The Stopping Power of Sugar-Water

Cooperation is hard.

A few weeks ago, my wife noticed some hummingbirds flying around a bush near our apartment. Naturally, my first instinct was to wean them off nature’s goodness and get them hooked to the bird feeder I can see outside my window. It didn’t take long. Within a couple days, the hummers had reconnoitered and assaulted my feeder like a swarm of Iranian speedboats. With eight or so birds eating harmoniously, we were going through four cups of sugar-water a day.

Then, earlier this week, they stopped. I could still see them buzzing around the apartment, but they wouldn’t approach the feeder. Since midterms are coming up, I though the best use of my time would be to sit and observe my feeder to see if I could determine why they had suddenly become less hungry.

The answer was easy: there was a bully! A rogue hummingbird that would attack any other hummers that dared approach his feeder (notice, that the bully is male). Naturally, I began to craft a theory on hummingbird relations.

Assumption 1: Hummingbird food is finite (resources are scare).
Assumption 2: Hummingbirds are territorial and don’t react kindly to encroachments of other hummingbirds (defending the homeland is a vital interest)
Assumption 3: Eventually, weaker hummingbirds will stop trying to eat from my feeder (dissuasion).

The Politics of Last Resort

Nothing captures my attention like a submarine-launched Trident ballistic missile, which is probably why ABC chose to include such imagery (along with shots of a very good looking cast) in its trailers for its latest series, Last Resort.

The Skinny
The show is a military drama about an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) that defies orders to launch its nuclear weapons against Pakistan. It’s an intriguing premise with a long lineage – Crimson Tide, the opening scene of War Games, and, in the inverse, Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe. Last Resort’s predecessors have varying degrees of plausibility and until the season premieres on September 27^th, we won’t know what geopolitical circumstances the writers have cooked up to make a strike on Pakistan worthwhile.

An astute student of international relations would pose a number of juicy questions: What redline did Pakistan cross to warrant a nuclear attack? How would Pakistan respond to such an attack by its nominal ally? How would India respond? Or China? Or Russia? Or the rest of the Islamic world?

Is Democratic Failure Foreseeable?

According to American values and the US National Security Strategy (see page 37), the US supports the spread of democracy and has dedicated itself to assisting all new and fragile democracies.  The US has also made it clear that we will support any peoples who are seeking democracy.  This can be explained by American policy maker's general acceptance of the democratic peace theory as factual and effective, resulting in policies that are aimed at assisting democratic development worldwide.  The rhetoric paints a nice picture, but where is the contingency plan for assessing the potential for "backsliding"?  "Backsliding" occurs when a democracy transforms into an autocracy.  While I may not personally support the fervor with which the US advocates for the spread of democracy, if policy makers insist on allocating resources to help opposition movements or facilitate the removal of authoritarian leaders, then it is important to keep a close eye on their development in order to protect our interests.

A Better Plan for Port Security

When asked what it would take to ensure an atomic bomb was not smuggled into Washington, D.C., Dr. Robert Oppenheimer replied: “a screwdriver”—to open every single suitcase in the city.

Nearly eight million shipping containers passed through the Port of Los Angeles last year, making it the busiest seaport in the nation. Accounting for what is inside these containers is no easy task. It should be no surprise that authorities across the nation have been unable to meet Congress’ 2006 mandate of screening each and every one of them for nuclear and radiological material. Is such an endeavor possible or even necessary? The answer is no.

Israel Will Not Attack Iran

For years the world has been listening to Israeli threats to attack Iran as a response to their nuclear program. Going back to 2009, Israel was emphatic that their threat was not a bluff.  Fast-forward three years to more recent months and the same debate is ongoing: will Israel really attack Iran? I’m sorry, but I just don’t see why we are still debating this. Would it be bad for the U.S. if Israel attacked Iran? Undoubtedly. But is the threat of an attack a credible one? I think not. While two of Israel’s leaders, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, may foolishly support an attack on Iran, their individual influence will not result in Israel being irrational as a state.

A recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine by Shai Feldman supports the notion that the debate is over. Feldman claims Israel will not preemptively attack Iran for two reasons: first, Israeli president Shimon Peres publicly spoke against such a strike; and second, a former defense advisor publicly questioned whether Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu were suitable leaders for Israel. Feldman has a solid point and it is likely that he is correct in his conclusion. This should not be surprising to anyone, though. While this argument cites only two individuals in opposition, their voices represent the view that the majority of Israeli’s hold: striking Iran is not beneficial.

The Benefits of Leaking Intelligence

The recently released book chronicling the SEAL Team 6 raid that killed and captured Osama Bin Laden has garnered a lot of controversy of late for its release of sensitive and classified information. Earlier this summer, a similar string of outcries emerged in response to President Obama’s alleged carelessness in handling classified information in cases such as the so-called “kill list” or the use of cyber attacks against Iran. As conventional wisdom would have it, classified intelligence should never be leaked.

In reality, there are circumstances in which leaked intelligence could actually make a country more secure and could help to deter its adversaries. The best way to approach this issue is to ask the question, under what conditions is leaked intelligence harmful to national security? For sure, it is not in every situation.

Go Ahead and Bomb Iran!

In a characteristically awkward public appearance in 2007, Sen. John McCain sang a parody of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann that probably made Kenneth Waltz’s ears bleed, not to mention anyone who likes good music. These days it’s not difficult to find accomplished political commentators arguing for airstrikes, and it is certainly not difficult if one listens to G.O.P. critiques of the defeatist-in-chief, Barack Obama. Surprisingly, however, I’m not all that disturbed by these observations.

Now, anyone who’s ever had a discussion about Iran’s nuclear program with me probably knows that I’m not exactly the Fireman Ed of airstrikes but I’m also not convinced that airstrikes would have the devastating consequences that many proponents of a more diplomatic approach often fear. It doesn’t make much sense to launch a targeted airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities at this time but I’m hesitant to accept that doing so would severely damage US security interests. There’s a simple reason: because the US is so much more powerful than Iran, there’s nothing the Ayatollahs could do to strike back at us in a meaningful way.