US Foreign Policy During the Biden Administration

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 32 comments
  • 1,108 views

Dotini

Premium
15,091
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
This thread is intended to cover breaking news, strategy and tactics of US foreign policy during the next administration, hopefully with much (but not all) attention on Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and terror organizations. For my first contribution, I'd like to start off with North Korea. As we go along, I will touch on each.

Key appointments such as Secretary of State will be posted.

How Biden is likely to react to North Korea
On Dec. 7, 2013, then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, center, visits Observation Post Ouellette inside the Demilitarized Zone, which has separated the two Koreas since the Korean War

Lee Jin-man—AP
Analysts say that once Biden takes office in January, he is likely to take a far more conventional approach to relations with North Korea than his predecessor—who famously eschewed formal diplomatic channels and instead put his faith in his personal relationship with Kim.

“I strongly suspect the Biden Administration’s approach on North Korea will rely on pressure and sanctions to raise the cost to North Korea of its nuclear and missile programs,” Revere says.

Having served as Vice President from 2008 to 2016 under Barack Obama, Biden comes into office familiar with the North Korea question. The Obama Administration took a starkly different approach to Pyongyang than the outgoing Trump administration did, refraining from any high-level dialogue as part of a policy dubbed “strategic patience.”

The core of the policy was waiting for international sanctions to cut off North Korea’s sources of outside revenue, eventually forcing Pyongyang to take verifiable steps toward denuclearization as a way of winning sanctions relief and gaining access to the international trade system.

The policy achieved none of its objectives, however, as North Korea expanded its nuclear capability throughout Obama’s term. South Korea’s Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha has said she expects a Biden Administration to formulate a new policy.

If North Korea resorts to provocation, Biden is likely to shut down any chance of talks, says Clint Work, a security fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington D.C. “Biden is not inclined to give Pyongyang the benefit of the doubt, nor are those who advise him,” he says.

https://time.com/5910016/north-korea-joe-biden/
 
Last edited:

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,499
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
I wonder what insane justification they're going to use for supposedly working with Joe...
 
Last edited:

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,407
United States
Anoka, MN
RokkitShipp
I wonder what insane justification they're going to use for supposedly working with Joe...

Benjamin Franklin.

MW-HT282_dollar_20191014195738_ZQ.jpg
 
12,065
Australia
Melbourne
Neomone/GTP_Imari
As long as America continues to be a threat, NK is never going to give up their nukes as they see them as a critical defence tool. And clearly they're not exactly wrong. I think the best that can be done is continue to isolate them and offer incentives to back down and become a greater part of the international community.

Eventually NK will fall apart. It sucks about all the innocent North Koreans that have to suffer in the meantime, but I think that we've seen from Iraq and Afghanistan that regime change at the point of a gun isn't exactly without it's costs either.
 

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,407
United States
Anoka, MN
RokkitShipp
Their base will be pissed.

For some reason I don't see the MAGA, Law & Order at all costs, America 🤬 Yeah!!! crowd being against a war no matter what party got us involved.
 
12,065
Australia
Melbourne
Neomone/GTP_Imari
For some reason I don't see the MAGA, Law & Order at all costs, America 🤬 Yeah!!! crowd being against a war no matter what party got us involved.

I dunno, it sort of feels like they'd light themselves on fire if they thought it would own some of those commie libtards.
 
119
United States
Upstate New York
longshot1314
I worry that Venezuela, Syria and Iran could be back on the table once we clear COVID. No change to Saudi Arabia and backing the genocide in Yemen. No pulling out troops from Iraq or Afghanistan. Given how much the MSM doubled their efforts on attacking anyone who spoke out as being anti-war (Tulsi, Bernie, Trump when he's tried to pull out of Syria or Iraq) I get the feeling that we're going back to the usual regime change wars and endless conflicts.
 

Northstar

The Original Party Worm
Premium
23,407
United States
Anoka, MN
RokkitShipp
I dunno, it sort of feels like they'd light themselves on fire if they thought it would own some of those commie libtards.

I feel you underestimate just how much Trump supporters lionize the military. To say the military shouldn't be doing something is sacrilegious, just look at how many supported the tactics used during the recent protests for a good example.
 
Last edited:
8,817
United States
Marin County
I worry that Venezuela, Syria and Iran could be back on the table once we clear COVID. No change to Saudi Arabia and backing the genocide in Yemen. No pulling out troops from Iraq or Afghanistan. Given how much the MSM doubled their efforts on attacking anyone who spoke out as being anti-war (Tulsi, Bernie, Trump when he's tried to pull out of Syria or Iraq) I get the feeling that we're going back to the usual regime change wars and endless conflicts.

It's not that I don't worry about it, but I don't see it in the cards for Venezuela or Iran under a Biden administration (unless the Ayatollah does something monumentally stupid). Syria is more plausible under the guise of humanitarianism.
 

