Iraq was a French affair. We deposed a regime that they had strong economic ties to. Our relationship with France is important, and to the extent that the decision to overthrow that regime has impacted that relationship, it does matter what France thinks about the US's foreign policy choices. It's not binary- either we let French interests dictate American foreign policy or we don't- but it's worth taking into account how US actions are going to impact relations with our strategic allies.

---

Well, it's in America's best interest to have as much goodwill built up as possible with other countries, so that they're more inclined to help us when we need their help. Suppose it really was in America's best interest to invade Iran (purely hypothetically) - at this point, there's no chance that Bush could convince most European nations to help us with such an invasion, because they don't trust him and see what a lousy job he did with the aftermath of Iraq. Maybe it would be better to say that it's helpful to have other countries trust us.

Just in case, I don't disagree with either of these statements. Clearly we want allies and help out in the world. But, IMO, we don't want that at the compromise of our beliefs and values. I do regret the harm done to our standing with other countries, especially our allies, based on Bush's follies. But the idea that we shouldn't act alone, if need be, is also folly. That actually is my biggest objection to the Iraq War. I do believe pre-emptive war can be justified. But, as you say, if you pre-emptively attack someone under, it turns out, false pretenses and the war goes badly, when you need that help you aren't likely to get it.

I get that considering how good a diplomat a candidate might be is important. But I, too, have heard the complaints of Europeans about how backward the US is and I think they have exactly backward. I think their lack of immigration control coupled with lack of assimilatino, their preference for putting people on the dole and lack of interest in dealing with security issues in their own backyard is backward. Not that I think they should consider my opinion when they vote but I find the idea that Europe is some noble, advanced civilization and we're a bunch of rubes is way, way off base. Sure, I hope our next president is a better diplomat than W (I'm not exactly sure how they could be worse) but considering what Europeans or Asians think of the US is not on the radar of my thought in this matter. I won't vote for a guy just to piss of a European but I'm sure not going to care if they don't like my guy, if I like my guy. If we're in agreement, as it sounds like we may be, that's cool but the posts I was responding to made it sound like it was an important consideration. I don't think it is. We should elect who best represents us and agrees with us and other countries can do the same. Our leaders can then all react accordingly.

This is one reason why I'm less convinced all the time that the 22nd Amendment was such a great idea. Presidents have had second-term problems since George Washington, of course, but the last few have been awful: Nixon mired in Watergate, Reagan in Iran/Contra, Clinton impeached, Bush with Katrina and Iraq. Particularly in the 2005-09 cycle, it seemed like the 2008 Presidential campaign started the day after Election Day '04, and the lame-duck effect has been intense. On the whole, perpetual re-eligibility is still probably a bad idea (potential Presidents-for-life are the bane of any republic), but one wonders if things would have gone better for any of these guys if they'd been looking at another referendum on themselves after eight years.

I've always thought term limits only make sense if the limit is one. I don't see why two terms is anything but an accident of history. I'd change the limit to one consecutive term for all: president, house and senate and say that they can't move straight from one of those three to the other. Either that or no term limits at all.

Okay, must work.

Presidents have had second-term problems since George Washington, of course, but the last few have been awful: Nixon mired in Watergate, Reagan in Iran/Contra, Clinton impeached, Bush with Katrina and Iraq.

Selection bias. Plenty of presidents have first-term problems; they're just not the ones who get second terms.

I do think Bush shouldn't have started that hurricane, though.

Clearly we want allies and help out in the world. But, IMO, we don't want that at the compromise of our beliefs and values.

Well, this depends on what you mean by "compromise".

Say, just to do a silly quantifying exercise, we let the international community have a 2% say in US decisions. This means that in cases where the US wants, 60-40, do some something based on its beliefs and values, international opinion wouldn't sway that. But if it's a close call, 51-49, then the US would "compromise" and go along with international opinion.

Obviously nothing actually works in that way, but my point is that if the international community's opinion never overrides the American calculation of its values and interests, then we're talking about breaking entirely from the traditional ways in which international politics and diplomacy have always worked, to a completely unilateral stance in which international dialogue is meaningless.

