Jon Huntsman - Foreign Policy
Fox News / Google Debate
On September 22, 2011 Governor Huntsman participated in the Fox News / Google debate. He spoke about US foreign policy and stated that the best policy for the US abroad is to be strong at home.
KELLY: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: Just one issue. I just want to respond to my friend, Rick Santorum, here. Is the microphone working?
BAIER: It is.
HUNTSMAN: Thank you. We do have a difference of opinion here in terms of overall foreign policy. And I think, you know, as the only one on stage with any hands-on foreign policy experience, having served -- having lived overseas four different times, we're at a critical juncture in our country. We don't have a foreign policy, and we don't project the goodness of this country in terms of liberty, democracy, open markets, and human rights, with a weak core.
And right now in this country, our core, our economy, is broken.
And we don't shine that light today. We're 25 percent of the world's GDP. The world is a better place when the United States is strong. So guiding anything that we talk about from a foreign policy standpoint needs to be fixing our core.
But, second of all, I believe that, you know, after 10 years of fighting the war on terror, people are ready to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, Rick.
(APPLAUSE)
They're ready to bring our troops home. This country -- this country has given its all.
KELLY: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: What remains behind, some element to collect intelligence, special forces capability, and we're going to have to do that in every corner of the world. But we need to fix this core and get serious about what the rest of the 21st century holds for this country.
South New Hampshire University Speech
On October 10, 2011 Governor Huntsman spoke at South New Hampshire University and outlined his foreign policy plan. He noted a 5 point plan and stated that the world is a better place when America leads.
- Fix our core - solve the debt and the US economy
- Expansion vs containment - Expand free trade policies
- Right-Size our entaglements - Lower the number of troops is Afghanistan and other areas
- Take care of our own neighborhood - Focus on the Americas and our neighbors
- Maintain a better military which is better suited for the modern threat
2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
The world is a better place when America leads. Our own interests are best served when we lead. American exceptionalism is not only about who we are as a people – but it also speaks to how the United States alone is positioned in the world to promote freedom, democracy, human rights, wealth creation, and security. It is a role we should not shrink from, but rather embrace.
Our goal as a nation should be to sustain our pre-eminence as a force for good.
We are of diminishing value to the world if we are a country in decline. Our ability to sustain this leadership role, for which so many around the globe rely on us, relates to the choices we make – or do not make – from this point forward.
Our greatest challenge at this critical juncture does not emanate from overseas from peer competitors, extremist non-state groups, or from determined insurgents fighting their resident governments. Rather, our greatest challenge is to ensure we have the strength, the resources and the wherewithal to compete. We must rebuild our core strength at home so that we can continue to be the force for good around the world.
Key Priorities:
Rebuild our core: To be good abroad, we must be great at home. America's competitive advantages are impermanent and can be squandered if we are not wise in the management of our resources and in choosing when and where to exercise our power. Through dramatic overhaul of our tax system and aggressive regulatory reform, we can once again unleash our creative class and give the American entrepreneur the chance to succeed.
Aggressive promotion of trade liberalization: As the largest and most globally connected economy in the world, the United States is in a unique position to lead the advancement of international trade. The American economy is currently positioned to benefit tremendously from the opening of overseas markets and consumers to quality American goods and services. If we do not take the lead in defining the future of trade, our competitors will, placing us at a huge disadvantage.
Getting strategic power relationships right: The international environment is rapidly changing, and the foundation for United States foreign policy should remain rooted in our traditional alliances. But we must also craft wise policies with respect to the new great powers. India can be a more valued strategic partner to the United States, and a better and more effective approach to the China relationship is also needed.
Taking care of our own neighborhood: For too long the United States has fallen short in its engagement and commitments to the countries right here in our own backyard. The result is lost opportunities, strained relations, and escalating security challenges. Not only is Latin America our geographic neighbor with whom we share a rich history, it is also a huge source of untapped economic potential. Promoting peace and prosperity in our neighborhood, promotes peace and prosperity at home.
Creating a modern defense and military: Maintaining the best military will not simply be a function of spending the most. Staying on top will increasingly depend on our willingness to adapt to the realities of the security environment in the 21st century, and prioritizing correctly to structure our armed forces to meet current and future threats – including asymmetrical threats. Transformation of our forces is required to be prepared for future wars, and to better orient for a Pacific-centric century.
