminal activity, he has the right to bring them to the attention of the public and ask that it be investigated. Once an investigation is begun then evidence will be found or it will come to a point, such as the Mueller investigation, that there is no or insufficient evidence for a further criminal investigation. To deny him this right is to deny all citizens the protection of the law.
As stated, if there is sufficient circumstantial belief that there was a crime then it is incumbent on the state to investigate and to gather evidence. To say at this point that there is no evidence, so we don’t need to investigate turns the process on its head. To say that Donald Trump is destroying democracy because he is causing people to doubt the government is the opposite of what we should be teaching our children. Instead of banning books such as “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “The Adventures of Huck Finn” we should be encouraging students to read. To end the small-minded concepts that drive identity politics and group think we should reintroduce such readings as “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine and “The Federalist Papers.” We should encourage the teachings of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others to reintroduce the philosophies that drove the founding fathers to bring democratic government to the new country.
If it is true that democracy will die, not with a bang but a whimper, we must take an unbiased look at how the country is moving forward.
Many have claimed that Trump is the archetype of authoritarian personality using populism to subvert democracy. But how does this square with the dictionary definitions of the two terms.
Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of “the people” and often juxtapose this group against “the elite”. … Populist parties and social movements are often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as the “voice of the people”.
The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by a need for extreme obedience and unquestioning respect for and submission to the authority of a person external to the self, which is realized through the oppression of subordinate people.
When Trump appeals to the people on a base level of us against them it is indeed populism. On the other hand, when he moves to reduce taxes and remove regulations, he is in fact the anti-authoritarian. When he demands that the states accept their responsibilities to their population, this again is not an authoritarian personality. While ignoring these points the left will point out that he fires people on a whim and demands loyalty from those around him is evidence of authoritarianism. It may be in the micro sense of his management style, but it does not appear to affect his leadership style.
To the point of democracy, the Washington Post changed its banner in 2016 to read “democracy dies in darkness.” It does indeed which is why we have a free press. But a free press is only effective when it is free of major bias and reports the news without editorial comment. Today we are caught in a situation were the Republicans are claiming fraud and cyber manipulation in the vote counts in several key states. Most in the mainstream media have responded to these claims as unfounded, without evidence or debunked. The truth is there are in fact convincing circumstantial evidence that something may have occurred to impact the vote count. It maybe something significant or nothing at all, but it needs to be investigated at the very least. If there is in fact something very wrong going on that will require the results to change it will be catastrophic since instead of reporting what the claims are and what evidence has been brought to light the media has downplayed it. This will result in a major backlash in the country for those who are being told there is no evidence, and everything has been debunked. Then democracy will truly have died in darkness.
Four years ago, November 8th,2016, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States by a majority of the citizens in a majority of the states. On November 9th,2016 The mainstream media and the Democratic National Committee began a full court press to reverse the results in some form or another. Most of the attacks on the legitimacy of the election centered around the belief that the Russian government had some how manipulated the American electorate to get Trump elected. We now know this to be a complete fabrication on the part of the DNC and the media and a less then unbiased FBI. Recent reporting shows that most of those agents who were in fact doing the investigation indicated early on that there was nothing to the allegations. Regardless, a well intrenched bureaucracy continued to push forward knowing the only outcome would be to weaken the administration.
Today we are faced with another disputed election. Unlike 2016 however, the fight is over election irregularities in several key states. To be honest there are likely irregularities in every election, so the question is do the irregularities we see on this election cycle substantially exceed the norm. In order to answer the question, we must first except the premise that there are in fact problems with every election. What is the history of miscounts and potential fraud? There are several times in recent history that fraud has been alleged in the US. This is not a Trump invention. Going back to the 2000 elections we can quote a research paper from Johns Hopkins: “The 2000 Presidential election, and the bitter, 36-day fight that followed over the pivotal state of Florida, opened the eyes of many Americans to a reality they had, up that point, largely chosen to ignore: that their electoral system was-in at least some parts of the country-decrepit, poorly managed, lacking transparency, or clear procedural rules, and prone to corruption, political manipulation, and outright fraud.” [i]
We have heard several times from those whose responsibility it is to make sure the elections are fair that this past election was the most secure in the nation’s history. We have learned much in the ensuing 20 years but that does not mean that the corrections made ensure a fair election. After 2016 following allegations of Russian interference many states changed from straight forward computer voting machines to paper ballots which were then scanned into a machine for counting. These scanners by the way are computers in their own right. But have we made the system any more secure?
To ignore all the allegations of fraud and manipulation will lead the not administration into the same worm hole as the unfounded allegations from 2016. It is highly unlikely that there will be enough fraud found to offset the projected result that Joe Biden won, but the possibility exists. We owe it to the nation and ourselves to do a through and compete investigation and not just dismiss the numerous claims and allegations, some of which are likely true.
This will not stop many of disagreeing, as many still believe the Russian conspiracy story, but it will help reduce the political machinations that will follow. It will not be good for the country to go through what it has for the last four years. Regardless of who is ultimately declared the winner they must be allowed to govern.
