foreignpolicy--2020-03-16--Big Takeaways from the Biden-Sanders Debate

In the Shadow of the Pandemic , It Was Game , Set , and Match The only real drama in the debate was whether former Vice President Joe Biden , through some act of involuntary self-sabotage , might disrupt his near-inevitable march to the Democratic nomination .
It didn ’ t happen .
Not even close .
On the contrary , in the first half of the discussion devoted to the only issue that currently matters to Americans—the coronavirus pandemic—Biden came off strong , competent , and experienced in wielding the powers of government .
He said the country is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be laser-focused to mitigate the damage , both to save lives and to limit the economic devastation wrought on ordinary people .
He focused on ramping up capacity to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed , including enlisting the full capabilities of the U.S. military and other parts of the government that can provide disaster relief .
He promised that no American would be denied testing or treatment for lack of funds .
No one would lose their jobs for being sick .
No one would be evicted from their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their mortgage .
How exactly all of this would be accomplished and at what cost was left to decide for another day .
Biden ’ s message was that this is war—an existential threat to Americans ’ way of life—and that the United States will do whatever it takes to win and get its people through it .
Biden was especially good in parrying Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s effort to pivot from the coronavirus crisis to his signature proposals of “ Medicare for All ” and the need to radically transform American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this crisis now , Biden implored .
This is not the time to politicize it by indulging in ideological hobbyhorses .
Practical results to help the country survive the next few months , not revolutionary disruption that would exacerbate instability and uncertainty , is what average Americans need from their government , Biden suggested .
Pointing to Italy as a country whose health care system is on the verge of collapse because of the virus , despite having the kind of public health care system backed by Sanders , was particularly effective .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was game , set , and match—especially when coupled with his headline-grabbing commitment to name a woman as his running mate .
The rest of the debate seemed small by comparison to the enormity and urgency of the challenge now thrust upon the nation ( and indeed the world ) by the pandemic .
For the select audience that paid attention to what passed for the foreign-policy section of the debate , my notes read as follows : Sanders ( still ) has a soft spot for leftist authoritarians who may have killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trains run on time .
On both immigration and climate change , Biden needs to be careful about being savaged by the Republicans .
In his understandable effort to reach out to the progressive wing of his party , he runs a serious risk of further alienating a white working-class electorate that moved decisively to President Donald Trump ’ s populist message in 2016 .
An all-out assault on fossil fuels and fracking demonizes an industry that has transformed global energy markets over the past decade to the United States ’ great geopolitical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of average Americans in well-paying jobs .
Declaring war on them may not be wise .
Biden also showed another vulnerability when he , however legitimately , attacked Trump ’ s harsh immigration policies .
Biden needs to be careful that his calls for humanely dealing with the undocumented are coupled with sufficient concern for the necessity of maintaining adequate control of the United States borders—one of the primary responsibilities of any sovereign government .
The failure of repeated U.S. administrations to provide that basic reassurance played a major role in Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploit it again if Biden proves incapable of striking a balanced tone .
He clearly didn ’ t find that tone when he seemed to suggest an equivalence between undocumented migrants surging across the U.S.-Mexican border and the millions of Italians and Irish who immigrated legally a century ago .
But that ’ s all small potatoes at the moment .
Biden sealed the nomination last night .
It ’ s all over except for the exact timing of when Sanders ends his campaign .
Then attention will turn to the critical question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) mobilize his army of impassioned revolutionaries on behalf of Biden ’ s more conventional form of progressivism .
Will they accept half a loaf or stay at home and sulk ?
The country ’ s future may ride on the answer—assuming the coronavirus doesn ’ t ruin us first .
Bernie Sanders ’ answers to questions about the coronavirus pandemic revealed him as an ideologue .
He simply dusted off his familiar “ Medicare for All ” proposal , even as Biden—correctly—pointed out that Italy , Europe ’ s most disastrous victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders made Biden look presidential , as the latter spoke of coronavirus as a national emergency that calls for extraordinary measures , regardless of health care plans .
The most disappointing exchange was on that Democratic hobbyhorse , climate change .
Both candidates failed to address the reality that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is no short-term project , but requires a sustained long-term effort and an all-of-the-above approach .
Sanders ’ proposed ban on fracking , a technology that has allowed the United States to dramatically reduce emissions by replacing coal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the climate as it reverses the shift away from coal .
And while more research and development is needed , no investment will change near-term reality : The potential of wind and solar power will remain limited until there are more cost-effective ways to store energy .
The transition to a post-petroleum economy will be a slow process .
Smart policies can accelerate it , but both Biden and Sanders seemed to be promising a lot more than anyone can deliver .
Some debate performances are game-changers , and some are game-enders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game-extenders .
Sunday ’ s much-anticipated mano a mano between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders fell into the last category .
Biden did not finish off Sanders —but as the front-runner , Biden did not have to .
More importantly , Sanders did not inflict a mortal blow on Biden—and he really did need to do that to have any hope of changing the trajectory of the race .
Now , barring some sort of coronavirus-induced surprise , tomorrow ’ s primaries are likely to further cement Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Sanders is fixing to pull out of the race any time soon , he did not hint at that in the debate .
So the Democratic primary is likely to limp along for a few more weeks .
President Donald Trump is the beneficiary of this , for every minute Biden has to position himself for the primary is a minute he does not get to position himself for the general election .
The coronavirus lockdown could , in theory , provide a window of opportunity for Biden to refocus his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to spend the next few months going through the motions of finishing off the nominating contest .
And woe betide him if he conveys the impression that he is just “ going through the motions , ” because that is one way Sanders could revive , phoenixlike , to be a threat at the convention .
In the meantime , while the debate was far more substantive than previous ones , it was not very revealing on foreign policy and national security—at least not revealing of any surprises .
Sanders showed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the far left ’ s rigid double standard that blames the United States first while winking and nodding at what totalitarian regimes wrought in the previous century .
Biden showed that he , like most Republicans and other Democrats , still can not talk with candor and persuasion about Iraq .
He needs to have a better explanation for his vote in Congress supporting the Iraq War , and former President Barack Obama ’ s administration ’ s role there , since this will be one of the most obvious lines of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , it won ’ t be enough merely to point out that Trump has mishandled Iraq as well—that is true , but it will only land if Biden can better explain what he has learned from several decades of playing a key role in managing Iraq affairs .
One final takeaway : Most observers seemed to agree that the no-crowd format made the debate more substantive and less of a carnival .
I bet that scares the Trump campaign .
Trump emphatically does not do well in such an atmosphere , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would want to accept a format where Trump can not play to a noisy hall .
A shrewd move for the Democratic Party would be to insist on this format going forward .
Even if they can only force Trump to accept it once , that could lay the trap for a game-changing moment in the general election .
Sen. Bernie Sanders was more passionate , but former Vice President Joe Biden held his own .
Biden made two ironclad commitments : to name a woman as vice presidential candidate , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
Sanders made no commitments to speak of .
As often as Sanders harped on his usual targets—the banks , the oil companies , the drug companies , the insurance industry—Biden invoked his years with Obama .
Both men showed their age ; neither could refrain from dredging up his opponent ’ s decades-old votes and statements .
Both studiously avoided addressing their failures in attracting key constituencies : for Biden , young people and Hispanics ; for Sanders , suburban voters and African-Americans .
Biden demonstrated his superior experience in matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders tried to skirt those subjects , except when attacking “ authoritarians.
” After two hours of back and forth , it is unlikely that either man changed anyone ’ s mind .
For free traders , former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s likely nomination is a relief .
While Sen. Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump are unapologetic protectionists , Biden ’ s record , while mixed , is generally positive .
Given the increasing support free trade enjoys among the American public , Biden has an opening to clearly litigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senator and then as vice president , Biden supported every major trade initiative—including the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and the creation of the World Trade Organization the following year .
In 2000 , Biden voted in favor of normalizing trade relations with China , paving the way for China ’ s entry into the World Trade Organization .
As vice president during the administration of former Barack Obama , Biden supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership .
To be sure , Biden ’ s record isn ’ t perfect ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trade Agreement , and for quotas on steel imports .
There were other votes that would normally have given free traders pause , but compared to the sprint toward 1930s-style protectionism under Trump , they are minor apostasies .
Trump will surely point to Biden ’ s support of NAFTA and trade with China as a reason voters in the Midwest can ’ t trust the former vice president .