If you believe that the US should never "compromises" in the literal sense, you're taking a very extreme position. If you mean "compromise" in the sense of acting against only a certain subset of interests and values that are truly "core" interests and values, then I basically agree, and the question to hash out is which of our interests and values are non-negotiable, and in which situations.

This is one reason why I'm less convinced all the time that the 22nd Amendment was such a great idea.

Agreed but I don't know what the answer is. The problem is that there aren't enough checks and balances on the executive to remove it.

I disagree with the notion that Europeans will fall into some narrative along the lines of, "America elected a black guy, so now they're enlightened and we should be nice to them."

No, third World countries, particularly in Africa and South America, will be thrilled that the new US President is black. Europeans will be pleased that the new US President has a policy agenda and world awareness that makes sense to them, as opposed to a guy who tears up the Kyoto Treaty and claims to have a hotline to God, and a soldier who karaokes about bombing Iran. People like Bush and McCain could never, never, never be elected in any Western European country. Someone like Obama could.

EDIT: Note, I am not saying this is good or bad. It's just a fact of the differing political cultures.

For instance, it is in America's interest that Iran not develop nuclear weapons. Outside of military intervention - which CENTCOM has ruled out time and again - this can only be achieved through multilateral diplomatic pressure. The US cannot unilaterally prevent Iran from acquiring weapons, they need the support of the EU, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and a wide variety of other actors.

The US needs the support of lots of other countries in order to achieve its goals. If the US consistently tells the world it doesn't care what they think of US actions, the US will have less social-political capital that the country can use to achieve its ends in the international arena. This is PoliSci 101 stuff.

And then PoliSci 102 tells you that nations act out of self-interest, not whether someone "likes us." If the EU, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, or anybody else thinks that Iran having nuclear weapons is undesirable, they'll go along with us whether or not they like us. If these countries don't think so, they're not going to put pressure on Iran regardless of how nice we've been to them.

If whether a country "liked" another country were the key to whether they cooperated, then everyone would cooperate with us in order to get us to like them.

If the EU, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, or anybody else thinks that Iran having nuclear weapons is undesirable, they'll go along with us whether or not they like us. If these countries don't think so, they're not going to put pressure on Iran regardless of how nice we've been to them.

Obviously the issue is that the US would then give them stuff in exchange for their support of another policy.

In order for the US to give something meaningful, it would have to be something the US didn't previously want to give, something that was not perfectly in line with US interests. A compromise, if you will. Again, basic stuff that you are misinterpreting for reasons I cannot follow.

Just to follow up - one of the ways to make Pakistan want to agree with US policies is to already have a good relationship with Pakistan. This would be achieved by, previous to any attempt to create an anti-Iranian nuclear blockade, giving stuff to the Pakistanis and creating good will, through diplomatic engagements that offer compromises and help Pakistan.

Then, when Iran comes up, the US has political capital to call in to get the Pakistanis to do what we want, even in situations where they're not sure if it's in their interests. The deals don't have to be struck at the moment, but are built up, sedimented over time through the basic practice of diplomacy.

That's what soft power is - the sedimentation of these compromises and agreements and engagements which result in both sides having political capital to draw upon to create cooperation in situations where the interests of the two (or more) nations are not perfectly commensurate.

EDIT: That's how I interpret "being liked". It's a shorthand for all the complexities of international relations and the creation of political capital that can smooth the road to international agreements.

EDIT2: One more thing. One of the ways to win Pakistan's allegiance would be to ensure that Pakistan knows that if they enter into a shared action with the US, they will have a voice in how this action proceeds, so that it benefits them. If the US unilaterally determines the shape of its international actions and gives no voice to the countries with which it must ally to achieve the goals of these actions, other countries are going to be less likely to want to participate. Sharing authority over international actions, in cases like an Iranian blockade where US interests can only be achieved with the participation of a wide variety of other international actors, is a necessary part of international action.

Obviously the issue is that the US would then give them stuff in exchange for their support of another policy.

In order for the US to give something meaningful, it would have to be something the US didn't previously want to give, something that was not perfectly in line with US interests. A compromise, if you will. Again, basic stuff that you are misinterpreting for reasons I cannot follow.