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
Rebuilding Our Core
The world needs American leadership now more than ever yet we are struggling to provide it. Too many Americans are out of work. We have a debt crisis affecting our national strength and we have an outdated tax and regulatory system that is strangling our economy.
It is time to compete. Rebuilding our core requires a sober-minded assessment of our global commitments. The great men and women of our armed forces should be proud of what has been accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan. We still live in a dangerous world, and events may be thrust upon us where we must act to protect our vital national interests.
We also need a foreign policy based on expansion—the expansion of America's competitiveness and engagement in the world through partnerships and trade agreements.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Nation building at home: Rather than focusing on nation-building abroad, we need to rebuild our core here at home. Our nation's core is weak. And America cannot project power abroad, and inspire the world as a beacon of freedom, democracy and prosperity, until we strengthen our economy.
Economic Plan: The strength of our economy is every bit as important as the strength of our military if we are to remain a global leader in the 21st century. We need a modern tax system that incentivizes our creative class; we must pursue robust regulatory reform so entrepreneurs can take prudent risks; and we must reduce debt so that we have the resources to invest in our future, and not be dragged down by our profligate spending
Let's bring our troops home: After over a decade of war, it’s time for us to take measure of where we are and appreciate what we’ve achieved. We need an exit strategy that leaves us stronger, not weaker, more secure not less, and gives the Afghanis and the Iraqis a chance to make their own way
Expansion of free trade: Free trade supports nearly 18 million American jobs, and establishing new lines of trade with international partners represents an enormous well of untapped economic and political goodwill. 95 percent of the world's customers live outside our borders, yet the United States is party to only 17 of the more than 300 trade agreements worldwide.
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
Aggressive Promotion of Trade Liberalization
As the world's largest economy and exporter, the United States can play a central role in defining the rhythm of the world's marketplace – but only if we are proactive. Our choices are stark – the United States can lead, follow, or get out of the way. And currently, we're just not in the trade game.
The countries that lead in defining the new trading system will be the countries that benefit the most. If we don't assume the mantle of leadership, our economy will be relegated to competing in a marketplace defined by our competitors.
95 % of the world's consumers live beyond our borders. People around the world still want American goods and services if they can afford them and if they are accessible. We need to work aggressively to get our products into the global marketplace where our quality and excellence will be rewarded through more sales. The strength of the "Made in America" brand is every bit as important as the strength of our military in the 21st century.
Some of the world's largest economies and some of our biggest trading partners remain outside our efforts to liberalize trade. And major multi-lateral negotiations have stalled as a result of poor leadership and weak advocacy from the United States and other major economies.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Lead successful conclusion of Doha Round: : The United States should urge completion of the Doha multi-lateral negotiations, aimed at lowering trade barriers around the world and promoting free trade between nations of varying prosperity, which will be beneficial to both developed and developing nations.
Conclude outstanding Free Trade Agreements: Congress should immediately approve the bilateral free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which could boost exports by more than $10 billion and create tens of thousands of jobs.
Conclude Trans-Pacific Partnership: The United States should drive trade negotiations with TPP partners toward successful conclusion and seek to have the agreement ratified in the Congress.
Aggressively pursue new bilateral FTAs: The United States should immediately initiate bilateral negotiations with Japan, India, Taiwan and Brazil, with the goal of concluding new free trade agreements with each.
Open for business: The United States should have an open door and an open mind to countries that seek to liberalize bilateral trade with us, or any blocs of countries that wish to pursue multi-lateral trade liberalization.
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
Wise Management of Great Power Relationships
The international environment is rapidly changing. While it is unlikely that any single nation will supplant the United States as the premier power in the world, it is nonetheless true that the international system is witnessing the emergence of new powers that will grow increasingly consequential over time. The foundation for United States foreign policy should remain rooted in our traditional alliances. But we must also craft wise policies with respect to the new great powers such as India and China.
India can be a more valued strategic partner to the United States. Our two countries are bound by a set of shared values and common interests: religious tolerance, respect for human rights, and a commitment to democracy. Yet it is a relationship that has yet to reach its full potential. Our relationship can be strengthened in the economic, diplomatic and security realms.
A better and more effective approach to the China relationship is also needed. There is no other relationship in the world that, if mismanaged, carries greater negative consequences. Likewise, wise stewardship of the relationship will make the United States and our allies safer, wealthier, and more confident about global stability in the future.