On NAFTA , Biden has no reason to be defensive .
In 2016 , the U.S. International Trade Commission found that NAFTA produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only that , Trump ’ s much-advertised replacement for NAFTA , the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement , is only a minor rewrite of its predecessor .
China is more complicated .
China ’ s entry into the World Trade Organization was a good idea and made sense at the time .
It remains a positive development : Beijing has cut tariffs since joining the World Trade Organization , and the United States has more influence over China ’ s trade policy and practices now that Beijing participates inside the system .
All is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Much of the concern stems from actions taken by Beijing in recent years , including abuse of intellectual property , forced technology transfer as a condition of doing business in China , theft of trade secrets , massive industrial subsidies , and cyberintrusions into commercial networks .
Now is the time for a responsible hawkishness toward China ’ s economic practices .
Even after the so-called “ phase one ” deal between the United States and China , tariffs now cover about 70 percent of imports from China with an average rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war began .
By abandoning negotiations toward a Pacific trade agreement and levying tariffs on imports from China , Trump ’ s irresponsible policies have weakened the United States economically and hurt its ability to influence Beijing ’ s commercial practices .
Biden will need to fully flesh out a China policy , but his instincts toward multilateral engagement are vastly superior to erecting an “ economic Iron Curtain , ” as former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson dubbed the Trump tariffs .
The Candidates Are Ignoring Other Countries ’ Lessons The Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis and what the United States should do about it .
Yet even as the United States has struggled with a timely response to the pandemic , the candidates did not much address the valuable lessons offered by other countries .
South Korea stabilized its outbreak with free , easily accessible , and unlimited testing , administering more than 250,000 tests at a pace of up to 20,000 per day .
As a result , the number of new cases there peaked on March 3 , and has generally trended downward ever since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without widespread lockdowns .
Hong Kong and Taiwan focused on screening and quarantining travelers from coronavirus hot spots , as well as social distancing , and have managed to keep the rate of infections per capita down to a fraction of that reported by China .
Singapore used technology and big fines to enforce quarantines .
China exercised the state ’ s immense power to enforce massive lockdowns .
While the data from China is less authoritative than from South Korea , new cases appear to have peaked in mid-February , after an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond the numbers : At the moment , China is the only country in the world where Apple stores are open .
So much for the states that appear to be coping .
For now—and much remains to play out—the biggest failures appear to be in Italy and Iran , the two worst-hit countries after China , as measured by the total number of infections .
There , the number of new cases appears still to be accelerating .
They also have much higher infection rates per capita than those reported in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that the numbers reported in Iran substantially understate the true extent of the outbreak .
What both nations ’ responses seem to have in common is a failure to act quickly .
Once we are past the crisis stage of dealing with the pandemic , various nations ’ strategies will be compared to infer best practices .
Important lessons will be learned .
Perhaps more important , though , will be the debate about how differing political systems responded .
Were China and Russia more successful , or Europe and United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Do transparency and civil liberties matter ?
Or is it optimal when unlimited state power is put to the purpose of public health ?
The coronavirus outbreak is likely so momentous that it will be the leitmotif of the debates sparked by China ’ s rise over which political systems are most effective at advancing the health and prosperity of their people , and so which should be emulated .
The pandemic is , therefore , a matter of international security on several levels , and its consequences will last far longer @ @ @ @

No live audience, podiums spaced wide apart, elbow bumps between the candidates—the unfolding coronavirus pandemic was front and center at Sunday’s primary debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The Elephants in the Room team offers their expert analysis on the first direct matchup between the two main contenders left in the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
In the Shadow of the Pandemic, It Was Game, Set, and Match
by John Hannah
The only real drama in the debate was whether former Vice President Joe Biden, through some act of involuntary self-sabotage, might disrupt his near-inevitable march to the Democratic nomination. It didn’t happen. Not even close.
On the contrary, in the first half of the discussion devoted to the only issue that currently matters to Americans—the coronavirus pandemic—Biden came off strong, competent, and experienced in wielding the powers of government. He said the country is at war against the virus and needs to be laser-focused to mitigate the damage, both to save lives and to limit the economic devastation wrought on ordinary people. He focused on ramping up capacity to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed, including enlisting the full capabilities of the U.S. military and other parts of the government that can provide disaster relief. He promised that no American would be denied testing or treatment for lack of funds. No one would lose their jobs for being sick. No one would be evicted from their homes for not being able to make their mortgage. How exactly all of this would be accomplished and at what cost was left to decide for another day. Biden’s message was that this is war—an existential threat to Americans’ way of life—and that the United States will do whatever it takes to win and get its people through it.
Biden was especially good in parrying Sen. Bernie Sanders’s effort to pivot from the coronavirus crisis to his signature proposals of “Medicare for All” and the need to radically transform American capitalism. We need to deal with this crisis now, Biden implored. This is not the time to politicize it by indulging in ideological hobbyhorses. Practical results to help the country survive the next few months, not revolutionary disruption that would exacerbate instability and uncertainty, is what average Americans need from their government, Biden suggested. Pointing to Italy as a country whose health care system is on the verge of collapse because of the virus, despite having the kind of public health care system backed by Sanders, was particularly effective.
Biden’s performance on the coronavirus was game, set, and match—especially when coupled with his headline-grabbing commitment to name a woman as his running mate. The rest of the debate seemed small by comparison to the enormity and urgency of the challenge now thrust upon the nation (and indeed the world) by the pandemic.
For the select audience that paid attention to what passed for the foreign-policy section of the debate, my notes read as follows: Sanders (still) has a soft spot for leftist authoritarians who may have killed and imprisoned millions, but made the trains run on time. On both immigration and climate change, Biden needs to be careful about being savaged by the Republicans. In his understandable effort to reach out to the progressive wing of his party, he runs a serious risk of further alienating a white working-class electorate that moved decisively to President Donald Trump’s populist message in 2016. An all-out assault on fossil fuels and fracking demonizes an industry that has transformed global energy markets over the past decade to the United States’ great geopolitical advantage, while employing tens of thousands of average Americans in well-paying jobs. Declaring war on them may not be wise.
Biden also showed another vulnerability when he, however legitimately, attacked Trump’s harsh immigration policies. Biden needs to be careful that his calls for humanely dealing with the undocumented are coupled with sufficient concern for the necessity of maintaining adequate control of the United States borders—one of the primary responsibilities of any sovereign government. The failure of repeated U.S. administrations to provide that basic reassurance played a major role in Trump’s ascendance. Trump will no doubt exploit it again if Biden proves incapable of striking a balanced tone. He clearly didn’t find that tone when he seemed to suggest an equivalence between undocumented migrants surging across the U.S.-Mexican border and the millions of Italians and Irish who immigrated legally a century ago.
But that’s all small potatoes at the moment. Biden sealed the nomination last night. It’s all over except for the exact timing of when Sanders ends his campaign. Then attention will turn to the critical question of whether Sanders can (and will) mobilize his army of impassioned revolutionaries on behalf of Biden’s more conventional form of progressivism. Will they accept half a loaf or stay at home and sulk? The country’s future may ride on the answer—assuming the coronavirus doesn’t ruin us first.
Wrong Prescriptions on Health Care and Climate Change
by Robert A. Manning
Bernie Sanders’ answers to questions about the coronavirus pandemic revealed him as an ideologue. He simply dusted off his familiar “Medicare for All” proposal, even as Biden—correctly—pointed out that Italy, Europe’s most disastrous victim, enjoys public healthcare for all. Sanders made Biden look presidential, as the latter spoke of coronavirus as a national emergency that calls for extraordinary measures, regardless of health care plans.
The most disappointing exchange was on that Democratic hobbyhorse, climate change. Both candidates failed to address the reality that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is no short-term project, but requires a sustained long-term effort and an all-of-the-above approach. Sanders’ proposed ban on fracking, a technology that has allowed the United States to dramatically reduce emissions by replacing coal with cleaner-burning natural gas, would be worse for the climate as it reverses the shift away from coal. And while more research and development is needed, no investment will change near-term reality: The potential of wind and solar power will remain limited until there are more cost-effective ways to store energy. The transition to a post-petroleum economy will be a slow process. Smart policies can accelerate it, but both Biden and Sanders seemed to be promising a lot more than anyone can deliver.