[i] Gumbel, A. (2008). Election Fraud and the Myths of American Democracy. Social Research,75(4), 1109-1134. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40972109
Currently the outcome of the upcoming Presidential election in the United States is far from clear. Polling for this election has shown no consistency and seems to depend more on political bias of the pollsters then on an honest attempt to discern the true feelings and atmosphere of the electorate. The polls are mixed, so it is difficult to say for sure. Looking at the overall national trends it would appear that Trump is going to be reelected, but trends could change overnight. There are many reasons to anticipate a Trump reelection, the greatest reason looks to come from private polls in battleground states that show the top concerns are economic and law and order. The Biden campaign continues to lean toward health issues and a perceived incompetence of Trump which is being rejected by the undecided voters. He also leans heavily on the assumption that the nation is consumed by the problems of racial injustice. There has also been a recent study that indicated that many of the undecided voters are caught between a dislike for Trump and a distrust of Biden and his policies. The economic issue resonates as the number one issue that people state will drive their vote. The impact on the economy, as the results of Covid-19 shutdowns, have affected many of the traditional Democrat base as well as, in many “Blue States,” attempts at draconian rules and regulations are anathema to many Americans. The left has attempted to blame Trump for all problems based on his perceived lack of leadership in fighting Covid-19. Many Americans accept the fact that this is a pandemic that hit the world with speed and lethality. On the other hand they also know that prior to the pandemic Trump had advanced the economy and working conditions across the board, White, Black and Hispanics were shown to have the lowest unemployment in history as well as growth in Black and Hispanic business. America watched as violence has erupted across the country in cities that then took little to no action to restore order. Law and order are a main concern to most and Trump has established a strong position on this issue.
As we said above Biden has locked himself into the position that health care is a major concern for most American. A recent Pew Research poll showed that while 68% of the respondents showed health care to be a major factor in their voting decision 79% indicated the economy. Another indicator of Democrat party candidate missing the tempo of the country is that in the same report, which came out in August, Racial issues and immigration came at the lower end.
In regard to foreign policy in general and the Middle East in particular the question comes to how the two candidates will impact policy. With a Trump victory there will likely be little change. Trump has made no secret of the fact that US domestic policy is his number one issue. He feels that regional issues are best left to regional players. While he has recently made headlines by brokering historic treaties between Israel and Arab nations UAE and Bahrain were the first two Arab nations to recognize Israel in over 25 years and it was recently announced that Sudan will join this group. Peace in the Middle East is good for America. Biden on the other hand has talked a great deal about wanting peace yet is heavily tied to Iran and under the JCPOA (the Iran Deal) where Iran sanctions were lifted, and Billions of dollars released to Iran. This money has been used not to benefit Iranian people but to increase Iranian hegemony. Biden is invested in reestablishing the Iran deal and lifting sanctions that have been in place since Trump pulled out. Recently the UN, over the objections of the US, lifted the restraint on selling Iran military hardware. A rearmed and strengthened Iran is a danger to Kurds in the entire region. The Obama administration was no friend of an independent Kurdistan and those people that were in the Obama administration will likely return in a Biden administration
As we have said we do not see a major change in administration policy for the region, there are however things that can force a change. One of the biggest problems the next administration will face is the increased belligerency of Turkey, not only in Syria and the Iraqi Kurdish region but also in the Mediterranean and with Greece. Should Turkey keep this up, actions which have drawn the attention of US allies Brittan and France, the US will be forced to engage. Additionally, should Iran increase its activities a Trump administration will need to show the flag. This again is only a Trump administration; Biden will likely do nothing to halt Iranian aggression.
American policy will continue to support Baghdad. American policy remains locked in the belief of “One Iraq.” This has been true since the Bush administration and will continue through any American administration. While many in the congress give lip service to the concept of an independent Kurdistan it is unlikely that support will rise to the point that policy will change. Trumps support to Turkey’s President Erdogan is well established, however many in congress and in both the State and Defense departments are counselling a different approach including Sec. State Pompeo.
The biggest impact this election will have will be in the United States. While it is true that all elections impact the country in which they are held, the difference in the two candidates and their respective parties as well as the increasing division within the US will likely cause a seismic tremor regardless of outcome. The American media has made much about their claim that Trump will not accept the outcome if he loses, something that has never come from Trump, but considering the way the election is being conducted it is doubtful that Biden and his team will readily concede.
From an international perspective should the election not be decided at the ballot box it will have a severe impact on the world economy. Wall Street and other major markets abhor uncertainty, and this will reflect in any problem with the election. This will not be the same as the 2000 Bush-Gore election toss up since at this time both sides have staked a claim of voter fraud against the other. There is also a very good possibility that there will be a repeat of 2016 where Trump will win the electoral collage but lose the popular vote. Should this happen there is a great likelihood of violence in the streets of America by extreme left-wing radicals. At this point Turkey, Iran and Russia could take advantage of a perceived power vacuum and move to consolidate power in what they consider their rightful territories.
In conclusion we must anticipate a longer then usual period before results are released. Trump is trended toward re-election, but the race is in fact at this point tied. A Trump victory will result in a status quo while a Biden victory will result in a return to a weakened US position in the world.
Chiman Zebari is a Kurdish-American author, and human rights activist. She was an analyst for the US Intelligence Community. She has also worked for the US government in other capacities and was a broadcaster for Voice of America.
Paul Davis is a retired Military-Political analyst for the US Army and was a civilian analyst in the US Intelligence Community with a concentration on the middle east with an emphasis on the Kurds. He is currently an Adjunct Professor at the Institute of World Politics in Washington DC.
pleasethink1 