We will increasingly compete with China as we go forward. Healthy competition that drives us to improve ourselves is welcomed. But China policy can't be a product of wishful thinking and faulty assumptions. China's economic competitiveness is overly reliant on unfair practices such as manipulation of currency value, weak protection of intellectual property rights, corporate espionage, cyber intrusions and outright theft of technology. The United States can benefit in the future from an economically successful China. But today our economic relationship is a mixed bag, with too many American jobs falling victim to China's predatory activities.
While continuing to hedge with our Asian allies, we should also have a roadmap pointing toward a more collaborative, productive relationship.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
India: The United States should make the relationship a priority and ensure our strategic partnership reaches its full potential. This includes
- Launching negotiations to conclude a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with India
- Supporting India's bid to be a member of the Permanent Security Council of the United Nations, as is fitting a country representing one-sixth of humanity
- Increasing military and diplomatic cooperation with India and looking toward sharing regional responsibilities for maintaining peace and security.
China: We will increasingly compete with China as we go forward; the United States should have a policy with the appropriate mix of engagement and hedging. This includes:
- Engaging China from a position of strength – both core strength at home, and the strength that comes from standing with stalwart allies such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea
- Insisting that the economic playing field is leveled; China's unfair practices cost American jobs and we must be prepared to act to protect our economy
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
Taking Care of Our Own Neighborhood
For too long the United States has fallen short in its engagement and commitments to the countries right here in our own backyard. The result is lost opportunities, strained relations, and escalating challenges that pose serious concerns in the areas of security and rule of law.
Latin America presents a huge source of untapped economic potential. Latin America is one of the fastest growing regional trade partners for the U.S., and is the fastest growing export market, with the U.S. exporting three times as much to Latin America as to China.
Latin America is also a key component and partner in protecting and preserving our national security interests. Increased violence in the region can and will spill over our borders if it is not contained.
Mexico is dealing with a surge of violence, and Guatemala is on the verge of being an accomplice to region-wide narco-criminal activity. Latin America is also home to success stories such as Colombia, and to emerging powers such as Brazil. Our policies must be deft enough to deal with all countries.
Cuba presents special challenges to the United States and to the region. The next President of the United States may have an opportunity to dramatically reshape Cuba policy as the Castro Regime is likely to end. Until that time, stiff sanctions are appropriate for a regime that represses its people, supports terrorism, and attempts to export revolution in our own backyard.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Focus on our own backyard: Overall, our own region needs more attention from Washington. We need a better investment climate, more directed capacity building efforts with countries that want to make the right choices, and greater commitment to the development of political institutions and civil societies. America cannot be safe as long as we need to keep one eye open for the next failed state to appear in our near abroad. We must never forget that promoting peace and prosperity in our neighborhood, promotes peace and prosperity at home.
Apply "Colombia" model to other troubled states: The United States should seek to build institutional capacities in troubled countries such as Mexico and Guatemala for comprehensive solutions to their internal security challenges.
New opportunities, new partnerships: Brazil is the world's 5th largest country and the 7th largest economy. America cannot continue to neglect the potential that a stronger partnership with Brazil can yield. From renewable energy and environmental issues to a strong technological and industrial sector, Brazil is rich with opportunity for partnership and collaboration.
Prepare for change in Cuba: We are right to keep sanctions and keep pressure on the regime as long as the Castro brothers are in control. Yet we should be prepared for political transition in Cuba, and align ourselves with the Cuban people who yearn for freedom, democracy and opportunity.
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
Creating a Modern Defense and Military
Sustaining America's leadership position in the world requires we continue to maintain the world's most capable military. But being the best will not simply be a function of spending the most. Staying on top will increasingly depend on our willingness to adapt to the realities of the security environment in the 21st century, and prioritizing the right way with respect to the future of our armed forces.
Transformation of our forces is required in at least two senses of the term. First, we must transform our force structure and its associated capabilities. The traditional roles and missions of our armed forces will remain relevant for the foreseeable future – but the relative importance of counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering, training and equipping foreign security forces, and special forces operations will all continue to grow going forward.