A Game-Extending Debate Whose Format Could Hurt Trump
by Peter Feaver
Some debate performances are game-changers, and some are game-enders. Most, however, are just game-extenders. Sunday’s much-anticipated mano a mano between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders fell into the last category. Biden did not finish off Sanders —but as the front-runner, Biden did not have to. More importantly, Sanders did not inflict a mortal blow on Biden—and he really did need to do that to have any hope of changing the trajectory of the race. Now, barring some sort of coronavirus-induced surprise, tomorrow’s primaries are likely to further cement Biden’s grip on the nomination. Yet if Sanders is fixing to pull out of the race any time soon, he did not hint at that in the debate.
So the Democratic primary is likely to limp along for a few more weeks. President Donald Trump is the beneficiary of this, for every minute Biden has to position himself for the primary is a minute he does not get to position himself for the general election. The coronavirus lockdown could, in theory, provide a window of opportunity for Biden to refocus his campaign on Trump, but not if he has to spend the next few months going through the motions of finishing off the nominating contest. And woe betide him if he conveys the impression that he is just “going through the motions,” because that is one way Sanders could revive, phoenixlike, to be a threat at the convention.
In the meantime, while the debate was far more substantive than previous ones, it was not very revealing on foreign policy and national security—at least not revealing of any surprises. Sanders showed that he still can’t break free from the far left’s rigid double standard that blames the United States first while winking and nodding at what totalitarian regimes wrought in the previous century. Biden showed that he, like most Republicans and other Democrats, still cannot talk with candor and persuasion about Iraq. He needs to have a better explanation for his vote in Congress supporting the Iraq War, and former President Barack Obama’s administration’s role there, since this will be one of the most obvious lines of attack from the Trump team. For Biden, it won’t be enough merely to point out that Trump has mishandled Iraq as well—that is true, but it will only land if Biden can better explain what he has learned from several decades of playing a key role in managing Iraq affairs.
One final takeaway: Most observers seemed to agree that the no-crowd format made the debate more substantive and less of a carnival. I bet that scares the Trump campaign. Trump emphatically does not do well in such an atmosphere, and I doubt very much that his campaign would want to accept a format where Trump cannot play to a noisy hall. A shrewd move for the Democratic Party would be to insist on this format going forward. Even if they can only force Trump to accept it once, that could lay the trap for a game-changing moment in the general election.
Ironclad Commitments
by Dov Zakheim
Sen. Bernie Sanders was more passionate, but former Vice President Joe Biden held his own. Biden made two ironclad commitments: to name a woman as vice presidential candidate, and to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. Sanders made no commitments to speak of. As often as Sanders harped on his usual targets—the banks, the oil companies, the drug companies, the insurance industry—Biden invoked his years with Obama.
Both men showed their age; neither could refrain from dredging up his opponent’s decades-old votes and statements. Both studiously avoided addressing their failures in attracting key constituencies: for Biden, young people and Hispanics; for Sanders, suburban voters and African-Americans. Biden demonstrated his superior experience in matters of national security and foreign policy. Sanders tried to skirt those subjects, except when attacking “authoritarians.” After two hours of back and forth, it is unlikely that either man changed anyone’s mind.
Biden’s Lead is Good News for Trade
by Clark Packard
For free traders, former Vice President Joe Biden’s likely nomination is a relief. While Sen. Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump are unapologetic protectionists, Biden’s record, while mixed, is generally positive. Given the increasing support free trade enjoys among the American public, Biden has an opening to clearly litigate the case against Trump.
First as a senator and then as vice president, Biden supported every major trade initiative—including the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and the creation of the World Trade Organization the following year. In 2000, Biden voted in favor of normalizing trade relations with China, paving the way for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. As vice president during the administration of former Barack Obama, Biden supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
To be sure, Biden’s record isn’t perfect; he voted against the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, and for quotas on steel imports. There were other votes that would normally have given free traders pause, but compared to the sprint toward 1930s-style protectionism under Trump, they are minor apostasies.
Trump will surely point to Biden’s support of NAFTA and trade with China as a reason voters in the Midwest can’t trust the former vice president.
On NAFTA, Biden has no reason to be defensive. In 2016, the U.S. International Trade Commission found that NAFTA produced small but significant economic gains. Not only that, Trump’s much-advertised replacement for NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is only a minor rewrite of its predecessor.
China is more complicated. China’s entry into the World Trade Organization was a good idea and made sense at the time. It remains a positive development: Beijing has cut tariffs since joining the World Trade Organization, and the United States has more influence over China’s trade policy and practices now that Beijing participates inside the system. All is not well with U.S.-China commercial relations, though. Much of the concern stems from actions taken by Beijing in recent years, including abuse of intellectual property, forced technology transfer as a condition of doing business in China, theft of trade secrets, massive industrial subsidies, and cyberintrusions into commercial networks.
Now is the time for a responsible hawkishness toward China’s economic practices. Even after the so-called “phase one” deal between the United States and China, tariffs now cover about 70 percent of imports from China with an average rate 6.3 times higher than when the trade war began.
By abandoning negotiations toward a Pacific trade agreement and levying tariffs on imports from China, Trump’s irresponsible policies have weakened the United States economically and hurt its ability to influence Beijing’s commercial practices. Biden will need to fully flesh out a China policy, but his instincts toward multilateral engagement are vastly superior to erecting an “economic Iron Curtain,” as former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson dubbed the Trump tariffs.
The Candidates Are Ignoring Other Countries’ Lessons
by William Tobey
The Democratic presidential debate last night led with the coronavirus crisis and what the United States should do about it. Yet even as the United States has struggled with a timely response to the pandemic, the candidates did not much address the valuable lessons offered by other countries.
South Korea stabilized its outbreak with free, easily accessible, and unlimited testing, administering more than 250,000 tests at a pace of up to 20,000 per day. As a result, the number of new cases there peaked on March 3, and has generally trended downward ever since. Seoul has apparently turned the corner without widespread lockdowns. Hong Kong and Taiwan focused on screening and quarantining travelers from coronavirus hot spots, as well as social distancing, and have managed to keep the rate of infections per capita down to a fraction of that reported by China. Singapore used technology and big fines to enforce quarantines. China exercised the state’s immense power to enforce massive lockdowns. While the data from China is less authoritative than from South Korea, new cases appear to have peaked in mid-February, after an initially slow response. One small indicator beyond the numbers: At the moment, China is the only country in the world where Apple stores are open. So much for the states that appear to be coping.
For now—and much remains to play out—the biggest failures appear to be in Italy and Iran, the two worst-hit countries after China, as measured by the total number of infections. There, the number of new cases appears still to be accelerating. They also have much higher infection rates per capita than those reported in China. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the numbers reported in Iran substantially understate the true extent of the outbreak. What both nations’ responses seem to have in common is a failure to act quickly.
Once we are past the crisis stage of dealing with the pandemic, various nations’ strategies will be compared to infer best practices. Important lessons will be learned. Perhaps more important, though, will be the debate about how differing political systems responded. Were China and Russia more successful, or Europe and United States? Did democracy or dictatorship do better? Do transparency and civil liberties matter? Or is it optimal when unlimited state power is put to the purpose of public health? The coronavirus outbreak is likely so momentous that it will be the leitmotif of the debates sparked by China’s rise over which political systems are most effective at advancing the health and prosperity of their people, and so which should be emulated. The pandemic is, therefore, a matter of international security on several levels, and its consequences will last far longer than the outbreaks.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-16--Better Health Through Mass Surveillance?

TEL AVIV , Israel—Israel has long pushed the limits of democratic norms in its fight against the Palestinians , demolishing the family homes of militants , assassinating suspects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip , and holding detainees for months or years without trial .
Now , in the name of public health and limiting the spread of the new coronavirus , Israel has moved to curb the civil liberties of its own citizens .
A new government measure would allow the General Security Service , Israel ’ s domestic intelligence agency also known as the Shin Bet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as individuals exposed to them .
Likening the struggle to contain the coronavirus to a fight against terrorism , Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said health officials asked him to deploy “ digital ” techniques “ used in the fight against terror ” that had never been authorized for use among Israeli citizens .
“ It ’ s difficult to locate this enemy , because it ’ s stealthy , ” he said in a press conference on Saturday night .