The worth of trade doesn't come from the pain it causes you, but in the value it brings me. Not really sure you should be patronizing about the "basic stuff" if you don't get that.

In the larger picture, I think people are positing a false dichotomy between nuanced diplomacy and "go **** yourself". Being liked is nice, but nation states will (and should) act on their interests. Also, I've mostly seen arguments that that would apply towards ANY Democrat being elected, rather than Obama specific. Well, other than the increased popularity we'd enjoy in sub-saharan Africa, where America (and Bush!) is already generally well liked.

The worth of trade doesn't come from the pain it causes you, but in the value it brings me.

Yes and no. Yes, you're technically correct; and no, it's irrelevant to my point in most cases. If an action were already perfectly in the US' interest, the US would likely already be doing it. It's only things that the US isn't already doing that can be used to build new political capital, which is going to require compromise.

He didn't overthrow an existing elected government by force... He got elected. It sucks, but there it is.

Not in 2000.

Why is it that the only thing that seems significant in #3707 and #3708 is "giving them stuff" and "giving stuff to the Pakistanis"?

I think people are positing a false dichotomy between nuanced diplomacy and "go **** yourself".

I'm not the one who said the US should never compromise, or never allow other nations a say in US actions. If you disagree with both of those points, then you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with bunyon and Szymborski and yourself in 3692.

Why is it that the only thing that seems significant in #3707 and #3708 is "giving them stuff" and "giving stuff to the Pakistanis"?

I'm using shorthand - obviously it wouldn't be just the US giving pallets of midsize dry goods to Pakistan, but a variety of different things, from changing US actions to meet Pakistan's interests to sharing authority over shared actions to, yes, just giving them stuff.

No, third World countries, particularly in Africa and South America, will be thrilled that the new US President is black.

Don't see why. This notion of racial solidarity of "people of color" exists only on college campuses. Africans, in my experience, don't see American blacks as African; they see them as American. (Obama, admittedly, might be an exception because his father actually was African.)

Europeans will be pleased that the new US President has a policy agenda and world awareness that makes sense to them, as opposed to a guy who tears up the Kyoto Treaty and claims to have a hotline to God, and a soldier who karaokes about bombing Iran. People like Bush and McCain could never, never, never be elected in any Western European country. Someone like Obama could.

Bush did not "tear up the Kyoto treaty." There was no Kyoto treaty. It was DOA long before Bush took office. (Ironically, for all the criticism of the U.S. as being uncaring of world opinion, we're far more honest when it comes to treaties. We expect to take them seriously, so we only ratify them if we actually plan to live up to them (*). We didn't ratify Kyoto because we didn't want to take the steps that Kyoto would have required. On the other hand, all the European countries signed onto it, and then simply ignored their obligations under the treaty.)

As for trying to map U.S. politics onto Europe, it's not really possible to do so cleanly. Their politicians are, e.g., far less likely to use their militaries, but it's hard to say how much of that is an inherent difference in worldview and how much is a matter of necessity; they couldn't do what the U.S. could, because they don't have the capability. Virtually none of the countries of Europe could attack Iran at all -- and certainly not unilaterally -- so the issue of electing someone who might do so simply doesn't arise.

And what about economics? Western European countries are very far left economically; if Obama were there advocating the policies he supports here, he'd be way outside the mainstream and probably couldn't be elected. So you'd have to postulate that he would shift left if he were European in order to argue that they'd elect him there.



(*) Except Democrats who want to tear up free trade agreements.

If you believe that the US should never "compromises" in the literal sense, you're taking a very extreme position. If you mean "compromise" in the sense of acting against only a certain subset of interests and values that are truly "core" interests and values, then I basically agree, and the question to hash out is which of our interests and values are non-negotiable, and in which situations.

The latter. Sorry that wasn't clear. I'm really only arguing with the idea that an American voter should consider who Europeans prefer in their choice of candidate. I will choose who I agree with, thanks. Of course, once in office I expect an American president to exercise diplomacy and negotiation. I didn't interpret that to be what the posters last night were saying. If that is what they meant, cool.

my congressman (Hoyer, MD 5th) attetped to repeal the 22nd when Clinton was in his 2nd term.
for some unknown reason (snark), he hasn't kept up that attempt since 2001...