We must also transform our posture and orientation. By almost any objective measure – whether by population, size of economies, size of militaries, or energy use – the center of gravity of human activity is moving toward the Asia-Pacific. We live in the Pacific Century. Our foreign policy, and indeed our defense posture must reflect this.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Invest in force structure appropriate for the future: We must equip our military, intelligence community and special forces for counter-terrorism, and for fighting the nation's wars when our core interests are at stake.
Prepare to fight determined foes across all domains of warfare and the new battlespace: The United States must be prepared to deal with our enemies who may apply cheaper, asymmetrical approaches to the battle. Our military and defense establishment must be effective in the cyber sphere and we must be able to handle the increasingly lethal and accurate ballistic and cruise missiles being acquired by many of our potential foes.
"Right Sizing" our force: There is little doubt our military will be asked to perform its global mission with less resources under the next President. We must make sober-minded, strategic decisions about what capabilities are required to secure our interest and to protect America going forward.
A Pacific force for a Pacific century: A Pacific orientation may bring a dramatic change to "the look" of our military. The Asia Pacific is a maritime theater whereas Europe was mostly a land theater. It is a region full of disputed islands, maritime borders, and resource claims when compared to the relative calm of other regions. The United States is a Pacific nation with vital interests tied to the region that cannot be compromised for the sake of additional defense savings. Losing presence and/or capabilities in the Asia Pacific are the wrong trade-offs to make as we approach the tough decisions about our future defense spending.
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
Europe, NATO, Russia and Central Asia
Europe
Europe today is experiencing its most significant and existential challenge since the Second World War: the European sovereign debt crisis. This crisis is profoundly changing vital European and transatlantic institutions, such as the European Union and NATO, and perhaps more disturbingly, European politics, as we witness the rise of populist, nationalist, xenophobic and extremist parties across Europe.
Europe’s chronic debt crisis has caused paralysis in its financial system. For many years, financial institutions were encouraged by European regulators to hold huge amounts of European government debt as if they poised zero to little risk. Based on these flawed assumptions, the prolonging of the sovereign debt and banking crises in Europe has fueled a slow-motion economic collapse with important implications for the American and global economy and banking system. This is THE story for the transatlantic relationship’s future … and the Obama Administration has been largely absent from the discussion despite rhetoric that Europe forms the cornerstone of American global engagement.
With little resolution of the crisis in sight and in anticipation of years of anemic economic and debt hangover, America’s closest ally, friend and partner will be unable to support U.S. foreign and security policies in Afghanistan, or the Middle East or Africa. U.S. policy must anticipate this eventuality.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Strengthening the Transatlantic Partnership: The United States must remain committed to its traditional alliances, most notable among them the transatlantic partnership with Western Europe. In the rapidly changing security environment, the mutual security and prosperity of both sides depends on the strength and resolve of the relationship.
Spur Economic Growth: Global leadership depends on improving the economic trajectories of both sides. As each other’s largest trade and investment partners, the economies are inextricably linked to one another’s economic and fiscal policies. Together both sides should look to ignite courageous economic growth agendas (e.g. reduce non-tariff barriers, increase regulatory convergence etc…). Another credit tightening would squeeze small businesses in Europe and America.
Sovereign Debt Crisis: European economies will not improve until credibility and confidence is restored in the financial sector. Encourage Europe to develop a plausible solution to preserve the Euro. The half-measures enacted over the last 18 months are insufficient to stave off the crisis. It is no longer a question of whether but when Greece will default on its government debt.
Global Security: Continue joint efforts to confront Islamic terrorism and destroy al-Qaeda; seek more effective ways to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
NATO
Never has there been a time when NATO has been so globally active and engaged: Afghanistan (ISAF), Libya (Operation Unified Protector), anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia (Operation Atlanta), Kosovo (KFOR), and the Iraq training mission. Our ability to deploy and fight with our European Allies is a vital national interest.
Yet never has there been a time when the Alliance has been so out-of-balance with the U.S. providing approximately 75% of the defense resources and capabilities, while the remaining 28 allies provide the remaining 25% (of which 3 allies: the UK, France and Germany represent the majority of that 25% and all three countries are reducing their defense spending).
President Obama is also squandering decades of strong American leadership in this important Alliance. He alienated nearly every Central European ally by bungling his realignment of longstanding U.S. efforts to build a transatlantic missile defense system. And in Libya, in an unprecedented act, the President imposed caveats on the use of U.S. forces. It complicates the mission, and the U.S. has consistently condemned this practice until President Obama’s action. Now this practice has been given harmful legitimacy.