“ But there ’ s no choice , because we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The declaration spurred a wave of pushback from politicians , civil rights activists , and public health experts , who said the government was taking the fight against COVID-19 too far .
Though Israel has earned praise for imposing aggressive travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines to fight the coronavirus , legal experts said that deploying the digital spying tactics would provide only a marginal help while disproportionately injuring privacy .
The government ’ s plan risks moving Israel toward a “ surveillance democracy , ” warned Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler , a fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way that the Patriot Act after the 9/11 terrorist attacks widened U.S. government spying on individuals and allowed access to phone records , “ This is a disturbing step .
It ’ s absolutely a 9/11 moment .
We all know what happened afterward , ” she said .
In his address to the nation , Netanyahu mentioned Taiwan ’ s successful use of cell phone data to enforce quarantines .
Singapore ’ s authoritarian government has also marshaled technological surveillance methods to control the virus .
China has relied on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has cultivated a reputation for technology innovation , is known as a breeding ground for start-ups that specialize both in cybersecurity and snooping .
The new measure would specifically allow Israel to pull phone data from a patient who tests positive for the coronavirus , chart the places the person visited in the preceding days or weeks , and compile a list of people the patient had contact with .
Authorities would use the information to inform people they may have been exposed to a carrier of the virus and order them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow officials a way to enforce the quarantine orders .
Altshuler warned that the government should not hand over the cell phone data access of patients to the Shin Bet , because the agency falls under the authority of the prime minister and has no public oversight .
The information should be limited to health authorities and law enforcement , which are subject to oversight .
“ What made me feel very uncomfortable is the comparison that Netanyahu made between fighting terror and the coronavirus , ” she said .
“ If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue—even though there ’ s going to be an economic crisis , and an educational crisis—you open up a door , or you create a slippery slope which we don ’ t know where it ’ s going to stop.
” Under Israeli telecommunications law , law enforcement can gain access to information from cellular networks with a court-approved warrant .
Those laws have not been updated with provisions protecting data privacy like the regulations that went into effect in the European Union in 2018 , Altshuler said .
( The Israeli law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Bank and Gaza , where Israeli authorities are believed to conduct widespread surveillance without warrants . )
Netanyahu ’ s proposal is backed by Israel ’ s health ministry .
In an interview with Israel ’ s Channel 13 News , the health ministry ’ s Director-General Moshe Bar Siman Tov said that the danger to public health and Israel ’ s medical system justified the unusual step .
“ In these very unusual times , we need to use all of the means we have , ” Bar Siman Tov said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different steps to find out who are the sick people , who they came into contact with—in order to put them into quarantine .
The way to get a virus outbreak under control is to swiftly reach the sick and isolate them.
” On Sunday evening , after several hours of discussion , the Israeli cabinet approved an emergency order to give the Shin Bet the surveillance authority—even without a court order .
The measure requires the approval of the Israeli parliament ’ s subcommittee on intelligence and secret services , which began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not take a final vote .
But in an address on Monday night , Netanyahu said the cabinet would approve an emergency order granting the Shin Bet access for 30 days—effectively sidestepping the parliamentary approval .
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said the move would amount to extending the power of the Shin Bet to a non-security-related issue and would mark a “ dangerous precedent.
” Avner Pinchuk , a lawyer with the organization , said it would contradict recent rulings by Israel ’ s Supreme Court that have narrowed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights for the purposes of national security .
The issue is especially sensitive given Israel ’ s experience as a democracy that faces ongoing security threats .
“ The powers of the [ Shin Bet ] are limited to national security , ” he said .
“ It ’ s quite dangerous when you start to enlarge the scope of the threats to national security—especially in Israel , because we have historically thought of ourselves as a nation in uniform.
” Rights groups called on the government to provide more information about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the information , who would have access to it , and for how long .
“ This is true insanity .
It ’ s Big Brother on steroids , ” tweeted Raviv Drucker , an investigative journalist and freedom-of-information activist .
“ We must not allow the government to take such a dictator-like step in this way .
Taiwan is not the example that we should aspire to emulate.
” Revital Swid , a lawyer and a former parliament member of the left-wing Labor Party , tweeted that the proposal is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on every possible level.
” The number of Israeli coronavirus patients reached 298 on Monday , a sharp rise from the previous day , according to the Haaretz newspaper .
After closing schools and banning public gatherings of more than 10 individuals , Netanyahu announced on Monday a drastic reduction of private sector and public sector activity .
On Monday , members of Israel ’ s newly elected parliament were sworn in , but only in small groups—to prevent the spread of the virus .
Netanyahu ’ s corruption trial , which was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delayed by two months after Justice Minister Amir Ohana ordered judicial hearings temporarily postponed .
The decision was decried by the prime minister ’ s political opponents .
Nadav Davidovitch , the director of the School of Public Health at Ben-Gurion University , said officials should be focusing on widening testing and improving protection for health care workers instead of focusing on surveillance measures .
He said the drastic measure could undermine public confidence in the government ’ s efforts to bring the virus under control .
“ Focus first on the traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
“ There is always a temptation to go to high-tech solutions , but without the proper transparency , checks , and balances , you can lose the public .
And this is very dangerous.
” “ That ’ s very problematic framing , ” he said .
“ At the end of the day , you have a sick person .
Is public health about the health of people and solidarity with them , or about protecting ‘ us ’ from ‘ them ?
’ ”

TEL AVIV, Israel—Israel has long pushed the limits of democratic norms in its fight against the Palestinians, demolishing the family homes of militants, assassinating suspects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and holding detainees for months or years without trial.
TEL AVIV, Israel—Israel has long pushed the limits of democratic norms in its fight against the Palestinians, demolishing the family homes of militants, assassinating suspects in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and holding detainees for months or years without trial.
Now, in the name of public health and limiting the spread of the new coronavirus, Israel has moved to curb the civil liberties of its own citizens.
A new government measure would allow the General Security Service, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency also known as the Shin Bet, to track Israelis with the virus as well as individuals exposed to them.
Likening the struggle to contain the coronavirus to a fight against terrorism, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said health officials asked him to deploy “digital” techniques “used in the fight against terror” that had never been authorized for use among Israeli citizens.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
“It’s difficult to locate this enemy, because it’s stealthy,” he said in a press conference on Saturday night. “But there’s no choice, because we’re fighting a war that requires special actions.”
The declaration spurred a wave of pushback from politicians, civil rights activists, and public health experts, who said the government was taking the fight against COVID-19 too far.
Though Israel has earned praise for imposing aggressive travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines to fight the coronavirus, legal experts said that deploying the digital spying tactics would provide only a marginal help while disproportionately injuring privacy.
The government’s plan risks moving Israel toward a “surveillance democracy,” warned Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, a fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, in the same way that the Patriot Act after the 9/11 terrorist attacks widened U.S. government spying on individuals and allowed access to phone records,
“This is a disturbing step. It’s absolutely a 9/11 moment. We all know what happened afterward,” she said.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
In his address to the nation, Netanyahu mentioned Taiwan’s successful use of cell phone data to enforce quarantines. Singapore’s authoritarian government has also marshaled technological surveillance methods to control the virus. China has relied on face recognition technology. Israel, which has cultivated a reputation for technology innovation, is known as a breeding ground for start-ups that specialize both in cybersecurity and snooping.
The new measure would specifically allow Israel to pull phone data from a patient who tests positive for the coronavirus, chart the places the person visited in the preceding days or weeks, and compile a list of people the patient had contact with. Authorities would use the information to inform people they may have been exposed to a carrier of the virus and order them into quarantine.
The surveillance measure would also allow officials a way to enforce the quarantine orders.
Altshuler warned that the government should not hand over the cell phone data access of patients to the Shin Bet, because the agency falls under the authority of the prime minister and has no public oversight. The information should be limited to health authorities and law enforcement, which are subject to oversight.
“What made me feel very uncomfortable is the comparison that Netanyahu made between fighting terror and the coronavirus,” she said. “If you include a pandemic as a national security issue—even though there’s going to be an economic crisis, and an educational crisis—you open up a door, or you create a slippery slope which we don’t know where it’s going to stop.”
Under Israeli telecommunications law, law enforcement can gain access to information from cellular networks with a court-approved warrant. Those laws have not been updated with provisions protecting data privacy like the regulations that went into effect in the European Union in 2018, Altshuler said. (The Israeli law does not apply to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, where Israeli authorities are believed to conduct widespread surveillance without warrants.)
