OPINION:
America’s foreign policy is broken. Across major theaters, U.S. policy is burdened by deficits between ends and means. Greater participation by regional partners is needed to find solutions that balance what U.S. resources can bear and create opportunities for U.S. business.
In the Middle East, the Biden administration supports a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. To coax Israel into acquiescing, Saudi Arabia and other moderate states have offered peace plans for the Gaza Strip that include diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations.
Israel’s war in Gaza may ultimately destroy most elements of Hamas, but it won’t end terrorist attacks. Iran supports a network of terrorist organizations with weapons and money. Hamas in Gaza, Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and others are all bound by a commitment to destroy Israel and drive America from the Middle East.
No effective security guarantees can be offered to Israel, nor can Red Sea and wider Middle East shipping be secured for commerce without going to the source of the weapons — Iran.
Iran needn’t be invaded to degrade its weapons-making and delivery capacity.
A regional security arrangement and free trade agreement between Israel and Arab states could create economic incentives for those actors to jointly address the Iranian threat, lighten burdens on U.S. forces, and support the spread of American investment and technology exports in the region.
Sanctions against Russia haven’t worked, and they undermine the dollar’s reserve currency status.
No amount of financial support will enable Ukraine to regain lost territory unless we permit the Ukrainians to starve Russian forces by attacking their logistics and Moscow’s weapons-making capacity.
That means giving Ukraine the aircraft and long-range missiles necessary to persistently take the war to Russian soil.
Management by committee — having to negotiate every move with the Europeans — won’t do. Failure to accomplish total victory in Ukraine will only invite Russia to regroup and eventually aim its forces at the Baltic States or Southeast Europe after NATO or exhaustion forces Kyiv to capitulate.
NATO’s European strategy is based on stationing limited contingents of troops along the border with Russia and reinforcing those in the event of an invasion. But the eight military units deployed in Poland and the Baltics are unlikely to hold back a Russian force of 100,000 long enough for reinforcements to arrive.
The lesson of Ukraine is that once entrenched, the Russian army is terribly costly to dislodge, and policymakers must ask if the American polity would be willing to support a protracted conflict to liberate the Baltics or slices of Poland or southeastern Europe.
Russia is on a war footing. After taking an initial hit from sanctions, it has recovered and is devoting at least 6% of its gross domestic product to military purposes. Europe, on the other hand, is not ready for war.
The combined GDP of the United Kingdom and European Union is almost as large as ours, and it’s time the continent led in managing its security with American support. This would permit the pivot of U.S. resources to Asia.
The rearming of Europe — with the United States playing a more supporting role — would open significant opportunities for U.S. exports and high-quality jobs in aerospace and other technology sectors.
We likely still have a stronger military than China — though that could soon flip — but Beijing’s resources are focused in the Pacific, whereas ours are spread across three theaters and the Global South.
China could face us down on Taiwan. The cost of fending off an invasion or dislodging it from Kinmen and Matsu could be more than American voters are willing to bear.
If America rejoined the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it would enhance opportunities for U.S. investment, jobs and exports. But Americans invest more in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations than the Chinese, and regional trade is more oriented toward China.
U.S. participation in the TPP could correct that anomaly in our favor.
Both the Biden administration and the Trump campaign undervalue the contribution of trade and open markets to our prosperity by eschewing new trade agreements with allies, but isolating the United States would have even greater economic consequences.
Chinese and Korean automakers continue to outpace the Detroit Three and rival Tesla. And Mr. Biden’s industrial policies to save U.S. semiconductor fabrication notwithstanding, the U.S. increasingly depends on design and software innovation — for example, creating the blueprints for high-end chips to be fabricated in Taiwan and transformative breakthroughs such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence.
To capitalize on these, we cannot live in a world with security structures, production chains and markets fractured by authoritarian state aggression or terrorist anarchy.
A war over Taiwan alone would cost the world economy and America an estimated 10% and 6.7% of GDP. Investments in maintaining a secure and stable world pale in comparison, and the benefits of more open commercial relations would give American voters a more tangible stake in Pacific security.
• Peter Morici is an economist and emeritus business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.