NATO operations in Libya showed both the promise of NATO – an Alliance that could swiftly take action in the wake of a UN Security Council resolution with positive affect – and its political and military hollowing over the past decade. The Alliance quickly ran out of precision-guided munitions (PGMs), aircraft and was unable to sustain military operations without the U.S. Many European allies did not support the operation.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Rebalance NATO: The May 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago (the first time a NATO Summit will be held outside of Washington in the U.S.) will be a critical moment to return balance to the NATO military relationship. NATO’s global agenda should be reduced with a return to core collective defense competencies and NATO’s role as the most important transatlantic consultative forum should be renewed and deepened. Let’s put the political back into the political-military alliance.
Afghanistan Drawdown: NATO and the U.S. must ensure a responsible drawdown from Afghanistan and show unity of effort.
Never Choose Leading from Behind: The President’s decision to commit U.S. forces in NATO’s operation against Qaddafi was a mistake – but equally troublesome was how he committed those forces. His decision “to lead from behind” contradicts every principle associated with leadership. Leading from behind is an arrogant dismissal of our Allies’ efforts. This unfortunate phrase not only communicated ambivalent commitment to Libya’s rebels, it reinforced European fears that America no longer sees Europe as central to our vital interests.
Russia
The Obama Administration’s Russia Reset policy is a bad approach because it rests on a foundation of falsehoods. It’s a Potemkin policy. Working with Russia to develop a more cooperative relationship is needed, but we should not make that relationship one that mirrors a Potemkin village in which we pretend the Kremlin is more of a partner than it is, more of a democracy than it is, more respectful of human rights than it is, and less threatening to its neighbors than it is. When we do that, as President Obama has done, we are undercutting those in Russia who see a democratic future for their country. We communicate tolerance for its hegemonic policies including toward Georgia (which it still occupies) and Ukraine. We undercut our criticism of despots elsewhere in the world.
We can nonetheless find productive ways to work with Russia if we view the relationship with more objective eyes. A global agenda for the U.S.-Russian relationship can be successful because we can focus on issues that leverage Russian power: arms control, Iran (UNSC) and America’s need in Afghanistan.
The December 2011 Russian parliamentarian elections and the March 2012 presidential elections will be a pivotal moment. Russia stands at an economic and political crossroads: stagnation (and potential fragmentation) or modernization. In some ways the choice of Putin or Medvedev matters less; the choice of Russia’s future orientation is the most critical.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Rule of law and democracy – a values-based agenda: The progress with Russia on the post-Soviet space (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) and rule of law and democracy have been non-existent. Our Allies in Central Europe remain concerned about Russia’s future and what impact it will have on their security. It’s time to rebalance the agenda and repurpose the relationship toward a values-based agenda.
Missile defense: The European missile defense architecture (the Phased Adaptive Approach) will remain the thorn in the side of the U.S.-Russian relationship and the NATO-Russian relationship leading into both the Russian elections and the upcoming NATO Summit. This could potentially be used as an electoral issue with the potential that Russia may signal its intent to either suspend the new START Treaty or place Iskander ballistic missiles in strategic locations (e.g., Kaliningrad). The U.S. must be prepared for this worst-case scenario and back our Central European partners (Romania, Poland) who continue to support U.S. missile defense policy.
Reset the reset policy: Do not skirt the realities of this complex and important relationship through a Potemkin Reset, but rather through a policy that directly addresses the hard realities of the Kremlin’s policies toward its own peoples, its neighbors and our interests.
Central Asia
The five Central Asian states are seeking policy alternatives to heavy-handed Russian energy and political tactics and preparing for the influx of both Islamic militants and opium in the Fergana Valley when U.S. forces depart Afghanistan. Turkmenistan has found an energy alternative in China; Kazakhstan has benefitted from the Caspian Pipeline Consortium and western investment. However, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have found few alternatives to Russian political and military influence as these countries are rocked by political instability (to lesser extent in Uzbekistan which is a dictatorship).
Many neighboring countries are behaving as though there is a return of the “great game” between competing outside powers such as China, Russia and the United States. But if there is a competition underway, we are not fully engaged. Our policy has become myopic and only concerns Afghanistan. We have much more to bring to the table, and we in return can benefit from more robust relations with this region given smart investment.
