Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist and senior analyst, is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author, along with Jacob Mundy, of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press, 2010).
New agreements with India weakens international arms control regime.
The Bush administration, like its predecessors, has frequently taken advantage of the idealism and values of the U.S. citizenry to justify foreign policies that most Americans would otherwise find morally unacceptable.
Even putting aside the many important legal and moral questions about the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, it has been a disaster even on practical terms.
What actually motivated the United States to take on the problematic task of conquering and rebuilding Iraq?
Attacks Against the World Court by Bush, Kerry, and Congress Reveal Growing Bipartisan Hostility to International Law
Indeed, the Bush administration, with strong backing from both parties in Congress, is now engaging in what the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has referred to as the Sharonization of U.S. Policy.
Israelis and Palestinians Attempt to Jumpstart the Peace Process Despite Washington’s Support for Sharon
Attempts at negotiation between Israel and Palestine despite Bush’s efforts
President George W. Bush’s November 6 speech before the National Endowment for Democracy emphasizing the need for greater democracy and freedom in the Arab world, while containing a number of positive aspects, was nevertheless very misleading and all-too characteristic of the longstanding contradictory messages that have plagued U.S. policy in the Middle East.
In what may be the most hopeful development in years to establish a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace, an unofficial group of Palestinian and Israeli political leaders announced on October 12 that they had agreed to a detailed framework that would end t
President George W. Bush’s nationally broadcast speech Sunday evening once again was designed to mislead Congress and the American public into supporting his administration’s policies in Iraq.
It may not be long before a majority of Americans find themselves in agreement with the longstanding critics of the U.S. invasion and occupation.
The growing credibility crisis of the Bush administration with respect to Iraq, as well as the ongoing crisis on the ground in Iraq, provides us with new opportunities.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the intelligence cited by President Bush regarding Iraqi military capabilities in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was neither good, nor solid, nor sound.
Why is it that Washington cannot seem to grasp that that there are more enlightened policy alternatives than the extremes of appeasement and of war?
It is striking that few people are asking whether the U.S. or the rest of the world is safer now as a result of this overwhelming American military victory.
The Bush administration claims against Syria’s involvement in Iraq are off-base.
The Iraqi people certainly have reason to celebrate the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime. But it’s premature for the Bush administration to join in.
ere has been a real fear in recent months that the right-wing government of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon might take advantage of the international focus on the U.S. invasion of Iraq to increase its repression in the occupied Palestinian territories
The reality is that no matter how brutal a dictator may be, people tend to defend their homeland against foreign invaders.
This is why free people in the United States and around the world must work even harder to stop President Bush from invading Iraq.
One would have to go to the annual convention of the John Birch Society to find as many invectives directed against the United Nations as have been spewed out in recent weeks by the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress and in the media