Blitz24

Chromalusion Member
Premium
16,480
United States
NJ/USA
Blitzbay
Blitzbay
It's not that I don't worry about it, but I don't see it in the cards for Venezuela or Iran under a Biden administration (unless the Ayatollah does something monumentally stupid). Syria is more plausible under the guise of humanitarianism.
Or if the Ayatollah makes large concessions in order to get relief from COVID. Iran is not going to cut back on nuclear production so it might be a tricky dance to do anything with them.
 

GranTurNismo

Resident Car Nerd
Premium
2,838
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
No change to Saudi Arabia and backing the genocide in Yemen.
Nothing infuriates me more about the US's disastrous foreign policy than this. The US needs to fully denounce Saudi Arabia and stop being allies with them, but I know that this will never happen. Not until we elect a true progressive, antiwar candidate at least. Isn't it ironic how the US, a nation supposedly built on freedom, liberty, and equality of opportunity, supports an authoritarian, monarchial theocracy where women virtually have zero rights and LGBTQ individuals are imprisoned and publicly shamed. Any reasonable person could see that SA is completely antithetical to the values of the US. But, the US supports 74% of the world's dictatorships, so sadly not surprising. I guess it helps that the most pro-Saudi president in history will be leaving, but I don't expect Biden to do anything to hold them accountable. Especially since he's considering neocons as secretary of state, defense, and UN heads. I cannot stress enough how brutal Yemeni genocide and famine really is.
Given how much the MSM doubled their efforts on attacking anyone who spoke out as being anti-war (Tulsi, Bernie, Trump when he's tried to pull out of Syria or Iraq) I get the feeling that we're going back to the usual regime change wars and endless conflicts.
Which is why it's important to call it the military-industrial-media-complex. It is critical to understand the media's role in the US going to war. The MSM on both political sides has always been in favor of war and tries to characterize antiwar voices as "crazy", "wrong", or even "un-American". CNN and MSNBC loved to smear Tulsi Gabbard as an Assad lover for her strong antiwar message and a quote taken wildly out of context. Because it's not like defense contractors fund the MSM. Don't you think there's a reason why the MSM rarely ever covers the US-backed Yemeni genocide, the worst humanitarian crisis currently going on in the world?
 
Last edited:

TenEightyOne

I'm Slow, But I'm Wide!
Premium
20,678
TenEightyOne
TenEightyOne
Don't you think there's a reason why the MSM rarely ever covers the US-backed Yemeni genocide, the worst humanitarian crisis currently going on in the world?

This is incorrect, the ongoing conflict continues to be reported and requests for aid continue to be made. There has been larger "local" news in 2020, of course, and it's natural that a parochial element will take over news feeds in times of crisis. If that's your evidence for an "MSM" "pro-war" agenda then you may need a re-think.
 

GranTurNismo

Resident Car Nerd
Premium
2,838
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
This is incorrect, the ongoing conflict continues to be reported and requests for aid continue to be made. There has been larger "local" news in 2020, of course, and it's natural that a parochial element will take over news feeds in times of crisis. If that's your evidence for an "MSM" "pro-war" agenda then you may need a re-think.
The media will mention it from time to time, but neglect to point out the causes of the genocide and what the US role in it is. MSM may not be explicitly "pro-war" but it's undoubtable that it makes a conscious effort to make the public feel favorable towards war and is virtually never anti-war. Look at how CNN, MSNBC, and Fox covered the events leading up to the Iraq war.
 
Last edited:

Joey D

Swedespeed
Premium
44,163
United States
Holladay, UT
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
Nothing infuriates me more about the US's disastrous foreign policy than this. The US needs to fully denounce Saudi Arabia and stop being allies with them, but I know that this will never happen. Not until we elect a true progressive, antiwar candidate at least. Isn't it ironic how the US, a nation supposedly built on freedom, liberty, and equality of opportunity, supports an authoritarian, monarchial theocracy where women virtually have zero rights and LGBTQ individuals are imprisoned and publicly shamed. Any reasonable person could see that SA is completely antithetical to the values of the US. But, the US supports 74% of the world's dictatorships, so sadly not surprising. I guess it helps that the most pro-Saudi president in history will be leaving, but I don't expect Biden to do anything to hold them accountable. Especially since he's considering neocons as secretary of state, defense, and UN heads. I cannot stress enough how brutal Yemeni genocide and famine really is.

What puzzles me, even more, is that 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi as was bin Laden himself. There are ties to Al-Qaeda within Saudi Arabia too. While a vast majority of Saudis aren't terrorists by any means, I don't believe for an instance that the government isn't involved with terrorism on some level, even if they just simply ignore what's going on. And there's the whole Yemani genocide thing too that you point out, but the US overlooks that while seeming to care about other genocides whenever we see fit.