I'm really only arguing with the idea that an American voter should consider who Europeans prefer in their choice of candidate.

Well, I agree with this is a very narrow sense, but the Europeans aren't making their preferences based on unintelligible Euro-reasons, but on pretty simple stuff. Will the American president be more likely to compromise in the international arena, more likely to engage in productive diplomacy, more likely to shared authority in international actions? Since I am of the opinion that this sort of international engagement is necessary and has been massively lacking in the current Bush administration, and would only become worse under McCain (see his insane proposal to exclude Russia from the G8), I find that European opinion makes a lot of sense.

Further, given that, as an American, I might not be able to see clearly what sorts of compromises, even against some values I hold, might be the most productive in the international arena, European and international opinion can be a good proxy for me to check my preferences against, in case I'm missing something. I might continue to disagree with them - Euro farm policy and immigration policies are not likely to become my favorites - but it's worth leaving open and engaging with.

Africans, in my experience, don't see American blacks as African; they see them as American. (Obama, admittedly, might be an exception because his father actually was African.)

Nice to know that you can see some difference between Obama and Al Sharpton...

And though of course Africans see American blacks as American rather than African, they also follow U.S. race relations with keen interest. This was especially true during the early 1960's, when postwar US prestige was at an all-time high in general, and in Africa in particular.

Bush did not "tear up the Kyoto treaty." There was no Kyoto treaty.

This is just not true.

I am well aware that Congress had no intention of ratifying that treaty, but what Bush did was egregious. If you get an invite to a party, there is a world of difference between (A) saying "You know, I'm quite busy that day, I'll get back to you" and then never RSVPing, and (B) publicly burning your invitation.

Bush (like all Republicans) was never going to be popular in Europe, but it is Kyoto that made him so unpopular. It long predates Iraq.

my congressman (Hoyer, MD 5th) attetped to repeal the 22nd when Clinton was in his 2nd term.
for some unknown reason (snark), he hasn't kept up that attempt since 2001...

Much like the GOP's "term limits" plank of the so-called Contract with America of '94 ceased to be a priority once they actually won a majority.

And then PoliSci 102 tells you that nations act out of self-interest, not whether someone "likes us."

And then you turn 19, realize that your Randian notions of universal action based on idealized "self interest" is not only childishly immoral but also notably poor at predicting the behaviors of actual human beings, much less collective states of human beings, and consider taking some course in politics, philosophy or psychology above the freshman grade.

I'm not the one who said the US should never compromise, or never allow other nations a say in US actions. If you disagree with both of those points, then you're agreeing with me and disagreeing with bunyon and Szymborski and yourself in 3692.

I never said either of those things, only that I don't think voting based on a projection of which candidate will make other countries "like us" is particularly sensible. Especially when it's not at all clear that we'll actually receive the projected amount of "like".

There are times when nuanced diplomacy is the correct approach, and times when smashing an enemy with an armored fist is the right approach. But that approach should be governed by the interests of the country, not by how others feel about it. That said, there may be times when doing what you think is in your best interests will cause other nations to become extremely displeased, and their displeasure may, if great enough, change your calculus such that doing whatever you wanted to do is no longer in your best interests. Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait is probably a good example of this in the real world.

That said, there may be times when doing what you think is in your best interests will cause other nations to become extremely displeased, and their displeasure may, if great enough, change your calculation such that doing whatever you wanted to do is no longer in your best interests.

Sure, but now you've defined "interest" tautologically, as whatever a nation chooses to do is in their interests. I was using the term in a more methodologically useful way (i think) to refer to a calculation of interest that does not necessarily reflect international opinion and interest. Likewise, we have imperfect knowledge of other countries' interests and values, and it is only through engagement and talking that we can better learn them and mold our actions to be in concert and compromise when useful or necessary.

I might continue to disagree with them - Euro farm policy and immigration policies are not likely to become my favorites - but it's worth leaving open and engaging with.

