The Duck of Minerva

Peter Henne

Peter Henne is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Global and Regional Studies Program at the University of Vermont. His research focuses on global religious politics and the Middle East. His first book, Islamic Politics, Muslim States and Counterterrorism Tensions, was published in 2017 by Cambridge University Press and he is currently working on a book analyzing how states try to use religion in foreign policy. His scholarly research has been published in International Journal of Religion, International Studies Perspectives, Journal of Church and State, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, Politics and Religion, Religions, States and Societies, and Terrorism and Political Violence. In addition to the Duck, he has written for the Washington Post's Monkeycage, Political Violence at a Glance and The Huffington Post.

[molongui_author_box show_avatar="no" show_related="no" name_text_color="transparent" name_text_size="8" layout="slim" show_meta="no" show_bio="no" profile_layout="layout-3"]

Recent Posts

Deconstructing the blob

Deconstructing the blob

by | 16 March, 2020 |

"The blob" has become a common term during the Democratic Primary. The DC foreign policy establishment, so the argument goes, has an overwhelming effect on all who engage with it, sucking them in and spitting them out as appendages to its militaristic, status quo policies. There is some truth to this idea, but it has come to encompass too much, and the term is losing its value. It may be worth deconstructing what we meant by "the blob" and having a real, direct, debate on Demcratic foreign policy. The Rise of THE BLOB One of the more popular phrases flung around in the Democratic Primary (at...

read more
Are the liberal internationalists wrong? On “being nice” and US foreign policy

Are the liberal internationalists wrong? On “being nice” and US foreign policy

by | 11 February, 2020 |

I got an alert from the Foreign Policy app on my phone the other day: Tunisia had fired its UN ambassador after he opposed Trump's Israel-Palestine "peace plan." Tunisian foreign policy doesn't usually make waves, but this caught my attention. It's a sign that, while Arab states aren't enthused about this plan, they are unlikely to push back strongly. It got me thinking about a bigger question: whether Trump will face any costs as the result of his unilateral and aggressive foreign policy, as liberal internationalists might expect. The answer seems to be no, and that has big implications for...

read more
Restraint for what purpose?

Restraint for what purpose?

by | 30 January, 2020 | ,

Restraint in US foreign policy is having a moment. That's a good thing. But I worry it's unclear whether restraint is a means or an end, and what that end would be. Without resolving this--preferably in favor of re-imagining a continued US leadership role in the world--current calls for restraint may do more harm than good. The popularity of restraint in US foreign policy should be making me happy. I went to college in the Bush years, and marched against the Iraq war. After graduating, I joined a group in DC trying to formulate a smart, progressive foreign policy vision. A few years later I...

read more
An American died in an Egyptian jail. Why didn’t this well-connected human rights community speak out?

An American died in an Egyptian jail. Why didn’t this well-connected human rights community speak out?

by | 16 January, 2020 | ,

Earlier this week, Mustafa Kassem, an American held in Egypt, died. The Trump Administration did little to help him. That wasn't surprising. What was surprising was that the international religious freedom movement (IRF), a community that has gained close access to this Administration, seemed to have done little as well. The reason behind this should make this movement think seriously about its approach to the human rights. Let me tell you two stories. In October 2016, Andrew Brunson--a US pastor who had worked for a long time in Turkey--was arrested for alleged connections to the coup...

read more
The sneaky rise of “common wisdom” in Middle East studies

The sneaky rise of “common wisdom” in Middle East studies

by | 6 January, 2020 | ,

We've all spent the weekend processing the killing of Iranian official Qassim Suleimani by a US airstrike. While this is obviously very important, we should think about a secondary implication of this act--how this undermined the apparent Middle East analyst consensus that America was pulling back from tensions with Iran, and how this consensus even emerged in the first place. A few months ago I noticed something interesting. Saudi Arabia, after adopting a hostile foreign policy on Qatar and Yemen--motivated by its fears of Iran--seemed to be getting nervous. They'd issue warning signs about...

read more
The biggest losers from the Suleimani strike may be America’s Gulf allies

The biggest losers from the Suleimani strike may be America’s Gulf allies

by | 3 January, 2020 | , ,

Depending on your Twitter addiction, you either went to sleep or woke up with the news that America had assassinated Qassim Suleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds force. Suleimani was one of the most powerful men in Iran, and the driver of its activities in the Middle East, so this is a big deal. People are debating whether this was just and necessary, and what happens next. But I wanted to raise a different point: what this means for America's Persian Gulf allies. Many would suspect these states--particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)--to be the biggest winners in...

read more
Chain-ganging in reverse? Gulf states and US hostility towards Iran

Chain-ganging in reverse? Gulf states and US hostility towards Iran

by | 16 December, 2019 | , , ,

I had a piece in the Washington Post's "Monkeycage" over the weekend, which you can read here. I noted that many worry Saudi Arabia and the UAE will pull America into war with Iran. But it actually looks like they're the ones restraining us. The piece was inspired by the famous "chain-ganging" dynamic in IR scholarship, but there was little discussion of that as it was geared towards a broader audience, so I wanted to expand here. I suspect most readers of this site had to read Christensen and Snyder's "Chain gangs and passed bucks" at some point. In case you didn't, the argument is...

read more
This op-ed shows what’s wrong with US foreign policy

This op-ed shows what’s wrong with US foreign policy

by | 13 December, 2019 |

Today, Ryan Crocker--career foreign service officer and former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan--wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post criticizing its criticism of the Afghanistan war he oversaw. He pointed to progress made in Afghanistan, which is fair (and doesn't necessarily contradict anything in the Post's reporting), but generally did little to directly undermine worries about the war. Beyond that, as I noted in a frustrated Twitter thread earlier today, he showed off a lot of what's wrong with US foreign policy. I spent 11 years in Washington, DC, doing the usual young professional...

read more
IR, it’s time to talk about what the “multiple comparisons issue” really is

IR, it’s time to talk about what the “multiple comparisons issue” really is

by | 15 November, 2019 | ,

As a reviewer and recipient of reviews, I've noted a recent trend among IR papers. A study uses cross-national data with regression analysis, and runs multiple models with different variables or sub-sets of the data. Sometimes the results are consistent, sometimes they aren't. But often a reviewer will object to the study's validity, pointing to the "multiple comparisons" issue. Multiple comparisons can be a real problem in quantitative IR studies, but I worry we're mis-diagnosing it. What do I mean? Imagine we're writing a paper on interstate conflict. We could measure conflict onset,...

read more
A bigger question in the alt-ac debate

A bigger question in the alt-ac debate

by | 8 November, 2019 |

I had a kind of unique path to my current tenure-track job, straddling the policy-academia divide. So I've followed current discussions on "alt-ac" careers with interest, but found something lacking in them. Nathan Paxton's recent interview with APSA crystallized that; the bigger question is not how to support alt-ac PhDs but how to counsel people before getting PhDs in the first place. As I've discussed, I sort of followed the "alt-ac" approach in the first part of my career. For those who haven't seen it, "alt-ac" means "alternative academic," referring to PhDs who pursue jobs outside of...

read more