I don't think the US should support any Middle Eastern county outside maybe Turkey since it's part of NATO. I don't even agree with the support of Israel since I think all it does is make things worse for the US and continue to destabilize an already destabilized region.

This is incorrect, the ongoing conflict continues to be reported and requests for aid continue to be made. There has been larger "local" news in 2020, of course, and it's natural that a parochial element will take over news feeds in times of crisis. If that's your evidence for an "MSM" "pro-war" agenda then you may need a re-think.

Not so much in the US. I've seen stories pop up on BBC about it, but I can't recall seeing anything on CNN or Fox News about the conflict outside maybe a blurb or two. I'm sure they've reported on it, but it's not really a big news story here and many Americans have no idea that it's even going on.
 
22,051
United States
Southwest Eastnorthernton
TexRex72
I feel you underestimate just how much Trump supporters lionize the military. To say the military shouldn't be doing something is sacrilegious, just look at how many supported the tactics used during the recent protests for a good example.
Not to argue against the former, as I'm fairly certain it's accurate, but I do think those against whom the military action was was perceived to be employed played a significant role in the latter. The whole situation is so toxic that I'm certain those people not seeking accountability for police forces violating the rights of the people whose rights they're supposed to be protecting is due in no insignificant part to what "side" is calling for that accountability.
 
Last edited:
12,065
Australia
Melbourne
Neomone/GTP_Imari
You know, I was thinking that I wouldn't put it past Trump to drag us into a war as a parting gift. His clinical obsession with Iran seems like it would be the most likely target, and he is clearly thinking about it.

He's so slow. You're supposed to start a war BEFORE the election. Then you get to act like a strong and decisive leader in a time of troubles and you get elected.

He can't even do corruption properly.
 
8,817
United States
Marin County
He's so slow. You're supposed to start a war BEFORE the election. Then you get to act like a strong and decisive leader in a time of troubles and you get elected.

He can't even do corruption properly.

That's conventional. Trump would do it for no other reason than to screw over Biden.
 

GranTurNismo

Resident Car Nerd
Premium
2,838
United States
Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA
Funny how literally just yesterday, Trump tweeted out how John Bolton is one of “the stupidest people in politics” because all he wants is war, yet Trump is now escalating conflicts with Iran.
 

Blitz24

Chromalusion Member
Premium
16,480
United States
NJ/USA
Blitzbay
Blitzbay
That's conventional. Trump would do it for no other reason than to screw over Biden.
Doesn't Congress need to approve any war declarations? I cannot imagine a majority of them would risk their careers for a war declaration from a *checks notes* FORMER president.
 

Dotini

Premium
15,091
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
Doesn't Congress need to approve any war declarations? I cannot imagine a majority of them would risk their careers for a war declaration from a *checks notes* FORMER president.
The Constitution designates Congress with responsibility for declaring war. Sadly, over numerous decades, Congress has abdicated that responsibility to the Executive. According to reports, Trump met with top advisors very recently to consider attack options, probably on Natanz. Reportedly, he has been dissuaded from taking such actions. I hope.

Also unfortunately, he won't be a former president until a new one is sworn in. I always feared he was a loose cannon.
 
Last edited:
12,065
Australia
Melbourne
Neomone/GTP_Imari
Doesn't Congress need to approve any war declarations? I cannot imagine a majority of them would risk their careers for a war declaration from a *checks notes* FORMER president.

I believe so, but that doesn't necessarily preclude Trump from ordering military strikes that would cause Iran to declare war on the US. For example, I don't believe Congress was involved with the direction to assassinate Qasem Soleimani.

It's not hard to think of ways in which Trump could order a strike and instigate a war. The last line of defense would then be the military personnel involved, who might refuse or choose to resign instead of obey an order that would put the country that they've sworn to protect at risk. But that's a really hard call for anyone to make when faced with orders directly from the Commander in Chief, especially if it meant throwing away a career that you've probably spent your whole life building.
 

Keef

Premium
22,506
United States
Dayton, OH
GTP_KeefRacer
GTP Keef
War with Iran would be a disaster, but trusting Saudi Arabia to control the situation would also be a disaster. War with Russia would be a disaster, but trusting Turkey to counter Russia would also be a disaster. War with China over Taiwan would be a disaster, but trusting international law in the face of China's belligerence would also be a disaster.
 

BobK

Premium
6,984
United States
Massachusetts, USA
Doesn't Congress need to approve any war declarations? I cannot imagine a majority of them would risk their careers for a war declaration from a *checks notes* FORMER president.

According to the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. The last time there was a formal declaration of war, however, was 1941. Korea, Vietnam, numerous wars in the middle east. all were done without a declaration and sometimes (Vietnam) with Congressional disapproval, by every President since FDR. The closest thing to a declaration by Congress since WWII is probably the 2002 authorization of the use of military force in Iraq.

In other words, the President and Congress are (again) ignoring the Constitution.