And perhaps it's in *our* country's interest to maintain strong relationships with its overseas allies, which is a lot easier if you're not reflexively giving them the finger (or, at best, being completely dismissive of their perspectives). Treating the US's interests as the utmost priority and taking foreign perceptions of the US government into account are hardly mutually exclusive.

And what about economics? Western European countries are very far left economically; if Obama were there advocating the policies he supports here, he'd be way outside the mainstream and probably couldn't be elected. So you'd have to postulate that he would shift left if he were European in order to argue that they'd elect him there.

No, economically Obama would fit right in in just about any European country. In England he'd be on the left, in France he'd be on the right, in Germany he'd be in the centre. Blaming evil corporations, calling for more government intervention, shouting about "outsourcing" jobs, decrying free trade as the enemy... bog-standard. If anything he'd be a bit too far left to be Prime Minister in Britain, but he could be in a (Labour) Cabinet.

Just to follow up - one of the ways to make Pakistan want to agree with US policies is to already have a good relationship with Pakistan. This would be achieved by, previous to any attempt to create an anti-Iranian nuclear blockade, giving stuff to the Pakistanis and creating good will, through diplomatic engagements that offer compromises and help Pakistan.

Earlier in this thread -- or perhaps in another one (it's gone on so long that it's hard to be sure) -- some people were criticizing the U.S./HRC for threatening Iran, and suggested that we should be "using diplomacy" instead. I didn't really understand what was meant by that, and I don't really know what you mean, either. I've got the carrot ("giving stuff") and stick ("the U.S. Air Force.") But what does "diplomatic engagements" mean other than that? Yes, we can talk to them, but what are we saying when we talk to them?

Then, when Iran comes up, the US has political capital to call in to get the Pakistanis to do what we want, even in situations where they're not sure if it's in their interests. The deals don't have to be struck at the moment, but are built up, sedimented over time through the basic practice of diplomacy.

Look, if we bribe them to go along with us, then they'll go along with us. But that doesn't seem to have much to do with whether Obama is in charge or not or whether they "like us." Bush can and does bribe ("provide economic incentives") too.

That's what soft power is - the sedimentation of these compromises and agreements and engagements which result in both sides having political capital to draw upon to create cooperation in situations where the interests of the two (or more) nations are not perfectly commensurate.

Bribery is not "soft power," but hard power. So to the extent you're talking about giving them "stuff," you're not talking soft power.

my congressman (Hoyer, MD 5th) attetped to repeal the 22nd when Clinton was in his 2nd term.
for some unknown reason (snark), he hasn't kept up that attempt since 2001...

You mean the GOP wants to run GWB again? Really? To coin a phrase, um, bring it on....

Well, I agree with this is a very narrow sense, but the Europeans aren't making their preferences based on unintelligible Euro-reasons, but on pretty simple stuff. Will the American president be more likely to compromise in the international arena, more likely to engage in productive diplomacy, more likely to shared authority in international actions? Since I am of the opinion that this sort of international engagement is necessary and has been massively lacking in the current Bush administration, and would only become worse under McCain (see his insane proposal to exclude Russia from the G8), I find that European opinion makes a lot of sense.

And I disagree with this. Europeans like Obama and don't like McCain (and don't like Bush) because Europeans are, on average, quite far to the left and would like us to elect someone more in line with their thinking. Which is cool as far as it goes - I mean, I was happy when France elected Sarkozy - but it has no influence on which guy I will choose and I don't think it should for you. Like I say, make the choice based on your own views and values and then let them all work it out. That isn't, at all, the same as saying "the US should always do whatever it wants, however it wants."

Europe currently has some serious political problems of their own making but they still do like to lecture others. It's good to know the US is still very similar, in some respects, to its European heritage. :)

As for Kyoto, what David said. Why should I care that Europe is mad that our president tore up a treaty that no one, including Europeans, had any intention of observing?

And then you turn 19, realize that your Randian notions of universal action based on idealized "self interest" is not only childishly immoral but also notably poor at predicting the behaviors of actual human beings, much less collective states of human beings, and consider taking some course in politics, philosophy or psychology above the freshman grade.

Nice ad hominem, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with "Rand" -- this is I.R., not philosophy -- and in any case Rand wasn't making predictive statements, but normative ones.