Netanyahu’s proposal is backed by Israel’s health ministry. In an interview with Israel’s Channel 13 News, the health ministry’s Director-General Moshe Bar Siman Tov said that the danger to public health and Israel’s medical system justified the unusual step.
“In these very unusual times, we need to use all of the means we have,” Bar Siman Tov said. “We need to use many different steps to find out who are the sick people, who they came into contact with—in order to put them into quarantine. The way to get a virus outbreak under control is to swiftly reach the sick and isolate them.”
On Sunday evening, after several hours of discussion, the Israeli cabinet approved an emergency order to give the Shin Bet the surveillance authority—even without a court order. The measure requires the approval of the Israeli parliament’s subcommittee on intelligence and secret services, which began discussing the proposal on Monday but did not take a final vote.
But in an address on Monday night, Netanyahu said the cabinet would approve an emergency order granting the Shin Bet access for 30 days—effectively sidestepping the parliamentary approval.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said the move would amount to extending the power of the Shin Bet to a non-security-related issue and would mark a “dangerous precedent.” Avner Pinchuk, a lawyer with the organization, said it would contradict recent rulings by Israel’s Supreme Court that have narrowed the scope of what justifies infringing on civil rights for the purposes of national security. The issue is especially sensitive given Israel’s experience as a democracy that faces ongoing security threats.
“The powers of the [Shin Bet] are limited to national security,” he said. “It’s quite dangerous when you start to enlarge the scope of the threats to national security—especially in Israel, because we have historically thought of ourselves as a nation in uniform.”
Rights groups called on the government to provide more information about what limits would be imposed on the use of the information, who would have access to it, and for how long.
“This is true insanity. It’s Big Brother on steroids,” tweeted Raviv Drucker, an investigative journalist and freedom-of-information activist. “We must not allow the government to take such a dictator-like step in this way. Taiwan is not the example that we should aspire to emulate.”
Revital Swid, a lawyer and a former parliament member of the left-wing Labor Party, tweeted that the proposal is “draconian” and injured individual privacy “on every possible level.”
The number of Israeli coronavirus patients reached 298 on Monday, a sharp rise from the previous day, according to the Haaretz newspaper. After closing schools and banning public gatherings of more than 10 individuals, Netanyahu announced on Monday a drastic reduction of private sector and public sector activity.
On Monday, members of Israel’s newly elected parliament were sworn in, but only in small groups—to prevent the spread of the virus. Netanyahu’s corruption trial, which was scheduled to open on Tuesday, was delayed by two months after Justice Minister Amir Ohana ordered judicial hearings temporarily postponed. The decision was decried by the prime minister’s political opponents.
Nadav Davidovitch, the director of the School of Public Health at Ben-Gurion University, said officials should be focusing on widening testing and improving protection for health care workers instead of focusing on surveillance measures. He said the drastic measure could undermine public confidence in the government’s efforts to bring the virus under control.
“Focus first on the traditional public health epidemiological data collection,” he said. “There is always a temptation to go to high-tech solutions, but without the proper transparency, checks, and balances, you can lose the public. And this is very dangerous.”
Davidovitch warned against portraying a public health problem as a security threat.
“That’s very problematic framing,” he said. “At the end of the day, you have a sick person. Is public health about the health of people and solidarity with them, or about protecting ‘us’ from ‘them?’”


foreignpolicy--2020-03-16--Will Iran Follow North Korea’s Path and Ditch the NPT?

Will Iran Follow North Korea ’ s Path and Ditch the NPT ?
Washington ’ s “ maximum pressure ” campaign against Iran has recently pushed each side into a series of escalatory moves and countermoves .
Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office , his administration has hoped that Iran would eventually relent and make concessions on its nuclear program , missile development , and regional activities , but it seems increasingly likely that Iran may instead decide that its best path forward is to follow North Korea ’ s example and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cornerstone for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons .
( Three years after pulling out in 2003 , North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon . )
The mainstream view in Iran until recently was that withdrawing from the NPT would bring further diplomatic isolation , lead to increased sanctions , and court a U.S. military strike on Iran ’ s nuclear facilities .
Therefore , it would be counterproductive to Tehran ’ s larger aspirations of regional leadership and reintegration into the international community .
But recent events have caused Tehran to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly far-fetched .
In the past year , the prospect of withdrawing from the NPT has transformed from a fringe idea among hard-liners in Iran into a real policy option that resonates with a surprisingly large spectrum of Iranian society .
Iran still maintains that it does not seek nuclear weapons , but as the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed on March 3 , Iran has nearly tripled its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 1,021 kilograms ( 1.1 tons ) since November 2019 .
This amount , if further enriched , would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran decided to cross the line .
It hasn ’ t helped that diplomatic relations between Iran and the other parties to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have rapidly deteriorated .
Since May 2019 Iran has scaled back on its commitments , and on Jan. 5 , it announced it would no longer abide by the operational restrictions on the low-enriched uranium stockpile , enrichment capacity , percentage of enrichment , amount of enriched material , and research and development .
In response , three of the remaining parties to the accord—France , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as the E3 ) —triggered the deal ’ s dispute resolution mechanism .
Iran takes issue with this , arguing that it already triggered the mechanism itself after the United States pulled out of the deal in 2018 .
The E3 and the European Union disagree and have been trying , with middling success , to persuade Russia and China to side with them on the matter .
This measure—if all steps are exhausted—could ultimately refer Iranian noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council and trigger the snapback of U.N. sanctions within weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party declares that Iran has not taken steps to resolve the dispute , it can remain bottled up indefinitely in the Joint Commission , the body charged with overseeing the accord .
Since Iran has not taken further provocative steps , such as enriching to 20 percent , the other parties seem content to kick the can down the road .
This is for the best .
Iran ’ s foreign minister , Mohammad Javad Zarif , has stated that if U.N. Security Council sanctions are reimposed , Iran may exit not merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is not just the prospect of U.N. economic sanctions that upsets Iranians , but the notion of again falling under provisions of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter , which allows the Security Council to take military and nonmilitary action to “ restore international peace and security.
” The idea of withdrawing from the NPT is not new , but is now being discussed widely in moderate circles , including by the speaker of the parliament , Ali Larijani .
This turn in strategic thinking is due to the ramping up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales and what Iran sees as the failure of other parties to provide sanctions relief promised under the deal .
Under these circumstances , Iranians increasingly believe they have nothing to gain from the deal and little more to lose by going rogue—since their country is already being treated as an outcast .
The heightened tensions with Washington and the increasing possibility of conflict add to Iranians ’ sense that the cards are stacked against them no matter what .
To the Iranian government , U.S. pressure could potentially become an existential threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy since 2003 can best be described as nuclear hedging : The country has been developing nuclear capabilities in order to maintain the option of building a weapon in the future should it decide to do so , while also downplaying and sidestepping international opposition in order to build negotiating leverage .
However , the heavy toll from Trump ’ s efforts since 2018 to deprive Iran of oil revenues appears to be changing Iran ’ s cost-benefit calculus .
Its economy shrank by 9.5 percent last year and is projected to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment has declined and oil exports have dropped dramatically .
Iran ’ s currency , the rial , has deeply depreciated and inflation has risen dramatically , increasing the cost of living for ordinary people in Iran .
Economic turmoil , in turn , has created a tense domestic situation : In November 2019 , nationwide protests over the sudden increase in gasoline prices put new pressure on the government .
The devastating impact of COVID-19 , which has hit Iran particularly hard , exacerbates the gloom .
To the Iranian government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to its survival .
The government therefore needs a game-changer .
Feeling driven into a corner , Iran could consider withdrawing from the NPT as the only option left to ensure self-preservation .
In a sense , they are falling for the same fatalistic logic applied by hawks in Israel and the United States who argue that since a conflict with Iran is inevitable in the future , it is best to weaken their adversary and face any conflict now rather than later .
Many of the political elite feel that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a few years with more limited oil revenue .
If Iran does decide to withdraw , it would not necessarily imply a decision to build nuclear weapons .
It considers that rejoining the NPT will be a valuable bargaining chip .
In addition , it could openly accelerate its enrichment program for the purpose of building leverage for future negotiations .
However , advocates of withdrawal point out that Iran is already suffering many of the same international consequences as North Korea—sanctions , pariah status—without any of the benefits .
