Podcast appearances and mentions of Philip H Gordon

In this episode we discuss Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East by Philip H. Gordon. Next time we will discuss The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes by Donald D. Hoffman.

In this episode we discuss The World That Wasn't: Henry Wallace and the Fate of the American Century by Benn Steil. Next time we will discuss Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East by Philip H. Gordon.

The election of Joe Biden presents an opening to strengthen transatlantic diplomacy on Iran. Biden has already outlined his intention to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, primarily by ensuring the US re-joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which the US unilaterally withdrew under outgoing President Trump. However, to what extent can and will Iran policy be a priority of the incoming administration? What can Europeans do to bolster transatlantic diplomacy on Iran? This week Mark Leonard is joined by Nasser Hadian, professor of political science at the University of Tehran, Ilan Goldenberg, director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security and ECFR’s Ellie Geranmayeh, deputy head of our Middle East and North Africa programme to discuss these issues. This podcast was recorded on 2 December 2020. Further Reading: “A call for Europe to bolster transatlantic diplomacy on Iran”, a joint statement by ECFR Council Members: https://buff.ly/3qfKrFC On Iran, the Next Administration Must Break With the Past by Elisa Catalano Ewers, Ilan Goldenberg, and Kaleigh Thomasin Foreign Affairs Bookshelf: • “Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East”, by Philip H. Gordon • “A Promised Land” by Barack Obama

In this week’s episode of Hold Your Fire!, Rob Malley and guest host Richard Atwood take on the U.S. “forever wars” with Phil Gordon, a former adviser to President Barack Obama and author of the acclaimed book Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East (St. Martin's Press, October 2020). Rob also addresses one of the most pressing foreign policy decisions the incoming Biden administration will face: should the U.S. simply go back to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal or should it aim for a more ambitious agreement with Tehran?  Background reading: Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East, Philip H. Gordon. St. Martin's Press. 

For the past 70 years, the United States has toyed with interventionism in the Middle East on numerous occasions, from  Iran to Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria, among others. And yet, despite the consistently disastrous consequences of these efforts, the same policies continue to attract support, as US decision-makers consistently underestimate the costs and fail to learn the lessons of the past. Dr. Philip H. Gordon, a former diplomat and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins the podcast this week to discuss his excellent new book, "Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East." Although one can sympathize with those suffering under a brutal, tyrannical regime engaged in atrocities, there seems to be a common failure to grasp that when you remove a regime, a security vacuum is opened up where chaos thrives, which is very hard to fill. "The costs are almost always much higher than anticipated, and there are always many unintended consequences. And that's the history I think we need to keep in mind as we think about it today," Dr. Gordon says. "This is not history for history's sake. This is an active agenda item [as the Trump administration has discussed pursuing regime change in Iran]. Before we do that, we should really think about how we've done it in the past, why we've done it in the past and how it worked out. So maybe we can avoid some of those mistakes in the future." Instead, Dr. Gordon argues, diplomacy, deterrence, and engagement are much more effective tools to achieve positive outcomes for US interests in the regime. Sanctions, he says, have a limited use in US foreign policy only for specific purposes - however that's often not how we see them used. In the case of the Iran nuclear deal, sanctions were effective because they were broadly implemented internationally and made the negotiation possible. When the goal of sanctions is regime change, Gordon says, it never works. Massive sanctions for decades on Cuba, North Korea, without a specific goal short of regime change, it has been a total failure. "What I'm opposed to when it comes to sanctions is this fantasy that if you just squeeze hard enough, the regime will actually go away. Most of these regimes, especially the most brutal ones, are willing to see the population suffer infinitely before they're willing to turn over power to someone else," Gordon says.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has set out to oust governments in the Middle East on an average of once per decade―in places as diverse as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan (twice), Egypt, Libya, and Syria. The reasons for these interventions have also been extremely diverse, and the methods by which the United States pursued regime change have likewise been highly varied, ranging from diplomatic pressure alone to outright military invasion and occupation. What is common to all the operations, however, is that they failed to achieve their ultimate goals, produced a range of unintended and even catastrophic consequences, carried heavy financial and human costs, and in many cases left the countries in question worse off than they were before. Philip H. Gordon's Losing the Long Game is a thorough and riveting look at the U.S. experience with regime change over the past seventy years, and an insider's view on U.S. policymaking in the region at the highest levels. It is the story of repeated U.S. interventions in the region that always started out with high hopes and often the best of intentions, but never turned out well. No future discussion of U.S. policy in the Middle East will be complete without taking into account the lessons of the past, especially at a time of intense domestic polarization and reckoning with America's standing in world. The SETA Foundation at Washington DC is pleased to host the author for a discussion of his new book. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/seta-dc/support

