M K Bhadrakumar l
The statement by the Director of the United States National Counterintelligence and Security Center William Evanina on August 7 giving an “unclassified overview of foreign threats” to the 2020 US presidential election selectively focuses on “the ongoing and potential activity” by three adversaries — China, Russia, and Iran.
Traditionally, Israel has meddled in the US election directly and forcefully much than any other country possibly could, but the American elite regard it as a family affair. More recently, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also been mentioned as interfering in the US elections, but, again, none of them can be regarded as an adversary of the US so far.
In the upcoming November election, India also may be deemed to have made a maiden entry — Howdy Modi event in Houston last September November where Prime Minister Modi solicited Indian-American votes for President Trump in his presence. Many Indian analysts were bullish that there were few takers for anti-India rant in Texas; they went on to applaud that Modi could “handsomely encash” that brazen act in Houston if Trump gets re-elected President.
But that is becoming a big ‘if’, as things stand. According to the American history professor Allan Lichtman who has correctly predicted the winner of each presidential race since Ronald Reagan’s reelection victory in 1984, using his famous “13 keys” system, Trump is heading for defeat. Indeed, we won’t know either way until the November election.
America’s counter-intelligence tsar Evanina in his statement last Friday categorised China, Russia and Iran into three broad categories — China against Trump; Russia against Biden; and Iran against both Trump and Biden. This is a plausible categorisation but caveats must be added.
To take China first, it is at once obvious that Beijing has stepped up anti-American rhetoric in the past several weeks. But it is hard to see any trace of interference in the November election. The rhetoric is almost entirely by way of presenting a counter-narrative to what the US officials have been stridently propagating against the Chinese Communist Party leadership. Simply put, the Chinese rhetoric has been largely defensive.
While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Pompeo has directly mentioned President Xi Jinping by name in his criticism of China, Chinese rhetoric took care to steer clear of Trump. China has instead highlighted Pompeo and White House aide Peter Navarro as incorrigible Sinophobes, and made a clear distinction between ‘some American officials’ and the rest of the US administration. The US officials who negotiated the trade deal with China — in particular, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer — or Defence Secretary Mark Esper never figured in the Chinese rhetoric.
Contrary to what Evanina would have us believe, the overall impression one gets is that China can learn to live with both Trump and Biden — or, to put it differently, there will be little to choose between the two, since historical forces are at work in the China-US rivalry and that will remain the case regardless of who is at the White House.
In this Marxist-Leninist line of thinking, China sees the inevitability of rivalry and tensions in the relationship for a foreseeable future. If anything, China has been listening to Sinologists such as Kevin Rudd who predict that Biden will be no less “tough” on China than Trump.
Nonetheless, China probably regards Biden as a predictable politician in contrast with Trump’s mercurial personality.
Evanina’s statement works to Trump’s advantage insofar as the latter gains out of any perception that the Chinese do not like him because he’s “tough”. The “tough-guy” image apparently goes down well in America where the majority opinion favours the US taking a hard line vis-a-vis China on trade and related issues such as jobs.
When it comes to Russia, Evanina’s statement is spot on. It is plain to see that Russia is working hard to debunk Biden’s candidacy. The Russian state media hardly ever criticises Trump. But every little slip-up on Biden’s part is grist to the Russian mill.
Notwithstanding the unfriendly policies pursued by the state department and the Pentagon and CIA since 2017, Moscow’s comfort level with Trump himself is appreciable. Moscow seems confident that Trump is not inherently hostile and can be trusted to keep tensions under check.
On the contrary, Moscow is deeply sceptical of Biden and harbours an antipathy toward him no less visceral than toward Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Indeed, Biden has a long record in foreign policy dating back to his decades in the Senate and the 8 years as vice-president under Obama.
Moscow knows Biden in and out and has no illusions that his hardline attitude, which was very much in evidence during the regime change in Ukraine, all but closes the door on US-Russia normalisation if he becomes president. Any strengthening of the transatlantic partnership, which is a key foreign policy agenda for Biden, will isolate Russia even further geopolitically.
Clearly, Russian state media works to weaken Biden’s election prospects. He is the butt of ridicule and his stance on various issues are subjected to critical scrutiny.
Curiously, Trump claims he is the toughest American president that Russia ever knew, but Putin has been a cooperative interlocutor all along where vital US interests were involved — oil price, terrorism, etc. To be sure, we’ll hear more on this topic in a Biden presidency.
Iran’s stance has similarities with China’s insofar as Tehran also has no preferences and is inclined to view the November election through the prism of its overall relationship with the US. Tehran had placed high hopes initially on Trump whom it regarded as a pragmatic politician — a potential dealmaker. But all that has become a thing of the past. Most certainly, the assassination of the Quds chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January has been a turning point. The dastardly murder colours Tehran’s perspective today on Trump as a criminal.
On the other hand, it is entirely conceivable that under a Biden presidency, the US-Iran tensions would ease and the two countries would return to the negotiating table. Tehran knows that any negotiations will be tough, since Israeli influence on the Democrats will still remain substantial, and the contradictions stemming from the US’ regional strategies in the Middle East cannot be wished away.
Iran faces severe constraints in making inroads into the US domestic politics or the public opinion. Its capacity to interfere in the US election is marginal. Its influence over American think tankers and the media has been rising in the recent years but there is still a very long way to go — another decade at least — before Tehran can aspire to be an opinion maker. It is doubtful if the US counterintelligence seriously regards Iran as posing threat to the US election.
M. K. Bhadrakumar has served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, with postings as India’s ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001). He writes extensively in Indian newspapers, Asia Times and the “Indian Punchline”. This piece was first published in Indian Punchline. Views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not reflect those of The Info Corridor.
Follow us everywhere and at any time. Theinfocorridor.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news from us, follow our Youtube, Twitter and Facebook pages.