US Press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. What Greece means (New York Times)

Greece -- like other European nations forced to impose austerity in a depressed economy -- seems doomed to many more years of suffering, writes Paul Krugman.

2. How to sink Iran's regime? Sanctions, not bombs (Washington Post)

The worst option in terms of regime change would probably be a unilateral Israeli military strike, writes David Ignatius.

3. The reproduction of privilege (New York Times)

Politically, the lack of access to a four-year college education is a crucial problem for one of the key battleground constituencies of 2012: whites without college degrees, says Thomas Edsall.

4. Greece's credit non-event (Wall Street Journal)

Greek's default is only one chapter of a much larger economic and political tragedy, but at this stage any good news is welcome, says this editorial.

5. Obama's politicized energy policy (Wall Street Journal) (£)

The Obama administration does have a national energy policy - it's just a subservient by-product of his radical environmental policy, writes Bobby Jindal.

6. Tough poses in a political theater (Boston Globe) (£)

Last week's annual meeting of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee was just theater... Progress in foreign affairs is less a stylized performance for an exclusive audience and more often improv wrapped in Greek tragedy, says Juliette Kayyem.

7. Obama vs. Israel (Chicago Tribune)

The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with this strategy of tying Israel down, writes Charles Krauthammer.

8. Candidate media-bashing popular, but a losing tactic (USA Today)

Yes, the media are easy, sometimes deserving targets, and huffy outbursts against journalists during debates usually bring cheers from the crowd and could help fundraising. But as a strategy, it's misguided, writes Peter Funt.

9. Drop talk of war on Iran; let diplomacy, sanctions work (St. Louis Today)

There may some day be a case for intervention in Iran. Sooner than that there may be a case for intervention in Syria. But as a last resort, not the first one, says this editorial.

10. Defining the Occupy Movement: It's not just about the money (Oregonian)

Our lives are not just about the paycheck. Happiness depends on a balance between meaning and money. A real people's movement that aims for true solidarity, felt individually and collectively, can and should make room for both, writes Rich Cohen.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.