Tehran is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encountered after withdrawing from the NPT .
So why not build a bomb for the sake of regime security and regional prestige ?
After all , Iran complied with the nuclear deal for three years , only to ultimately be threatened with new rounds of sanctions .
Some hard-line voices in Tehran argue that a nuclear weapon capability would boost Iran ’ s regional status like never before and might also guarantee the regime ’ s survival , as the risk of toppling a nuclear government in an already destabilized region would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , they conclude , a nuclear-armed Iran would have an upper hand in the international community .
However , Iran is aware of the risks of following North Korea ’ s path .
Despite its nuclear escalation , North Korea has not been able to negotiate tangible sanctions relief .
Leaving the NPT would likely unite the international community—including China and Russia—against Iran , and could provoke the United States , Israel , and at least one of the Gulf states , or a combination of these powers , to launch military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attack , which would be hard to keep from expanding to a large-scale war , would destroy Iran ’ s nuclear enrichment capabilities in the near term , but would almost guarantee that Iran would continue to build nuclear weapons in clandestine facilities .
However , if faced with renewed military threats from the United States , and if the E3 continues to prove unable to defuse mounting economic pressure and potential U.N. sanctions , Iran is likely to take this step .
The government in Tehran is under immense internal pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the summer of 2021 , a new , most likely hard-line , president will take office .
If Iran has not obtained significant sanctions relief by then , it is possible that the new president will seek to achieve for Iran the status his compatriots yearn for—likely through negotiations , with the open question being whether this will occur before or after Iran has built a nuclear weapon .
With the future of the nuclear deal in doubt , it is essential for the Europeans , China , and Russia to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as diplomatic and economic reintegration .
Such actions and assurances would de-escalate the situation , decrease the possibility of military attack and slow down Iran ’ s policy shift .
The severity of COVID-19 in Iran gives the remaining parties to the deal a strong reason to provide sanctions relief and assistance in humanitarian fields such as sending medical supplies .
Doing so would also show good faith and signal to Iranians the benefits of remaining part of the international community .
It can also set a more positive foundation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s part not to cross a red line on its nuclear activities .
It is vital that Iran continue its compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and remain party to NPT , in order to keep the door open for future agreements and prevent the worst-case scenarios of war or a nuclear-armed Iran .

Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran has recently pushed each side into a series of escalatory moves and countermoves. Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office, his administration has hoped that Iran would eventually relent and make concessions on its nuclear program, missile development, and regional activities, but it seems increasingly likely that Iran may instead decide that its best path forward is to follow North Korea’s example and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), long considered the global cornerstone for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. (Three years after pulling out in 2003, North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon.)
Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran has recently pushed each side into a series of escalatory moves and countermoves. Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office, his administration has hoped that Iran would eventually relent and make concessions on its nuclear program, missile development, and regional activities, but it seems increasingly likely that Iran may instead decide that its best path forward is to follow North Korea’s example and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), long considered the global cornerstone for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. (Three years after pulling out in 2003, North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon.)
The mainstream view in Iran until recently was that withdrawing from the NPT would bring further diplomatic isolation, lead to increased sanctions, and court a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Therefore, it would be counterproductive to Tehran’s larger aspirations of regional leadership and reintegration into the international community. But recent events have caused Tehran to reevaluate those ambitions, as they seem increasingly far-fetched. In the past year, the prospect of withdrawing from the NPT has transformed from a fringe idea among hard-liners in Iran into a real policy option that resonates with a surprisingly large spectrum of Iranian society.
Iran still maintains that it does not seek nuclear weapons, but as the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed on March 3, Iran has nearly tripled its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 1,021 kilograms (1.1 tons) since November 2019. This amount, if further enriched, would be enough for a nuclear bomb, if Iran decided to cross the line.
It hasn’t helped that diplomatic relations between Iran and the other parties to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have rapidly deteriorated. Since May 2019 Iran has scaled back on its commitments, and on Jan. 5, it announced it would no longer abide by the operational restrictions on the low-enriched uranium stockpile, enrichment capacity, percentage of enrichment, amount of enriched material, and research and development.
In response, three of the remaining parties to the accord—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (known as the E3)—triggered the deal’s dispute resolution mechanism. Iran takes issue with this, arguing that it already triggered the mechanism itself after the United States pulled out of the deal in 2018. The E3 and the European Union disagree and have been trying, with middling success, to persuade Russia and China to side with them on the matter.
This measure—if all steps are exhausted—could ultimately refer Iranian noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council and trigger the snapback of U.N. sanctions within weeks. However, as long as no party declares that Iran has not taken steps to resolve the dispute, it can remain bottled up indefinitely in the Joint Commission, the body charged with overseeing the accord. Since Iran has not taken further provocative steps, such as enriching to 20 percent, the other parties seem content to kick the can down the road.
This is for the best. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has stated that if U.N. Security Council sanctions are reimposed, Iran may exit not merely the nuclear deal but also the NPT. It is not just the prospect of U.N. economic sanctions that upsets Iranians, but the notion of again falling under provisions of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which allows the Security Council to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security.”
The idea of withdrawing from the NPT is not new, but is now being discussed widely in moderate circles, including by the speaker of the parliament, Ali Larijani. This turn in strategic thinking is due to the ramping up of U.S. sanctions, particularly on oil sales and what Iran sees as the failure of other parties to provide sanctions relief promised under the deal. Under these circumstances, Iranians increasingly believe they have nothing to gain from the deal and little more to lose by going rogue—since their country is already being treated as an outcast. The heightened tensions with Washington and the increasing possibility of conflict add to Iranians’ sense that the cards are stacked against them no matter what.
To the Iranian government, U.S. pressure could potentially become an existential threat to its survival.
Iran’s strategy since 2003 can best be described as nuclear hedging: The country has been developing nuclear capabilities in order to maintain the option of building a weapon in the future should it decide to do so, while also downplaying and sidestepping international opposition in order to build negotiating leverage. However, the heavy toll from Trump’s efforts since 2018 to deprive Iran of oil revenues appears to be changing Iran’s cost-benefit calculus.
Its economy shrank by 9.5 percent last year and is projected to remain flat in the coming year. Foreign investment has declined and oil exports have dropped dramatically. Iran’s currency, the rial, has deeply depreciated and inflation has risen dramatically, increasing the cost of living for ordinary people in Iran. Economic turmoil, in turn, has created a tense domestic situation: In November 2019, nationwide protests over the sudden increase in gasoline prices put new pressure on the government. The devastating impact of COVID-19, which has hit Iran particularly hard, exacerbates the gloom.
To the Iranian government, U.S. pressure could potentially become an existential threat to its survival. The government therefore needs a game-changer. Feeling driven into a corner, Iran could consider withdrawing from the NPT as the only option left to ensure self-preservation. In a sense, they are falling for the same fatalistic logic applied by hawks in Israel and the United States who argue that since a conflict with Iran is inevitable in the future, it is best to weaken their adversary and face any conflict now rather than later. Many of the political elite feel that they should take the gamble now rather than after a few years with more limited oil revenue.
If Iran does decide to withdraw, it would not necessarily imply a decision to build nuclear weapons. It considers that rejoining the NPT will be a valuable bargaining chip. In addition, it could openly accelerate its enrichment program for the purpose of building leverage for future negotiations. However, advocates of withdrawal point out that Iran is already suffering many of the same international consequences as North Korea—sanctions, pariah status—without any of the benefits.
Tehran is suffering now from problems that Pyongyang only encountered after withdrawing from the NPT. So why not build a bomb for the sake of regime security and regional prestige? After all, Iran complied with the nuclear deal for three years, only to ultimately be threatened with new rounds of sanctions.
Some hard-line voices in Tehran argue that a nuclear weapon capability would boost Iran’s regional status like never before and might also guarantee the regime’s survival, as the risk of toppling a nuclear government in an already destabilized region would be too high for the West. In short, they conclude, a nuclear-armed Iran would have an upper hand in the international community.
However, Iran is aware of the risks of following North Korea’s path. Despite its nuclear escalation, North Korea has not been able to negotiate tangible sanctions relief. Leaving the NPT would likely unite the international community—including China and Russia—against Iran, and could provoke the United States, Israel, and at least one of the Gulf states, or a combination of these powers, to launch military strikes against its nuclear facilities.