Jon Huntsman Priorities:
Rebalance the emphasis on security: U.S. engagement in Central Asia must be rebalanced from a complete focus on maintaining access to resupply American and NATO forces in Afghanistan (Manas AFB, Northern Distribution Network) to a more broad-based engagement that encourages policy alternatives politically and economically, while increasing counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics and energy-security support in post-2014 Afghanistan.
Human rights: The U.S. needs to be consistent with its human rights policy and not have double standards like in Kyrgyzstan. To secure access to Manas AFB, the Obama administration has been very light on the Bakiyev regime’s human rights record.
RENEWING AMERICA'S LEADERSHIP IN THE WORLD
Middle East
The Middle East is a region of vital importance to the United States. Many of America’s strategic interests, including combating terrorism, curtailing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, enhancing American energy security, and meeting the challenges posed by an increasingly dangerous and hostile Iran, are directly tied to the region.
Arab Spring
The Egyptians, Libyans, and Tunisians are to be commended for throwing off the yoke of authoritarian rule they have endured for decades. America now watches with great expectation as their Syrian brethren challenge Bashar Al-Assad’s brutal regime.
Yet, we should be cautious in our optimism about the future of such societies. History teaches that revolution does not, of its own force, ensure the emergence of functional democracy, and, for societies with little history of grassroots self-organization, the path to democratic governance will not be easy and will require the continued resolve of these populaces as well as the support of their interim governments.
U.S. policy toward these nations should support the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring while maintaining continued Middle East stability. Ultimately, however, Americans should recognize the limitations on the United States’ ability to influence the final outcome in these societies, and U.S. policymakers should anticipate a variety of outcomes in these countries, including the possibility of the emergence of governments that are less receptive to U.S. interests than might be hoped, and plan for such contingencies accordingly.
Israel
The United States and Israel share a special bond rooted in history and solidified over more than five decades of partnership. Israel is an ally, a fellow democracy, and shares many of America’s values and interests. Unfortunately, the U.S.-Israeli relationship has suffered under mismanagement by President Obama and both nations must now work to improve ties.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the greatest foreign policy obstacles confronting the United States. The United States should redouble its efforts to broker a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Yet, we must ensure that our efforts to achieve such outcome are consistent with Israel’s security interests.
Egypt
Egypt has been a stalwart partner to the United States through its role in combating terrorism and supporting a stable Middle East, and the United States should maintain its policy of aid to Egypt. The United States should support an orderly transition to democratic government managed by the interim military-backed government, which offers the greatest protection against the emergence of a radical Islamic government in that country. That said, recent developments give reason for pause. The Egyptian military’s limited and delayed role in protecting the Israeli embassy, for instance, is cause for concern. Thus, as conditions in the country further develop, the United States should reassess and alter, as necessary, aid commitments to facilitate to the greatest extent possible 1) governmental reforms that guarantee fundamental rights and protections for the Egyptian citizenry necessary for sustainable democratic governance and 2) Egypt’s continued peaceful relations with Israel.
Iran
Iran poses a strategic challenge to the United States. In Iraq, Iran has worked to subvert progress toward stable, democratic rule and is responsible for the deaths of numerous American soldiers there. Iran has dealt ruthlessly with its citizens who have called for reform and continues to destabilize the Middle East through its support for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. Iran poses a significant threat to Israel and continues to develop its nuclear capabilities in defiance of the international community.
Middle East peace and stability will not be realized unless there is a fundamental change to the trajectory of Iran’s rise. A nuclear-armed Iran poses unacceptable risks to American interests. Robust sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and military deterrence must be continued in the near-term. However, the status quo must not be sustained over a longer period of time, lest the Iranian regime develop nuclear weapons capabilities as the international community stands by. The United States must work in partnership with serious members of the international community to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.
Syria
Like Iran, Syria has worked to subvert progress toward stable, democratic governance in Iraq and threatens both Israel and broader regional stability through its support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Syria continues to manipulate Lebanese politics in a manner that is both destabilizing for the region and that threatens Israel’s security interests. In partnership, Syria and Iran play the single greatest role in preventing Middle East peace and stability. While American engagement in Libyan uprising did not serve any major U.S. strategic interests, for the reasons articulated here, the United States should prepare to play a role, if necessary, in supporting Syrians’ aspirations for self-rule.