Countries act out of perceived self interest. This isn't even controversial, at least for people who've actually been to college.

Like I say, make the choice based on your own views and values and then let them all work it out. That isn't, at all, the same as saying "the US should always do whatever it wants, however it wants."

Please explain the difference. I can imagine daylight between the two positions, but I'd like to see how you articulate it.

John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps

Does this mean there will be a war? Almost certainly not - the schoolyard taunt, "you and what army?" applies and I think is determinative. But the fact that major players in US foreign policy, who have allies going right to the top in the US decision-making apparatus, want to see armed conflict with Iran, is hard to deny. It is absolutely in the interests of Americans to get these crazy people out of power.

That's what soft power is

ahhh....the late '90s...what a wonderful time to be young and in love...and to travel Europe...

Alou:
I find the idea that Europe is some noble, advanced civilization and we're a bunch of rubes is way, way off base.

I agree in some aspects- particularly cultural. When was the last time we had a baseball riot? But in terms of politics, geography plays a role that many of us are content to ignore. Americans love to talk tough about war, but we're protected by two large oceans in a way that Europeans aren't. It is the volunteer US military that fights and dies in our wars; the human costs are in many ways hidden from us. Even in the "war on terror" (urg, hate war on emotions...) a lot of the blowback on the ground level has been directed at our European allies b/c they're more easily accessible, and have more porous borders. No one in Montana had to worry about a terrorist attack in retaliation for the Iraq war.

Sam:

And then you turn 19, realize that your Randian notions of universal action based on idealized "self interest" is not only childishly immoral but also notably poor at predicting the behaviors of actual human beings, much less collective states of human beings, and consider taking some course in politics, philosophy or psychology above the freshman grade.

I just thought this was so awesome it needed to be reposted...

No, economically Obama would fit right in in just about any European country. In England he'd be on the left, in France he'd be on the right, in Germany he'd be in the centre. Blaming evil corporations, calling for more government intervention, shouting about "outsourcing" jobs, decrying free trade as the enemy... bog-standard. If anything he'd be a bit too far left to be Prime Minister in Britain, but he could be in a (Labour) Cabinet.

I'm not talking about campaign rhetoric; I'm talking about actual policy. Has Obama ever supported/proposed abolishing the employment-at-will doctrine, for instance? Obama's health care plan is very conservative (small and large c) compared to anything you'll find in Europe. (Now, you may argue that this is a function of local conditions, and that if he were a European politician he'd support the far more intrusive government health care policies found in those countries. But once you start with that argument, you can say that by the same token, Bush would act differently if he were running for office in Europe.)

(On the other hand, Obama's, e.g., abortion policies are far more liberal than found throughout most of Europe.)

Formerly dp: that was bunyon who posted that.

I am much too polite to give my opinion on whether Americans are a bunch of rubes.

I tend to agree with DMN about Kyoto, as well. It was my impression that Bill Clinton did a lot to undermine the Kyoto agreements, or at least to bury them in the slushpile. See Timothy Wirth's analysis in the Harvard International Review. That's a big reason for my disillusion with Al Gore, BTW: it's nice to make green movies when you're out of office, but where was he on greenhouse emissions when he was actually Vice President?

Earlier in this thread -- or perhaps in another one (it's gone on so long that it's hard to be sure) -- some people were criticizing the U.S./HRC for threatening Iran, and suggested that we should be "using diplomacy" instead. I didn't really understand what was meant by that, and I don't really know what you mean, either. I've got the carrot ("giving stuff") and stick ("the U.S. Air Force.") But what does "diplomatic engagements" mean other than that? Yes, we can talk to them, but what are we saying when we talk to them?

"diplomatic engagements" = "hope" = "change"

Like I say, make the choice based on your own views and values and then let them all work it out. That isn't, at all, the same as saying "the US should always do whatever it wants, however it wants."

Please explain the difference. I can imagine daylight between the two positions, but I'd like to see how you articulate it.

I'm speaking only to who to vote for. I care not a whit who the Europeans would like us to elect.* They'll have to deal with who we elect just as surely as we have to deal with their leaders. This line of conversation arose with supporters of Obama using his popularity in Europe as a reason to vote for him. There are most assuredly good reasons to vote for him but I don't think how Europeans view him is one such.