Such an attack, which would be hard to keep from expanding to a large-scale war, would destroy Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities in the near term, but would almost guarantee that Iran would continue to build nuclear weapons in clandestine facilities.
However, if faced with renewed military threats from the United States, and if the E3 continues to prove unable to defuse mounting economic pressure and potential U.N. sanctions, Iran is likely to take this step.
The government in Tehran is under immense internal pressure from hard-line factions and from the public. In the summer of 2021, a new, most likely hard-line, president will take office. If Iran has not obtained significant sanctions relief by then, it is possible that the new president will seek to achieve for Iran the status his compatriots yearn for—likely through negotiations, with the open question being whether this will occur before or after Iran has built a nuclear weapon.
With the future of the nuclear deal in doubt, it is essential for the Europeans, China, and Russia to take firm action on sanctions relief, as well as diplomatic and economic reintegration. Such actions and assurances would de-escalate the situation, decrease the possibility of military attack and slow down Iran’s policy shift.
The severity of COVID-19 in Iran gives the remaining parties to the deal a strong reason to provide sanctions relief and assistance in humanitarian fields such as sending medical supplies. Doing so would also show good faith and signal to Iranians the benefits of remaining part of the international community. It can also set a more positive foundation for diplomacy and encourage restraint on Iran’s part not to cross a red line on its nuclear activities.
It is vital that Iran continue its compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and remain party to NPT, in order to keep the door open for future agreements and prevent the worst-case scenarios of war or a nuclear-armed Iran.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-16--Another Big Market Collapse Heightens Fears of Global Recession

Global markets collapsed again on Monday , dismissive of the U.S. Federal Reserve ’ s dramatic weekend rate cut and huge new round of quantitative easing , as the near-term economic carnage from the new coronavirus outbreak is coming into sharp relief .
For the third time in less than a week , trading on the New York Stock Exchange was briefly suspended after the market plunged almost 12 percent upon opening , and it closed even lower , down almost 13 percent in one of its worst days ever , while stock markets across Europe and Asia posted sharp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though U.S. President Donald Trump finally has interest rates close to zero , the move to loosen monetary policy has done little to assuage nervous investors .
“ It ’ s started to dawn on people—we ’ ve seen the demonstration of the president ’ s understanding of the problem , which was worrisome—that there is nothing between us and the worst-case scenario , ” said Austan Goolsbee , a professor of economics at the University of Chicago ’ s Booth School of Business .
Trump acknowledged that the outbreak , and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer and could lead to a recession .
“ People are talking about July , August … could be longer than that , ” he said .
He announced fresh recommendations to limit gatherings and social outings but stopped short of ordering any closures or any domestic travel ban .
He said he grades his response to the virus outbreak as “ 10 out of 10.
” Goldman Sachs said over the weekend that the United States could see economic contraction of 5 percent in the second quarter , a sharp reversal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manufacturing data from New York state just showed the biggest monthly drop on record .
Trump ’ s former top economic advisor Kevin Hassett said Monday that chances of a recession are nearly 100 percent , with big job losses on the horizon .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , in contrast , over the weekend was still dismissing fears of a recession even as the market plunges and economic indicators go south .
“ A 5 percent contraction is way too optimistic , ” said Goolsbee , who as President Barack Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ navigate the financial crash and Great Recession of a decade ago .
“ Rich country economies are dominated by services , and that is what drops precipitously with social distancing .
So the economic impact on Italy , the rest of Europe , now on the United States is going to be bigger even than it was in China for the same size outbreak.
” And that ’ s scary , because the latest economic data from China , where the outbreak ( and the economic shutdown ) first began , is especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ output and retail sales .
Forecasters now expect the world ’ s second-largest economy to shrink in the first quarter , the worst performance since the days of Mao Zedong .
To deal with the economic fallout of the pandemic ( and the measures to contain it ) , policymakers will first have to stem the spread of the disease and then turn to other tools , especially massive fiscal stimulus .
That ’ s one reason that even steep interest rate cuts by the Fed and other central banks have failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say that the Fed ’ s drastic action was unneeded—it injects liquidity into the financial markets and prompted other central banks to lower rates as well , which could grease a recovery down the road .
More immediately , by firing off all the monetary policy ammunition and leaving rates close to zero in the United States and below zero in Europe and Japan , the way is now open for aggressive fiscal stimulus , according to Adam Posen , the president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep inactive , ” Posen said in an email .
“ Borrowing costs are going to be essentially zero for sovereign rich country debt for the foreseeable future.
” Some countries in Europe , such as the United Kingdom , France , and Italy , have already announced multibillion-dollar stimulus plans to help workers and small businesses in the near term , though additional measures will likely be needed as the pain from closed factories , canceled trips , and national lockdowns percolates through the global economy .
Since last week , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for paid sick leave , possible tax cuts , and the like—but is still struggling to get enough testing kits or other medical equipment , enforce social distancing , or even have a consistent message from policymakers about how serious the threat is and how it should be handled .
The White House is trying to put together a big rescue package that reportedly includes a big payroll tax cut and targeted aid for vulnerable industries , support for paid leave , and loans for small businesses .
“ Whenever you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t work until you tone down the public panic about the virus , ” Goolsbee said .
“ It ’ s not like a regular business cycle ; anything to slow the spread of the virus is the greatest economic stimulus you could have , and it ’ s now clear that U.S. government policy is not doing that.
” As the virus outbreak continues—with new cases and deaths still rising rapidly in outbreak epicenters such as Spain and Italy , with France announcing on Monday a two-week nationwide shutdown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States–the near-term economic damage is becoming increasingly evident .
The G-7 countries said Monday the outbreak poses “ major risks ” for the global economy and vowed to take any actions necessary .
The big question : Will the pain will be a single , concentrated punch while the outbreak peaks , to be replaced by heady economic growth later in the year , as many forecasters still expect , or will the slowdown persist ?
A temporary hit would leave the potential for a strong economic rebound , as Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave a trail of permanent damage in its wake .
“ One of the challenges that a policymaker faces is to try to prevent the temporary negative things from becoming permanent .
There are going to be lots of people and companies that could go bankrupt , and the more of that there is , the more lasting this will be , and the harder it will be to see a V-shaped recovery , ” Goolsbee said .
Greg Mankiw , former President George W. Bush ’ s chief economic advisor , wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week , before the Fed even took action .
He called a recession “ likely ” and called for immediate actions not to jumpstart demand throughout the economy but to allow people to get through the next few months .
“ There are times to worry about the growing government debt .
This is not one of them , ” he wrote .
That ’ s why the focus everywhere is now on different combinations of fiscal stimulus that can tide people over through the worst .
France , which is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting a national lockdown , announced a huge economic backstop to ensure that no French companies go bankrupt , with French President Emmanuel Macron comparing the fight against the virus to a state of war .
The U.K. just announced a 30 billion pound ( $ 37 billion ) package of its own , while Italy , which already put forward a 28 billion euro ( $ 31 billion ) rescue plan , is going back to the well for billions more .
In Washington , lawmakers are reconvening this week to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave , more loans for cash-strapped small businesses , and perhaps some additional tax cuts .
Also gathering momentum are proposals for direct cash payments to Americans to act as a financial lifeline in the short term .
Another measure that is gaining traction is targeted aid for certain sectors that are taking a massive hit as a result of the outbreak .
The global airline business , which was already on track to lose more than $ 100 billion this year , now is at risk of a wave of bankruptcies by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have all slashed their capacity , and many have already announced pay cuts or layoffs ; European airlines are equally hard-hit .
The pain is only set to increase : The European Union is banning travel from countries outside the 26-nation Schengen free-movement area .
And that near-shutdown of the airline business shows up clearly in the unprecedented glut in the global oil market , exacerbated by a price and production war between Saudi Arabia and Russia .
Crude oil prices plunged 12 percent in London and 9 percent in New York to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many U.S. producers to make money even to service their huge piles of debt .
The oil outlook is likely to get even worse as the full scope of the economic disruption spreads from Europe to the United States : IHS Markit , the big energy consultancy , said in a release that the collapse in demand for oil combined with extra production by Saudi Arabia and Russia could produce “ the most extreme global oil supply surplus ever recorded.
” That ’ s terrifying news for U.S. oil producers , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years : IHS estimates that falling prices and growing crude surpluses could knock off 2 million to 4 million barrels a day of U.S. oil production .