The US leadership, or lack thereof, on a host of global issues has been debated for some time now. The global financial crisis of 2008, international sanctions, Arab Spring, climate change, China's increasing assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific among other issues all have raised questions about various aspects of US leadership. Whether and to what extent the US should lead has become a recurring theme. Both Presidents Obama and Trump have grappled with this question while offering different visions, namely internationalist and nationalist. In the wake of a historic crisis with the emergence of COVID-19, the US leadership is yet again a major topic of discussion. As countries have dealt with this unprecedented challenge, they have tended to focus within national borders. President Trump even said this was proof that his America First approach has been vindicated. What does the US approach to the crisis tell us about the future of its relations with Europe or China? What is the possibility of creating a global response at this point in time? How will the US leadership be shaped going forward? SETA DC is pleased to host an online webinar event to discuss the question of US leadership in yet another moment of unprecedented crisis with Philip H. Gordon, Mary and David Boies Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at Council on Foreign Relations and Shadi Hamid, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at The Brookings Institution. This session is moderated by Kilic B. Kanat, Research Director at SETA DC. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/seta-dc/support

Philip H. Gordon, CFR’s Mary and David Boies senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss whether the United States should do more internationally to stem the spread of the coronavirus. Read Gordon’s article “‘America First’ Is a Dangerous Fantasy in a Pandemic: Foreign Aid and Global Leadership Will Be Integral to Any Solution” on ForeignAffairs.com.

If we listen to the speech of Bush administration officials, or of vocal senators, it seems unavoidable that the Bush regime will unleash yet another military disaster against the Imamate in power in Tehran. Readers of our work in the past certainly have read my earlier commentaries which suggested such an attack was all but imminent. I am now of another opinion. Iraq has so shattered the U.S. military capability, and so undermined its credibility in the Middle East, that it seems unlikely that the U.S. empire could muster up enough wherewithal to mount an effective campaign. Also, any attack on Iran would only serve to further destabilize Iraq, where its 60% Shia majority would not sit idly by as their fellow Shias fall under the American gun. The Iraqi armed resistance has been largely a Sunni affair, but surely an attack in Iran would bring armed Shias into the fray. This, the U.S. neither wants nor needs. There is another reason: good old American greed. The big oil companies are licking their collective lips to try to get a taste of the black gold sitting there. Iran has the second highest proven oil reserves in the world, right after Saudi Arabia. Oil companies all around the world are slaking their thirst in the black lake, like ENI (Italy), Gasprom (Russia), Petronas (Malaysia), Shell (Dutch-UK), and Total (France). Back when Dick Cheney still had his desk at Halliburton, he spoke out against US sanctions on Iran, calling them "unproductive." Similarly, when former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was going through his confirmation hearings, he noted: "differences with Iran need not preclude greater interaction, whether in commerce, or increased dialogue." It is a rare day when Powell and Cheney agree on something, but this was just such a day. And while Bush threw a monkey wrench into the corporate wrangling with his "axis of evil" rhetoric, Big Oil has its interests, which cannot be served if Iran turns into a bigger, bloodier Iraq. Business likes stability to extract its profits. The latest grades on the Iraq adventure, coming from usually supportive sources like the Brookings Institution, are "F" for failure. In the words of Philip H. Gordon, writing in a recent edition of *Foreign Affairs*: "Bush has gotten the United States bogged down in an unsuccessful war, overstretched the military, and broken the domestic bank. Washington now lacks the reservoir of international legitimacy, resources, and domestic support necessary to pursue other key national interests." While there is no love lost between the Iranians and the Americans, they each have their own interests, and neither is served by a military conflict at this time. If Iraq were the bustling, bright, shiny Shangri-La that neocon warmongers promised, perhaps things would be different. But it isn't. By any sane measure, it is a disaster, getting worse, more deadly, more unstable by the day. Even seemingly immortal empires reach their limits. This is America's. So, there will be harsh words. There will be saber rattling. But this is mere bombast. After all is said and done, deals will be made, dollars will cross palms, baksheesh will open locked doors, and oil will flow. It's nothing personal. It's just business. [Source,/i>: "U.S. Policy Towards Iran Takes a New Turn", Class Struggle (Aug-Sept. '06) [Iss. #52], pp. 18-24.] Column Written. 9/14/06. Copyright 2006 Mumia Abu-Jamal