Iran: New Intel...New Policy?

After the news that Iran's covert nuclear weapons program is inactive and has been since 2003, as reported in the NIE yesterday, many are asking: will the Bush administration's aggressive policy and rhetoric towards Iran change?

The New York Times published a couple interesting articles on this subject, see: the foreign policy debate,how the 2005 NIE was so wrong, and Bush's response.

President Bush held a press conference Tuesday and answered several questions on the new findings. It's interesting to see how Bush uses the NIE to support his current policy. Even though the intel community reported with "high confidence" that Iran halted their nuclear weapons program years ago, in direct opposition to the premise for the current foreign policy agenda towards Iran, Bush maintained that the information confirmed his current approach.

With the new intelligence, Bush seemed optimistic that the NIE could help him further his foreign policy objectives concerning Iran, saying:

"To me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community -- continue to rally the community to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program."

Bush spins the report in an effort to make it cohesive with his current approach--illustrating an intimate and difficult relationship between intelligence and policy.

Foreign Policy and National Security

As we approach the end of the course, think back on two familiar quotations:

• “Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce [standing armies]. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.” -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 8.
• "If the Union’s existence were constantly menaced, and if its great interests were continually interwoven with those of other powerful nations, one would see the prestige of the executive growing, because of what was expected from it and of what it did."-- Tocqueville, Democracy in America

JFK taped meetings on the Cuban Missile Crisis. On October 18, he and his advisers discussed the real possibility of nuclear war. (Text of this clip starts here at the bottom of p. 538). In October 1962, JFK discussed the Cuban Missile Crisis on national TV. As you reflect on JFK's decisionmaking, think about Peter Drucker's dictum: “The first rule in decision-making is that one does not make a decision without disagreement.”

A couple of years later, LBJ dealt with the Gulf of Tonkin.

Bad intelligence contributed to the US reaction in the Gulf of Tonkin. It also led to other problems in future decades. One "remedy" has been the reorganization of the intelligence community.

Monetary policy

In speaking today of the presidency and the economy, we discussed how the president doesn't control the Federal Reserve, but their actions affect the economy. Today, stocks surged over the mere speculation that the Fed will cut interest rates. A link to the article is here.

We spoke of how presidents don't control monetary policy, but it does affect them politically. The surge in the stock market won't help Bush, but may help the incumbents party (Republicans).

Economic Policy and the White House

Here are some basic graphs on economic policy, and the special case of aging and Social Security.

Does the executive control where the money goes? No, Congress earmarks money for projects. Here is one example (h/t Charlie Johnson).

The Way to Win is not the Way to Govern

Mark Halperin, coauthor of The Way to Win, writes in The New York Times:

For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.

But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.

As we start the section of the course dealing with policy, we might discuss Halperin's point.

Presidential management of domestic policy requires knowledge of the bureaucratic complexity that we have already discussed. Take civil rights, for instance. It has many dimensions: for FDR, it was a war issue. For LBJ, it involved the FBI and law enforcement. No single agency is "in charge" of civil rights. Instead, various responsibilties belong to (partial list):

• The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department
• The Office for Civil Rights of the Education Department
• The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services
• The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity of HUD
• The Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the Department of Labor
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• The US Commission on Civil Rights

In trying to get hold of the domestic bureaucracy, the president relies heavily on OMB. Policy ideas sometimes come from the Domestic Policy Council.

The "policy streams (Pika 297-302) -- problems, solutions, and politics -- are all part of a broader policy process.

Hollywood Goes to the White House

A threesome:

• V for Vendetta
• C for Cookie
• Ron Paul video

Actors have endorsed presidential candidates. Harry Belafonte backed JFK. Ronald Reagan made a famous speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater.

Actors have run for president. Ronald Reagan usually played good guys, but in his last role, he played a villain. And here are Fred Thompson's greatest hits.

Movies and TV shows portray real and fictional presidents:

• Gore Vidal's Lincoln (1988)
• Primary Colors (1998)
• The West Wing

Movies supply insights into attitudes of their time. Did Americans think about nuclear war in the years after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis? See scenes from two 1964 movies: Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove. Did a conspiracy kill JFK? Most Americans think so. And so Oliver Stone's JFK (1991) found an audience. Though a few years later, Seinfeld had a different take.

Anti-Mormon attacks on Romney

Last Thursday, news broke of anti-mormon calls being made in New Hampshire and Iowa. These were essentially attacks on Romney. Every other campaign has denounced the attacks and denied any involvement. McCain has gone as far as to ask the New Hampshire Attorney General to investigate. The latest speculation is that Romney may be behind the calls so that he can innoculate himself against attacks on his faith (similar to how Kennedy was behind anti-Catholic calls in 1960). An article detailing the possible links to Romney is here.

I'm curious as to the advisability of this tactic (whether it is by Romney or someone else). Presidential elections are open to much scrutiny, so I expect that we will learn who was behind the calls sometime soon. If it was Romney, will this actually help him? Or was it a political miscalculation that will dilute his leads in New Hampshire and Iowa?