That would have huge ripple effects on employment and spending throughout the entire U.S. oil patch .
And cash flow woes for heavily leveraged oil producers could bleed into the corporate debt market , which is more bloated than ever before .
Any downgrades to corporate debt will automatically trigger lots of sales , because big institutional investors can only hold higher-quality bonds .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors , needing cash , start liquidating their riskier holdings while they can ; some on Wall Street are talking about a 2008-style bond debacle .
“ Over a short period , this is likely to be far nastier than a typical recession , ” Goolsbee said .

Global markets collapsed again on Monday, dismissive of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s dramatic weekend rate cut and huge new round of quantitative easing, as the near-term economic carnage from the new coronavirus outbreak is coming into sharp relief.
Global markets collapsed again on Monday, dismissive of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s dramatic weekend rate cut and huge new round of quantitative easing, as the near-term economic carnage from the new coronavirus outbreak is coming into sharp relief.
For the third time in less than a week, trading on the New York Stock Exchange was briefly suspended after the market plunged almost 12 percent upon opening, and it closed even lower, down almost 13 percent in one of its worst days ever, while stock markets across Europe and Asia posted sharp declines and crude oil cratered. Even though U.S. President Donald Trump finally has interest rates close to zero, the move to loosen monetary policy has done little to assuage nervous investors.
“It’s started to dawn on people—we’ve seen the demonstration of the president’s understanding of the problem, which was worrisome—that there is nothing between us and the worst-case scenario,” said Austan Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
Trump acknowledged that the outbreak, and its attendant disruptions, could last into the summer and could lead to a recession. “People are talking about July, August … could be longer than that,” he said. He announced fresh recommendations to limit gatherings and social outings but stopped short of ordering any closures or any domestic travel ban. He said he grades his response to the virus outbreak as “10 out of 10.”
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Goldman Sachs said over the weekend that the United States could see economic contraction of 5 percent in the second quarter, a sharp reversal that would likely qualify as a recession. Manufacturing data from New York state just showed the biggest monthly drop on record. Trump’s former top economic advisor Kevin Hassett said Monday that chances of a recession are nearly 100 percent, with big job losses on the horizon. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, in contrast, over the weekend was still dismissing fears of a recession even as the market plunges and economic indicators go south.
“A 5 percent contraction is way too optimistic,” said Goolsbee, who as President Barack Obama’s former chief economic advisor helped to navigate the financial crash and Great Recession of a decade ago. “Rich country economies are dominated by services, and that is what drops precipitously with social distancing. So the economic impact on Italy, the rest of Europe, now on the United States is going to be bigger even than it was in China for the same size outbreak.”
And that’s scary, because the latest economic data from China, where the outbreak (and the economic shutdown) first began, is especially dire, with double-digit declines in factory output and retail sales. Forecasters now expect the world’s second-largest economy to shrink in the first quarter, the worst performance since the days of Mao Zedong.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
To deal with the economic fallout of the pandemic (and the measures to contain it), policymakers will first have to stem the spread of the disease and then turn to other tools, especially massive fiscal stimulus. That’s one reason that even steep interest rate cuts by the Fed and other central banks have failed to cheer markets.
That’s not to say that the Fed’s drastic action was unneeded—it injects liquidity into the financial markets and prompted other central banks to lower rates as well, which could grease a recovery down the road. More immediately, by firing off all the monetary policy ammunition and leaving rates close to zero in the United States and below zero in Europe and Japan, the way is now open for aggressive fiscal stimulus, according to Adam Posen, the president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
“This removes any excuses for fiscal policymakers to keep inactive,” Posen said in an email. “Borrowing costs are going to be essentially zero for sovereign rich country debt for the foreseeable future.”
Some countries in Europe, such as the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, have already announced multibillion-dollar stimulus plans to help workers and small businesses in the near term, though additional measures will likely be needed as the pain from closed factories, canceled trips, and national lockdowns percolates through the global economy. Since last week, the United States has been mulling short-term plans for paid sick leave, possible tax cuts, and the like—but is still struggling to get enough testing kits or other medical equipment, enforce social distancing, or even have a consistent message from policymakers about how serious the threat is and how it should be handled. The White House is trying to put together a big rescue package that reportedly includes a big payroll tax cut and targeted aid for vulnerable industries, support for paid leave, and loans for small businesses.
“Whenever you’re in a crisis, I think stimulus can’t work until you tone down the public panic about the virus,” Goolsbee said. “It’s not like a regular business cycle; anything to slow the spread of the virus is the greatest economic stimulus you could have, and it’s now clear that U.S. government policy is not doing that.”
As the virus outbreak continues—with new cases and deaths still rising rapidly in outbreak epicenters such as Spain and Italy, with France announcing on Monday a two-week nationwide shutdown, and with state and local closures in the United States–the near-term economic damage is becoming increasingly evident. The G-7 countries said Monday the outbreak poses “major risks” for the global economy and vowed to take any actions necessary.
The big question: Will the pain will be a single, concentrated punch while the outbreak peaks, to be replaced by heady economic growth later in the year, as many forecasters still expect, or will the slowdown persist? A temporary hit would leave the potential for a strong economic rebound, as Trump insisted—assuming that the slowdown doesn’t leave a trail of permanent damage in its wake.
“One of the challenges that a policymaker faces is to try to prevent the temporary negative things from becoming permanent. There are going to be lots of people and companies that could go bankrupt, and the more of that there is, the more lasting this will be, and the harder it will be to see a V-shaped recovery,” Goolsbee said.
Greg Mankiw, former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisor, wrote much the same prognosis and recommendations late last week, before the Fed even took action. He called a recession “likely” and called for immediate actions not to jumpstart demand throughout the economy but to allow people to get through the next few months. “There are times to worry about the growing government debt. This is not one of them,” he wrote.
That’s why the focus everywhere is now on different combinations of fiscal stimulus that can tide people over through the worst. France, which is now beginning to copy Italy and Spain by starting a national lockdown, announced a huge economic backstop to ensure that no French companies go bankrupt, with French President Emmanuel Macron comparing the fight against the virus to a state of war. The U.K. just announced a 30 billion pound ($37 billion) package of its own, while Italy, which already put forward a 28 billion euro ($31 billion) rescue plan, is going back to the well for billions more.
In Washington, lawmakers are reconvening this week to take up legislation that would provide paid sick leave, more loans for cash-strapped small businesses, and perhaps some additional tax cuts. Also gathering momentum are proposals for direct cash payments to Americans to act as a financial lifeline in the short term.
Another measure that is gaining traction is targeted aid for certain sectors that are taking a massive hit as a result of the outbreak. The global airline business, which was already on track to lose more than $100 billion this year, now is at risk of a wave of bankruptcies by the end of May. U.S. carriers have all slashed their capacity, and many have already announced pay cuts or layoffs; European airlines are equally hard-hit. The pain is only set to increase: The European Union is banning travel from countries outside the 26-nation Schengen free-movement area.
And that near-shutdown of the airline business shows up clearly in the unprecedented glut in the global oil market, exacerbated by a price and production war between Saudi Arabia and Russia. Crude oil prices plunged 12 percent in London and 9 percent in New York to under $30 a barrel—far too low for many U.S. producers to make money even to service their huge piles of debt.
The oil outlook is likely to get even worse as the full scope of the economic disruption spreads from Europe to the United States: IHS Markit, the big energy consultancy, said in a release that the collapse in demand for oil combined with extra production by Saudi Arabia and Russia could produce “the most extreme global oil supply surplus ever recorded.” That’s terrifying news for U.S. oil producers, which have been pumping with abandon in recent years: IHS estimates that falling prices and growing crude surpluses could knock off 2 million to 4 million barrels a day of U.S. oil production. That would have huge ripple effects on employment and spending throughout the entire U.S. oil patch.
And cash flow woes for heavily leveraged oil producers could bleed into the corporate debt market, which is more bloated than ever before. Any downgrades to corporate debt will automatically trigger lots of sales, because big institutional investors can only hold higher-quality bonds. And that cycle could be accelerated if other big investors, needing cash, start liquidating their riskier holdings while they can; some on Wall Street are talking about a 2008-style bond debacle.
“Over a short period, this is likely to be far nastier than a typical recession,” Goolsbee said.