Now, once elected, be it Obama, McCain, Clinton (or Bush in 2004), I'd like to see them engage more with our allies. If this Iraq War had started with a coalition along the lines of 41's, it would have been more successful, though still a bad idea. On this, I agree, Bush has failed.

* Basically, what I hear folks saying is: 'you might like McCain more than Obama, and agree with him more on issues and policy, but you should vote for Obama because Europeans will like him better.' That is folly of the highest order. It may be a strawman, but that is how I read many of the posts. Basically, American supporters of Obama will think Europeans liking Obama is great because the American left overlaps well with Europe's center. And that is fine. But what the citizens of other countries think of a candidate shouldn't, IMO, drive anyone's vote.

Looking at my original post, I guess you (and others) are reading more into my first line (...American, not world, interest.) I think we're all in agreement that no country, even the biggest and most powerful in the world can just do anything it pleases but that it's own interest comes first. I was just starting with a little PolSci 101 to put my thoughts on European opinion of our candidates into focus. Alas, it seems to have confused the issue.

Again, I'm just talking about choosing which candidate to support. If you have two candidates who agree on all issues but one would be "liked" better by other countries (in a serious, diplomatic sense) then, I suppose, it would make sense to decide based on that. But in a real election, I think any country's citizens should only vote based on what they think is best for their country.

Formerly dp: that was bunyon who posted that.

Sorry..!

thanks bunyon, that clears some things up for me.

cheers, gotta work now...

Alou:
I find the idea that Europe is some noble, advanced civilization and we're a bunch of rubes is way, way off base.

I agree in some aspects- particularly cultural. When was the last time we had a baseball riot? But in terms of politics, geography plays a role that many of us are content to ignore. Americans love to talk tough about war, but we're protected by two large oceans in a way that Europeans aren't. It is the volunteer US military that fights and dies in our wars; the human costs are in many ways hidden from us. Even in the "war on terror" (urg, hate war on emotions...) a lot of the blowback on the ground level has been directed at our European allies b/c they're more easily accessible, and have more porous borders. No one in Montana had to worry about a terrorist attack in retaliation for the Iraq war.

It was me. And you make my point, I think. They're different and in different situations, I grant. But then why should we be like them if we're all different? I have a lot of sympathy for how different Europeans are from us and don't think they should work to be like us anymore than we should work to be like them. But they don't seem to see it that way. Everyone should strive to be like Europe seems to be the message from them as well as American intellectuals. America should be America.

cheers, gotta work now...

yeah, i tried that. Turns out this thread is both more interesting and better written than the theses I'm reading.

Incidentally, I don't disagree with people who say that Bush could have handled Kyoto better; I've said that myself. He decided to be very in-your-face about his rejection of the treaty, when he should have just let it die a quiet death. I don't know if that was for the sake of domestic politics or to send a message to Europe, but either way it was a bad idea.

But that doesn't change the underlying point that it wasn't Bush's decision to kill Kyoto; it was a very very very bipartisan decision which happened before Bush even took office.

Well David...

Firstly my point was that Obama had a policy agenda that "makes sense" to Europeans, not that he would immediately be elected.

As to your more specific comments: I don't know that the difference between campaign rhetoric and policy means in Obama's case. He's never run so much as a whelk stall. All we have to go on are his words. As for employment-at-will, Europe is a pretty big place. In the UK it's pretty much employment-at-will although there is the doctrine of unfair dismissal. In France and Germany it is very different. On the other hand, the closed shop is legal in the US, whereas it is very much illegal in many (I believe most) European countries. I don't see Obama proposing to make the closed-shop illegal. Does that make him (extremely) leftist? Frankly, no. US employment law is complex, it's state-by-state, and Obama seems to intend to leave it alone. That's neutral.

As for health insurance... his plan may be more conservative than most European countries have right now, but that's an almost Andy-esque misdirection. Most European countries are proposing to scale back their plans because of high costs/demographics. So as a *proposal* his ideas would be right in the mainstream for most of Europe (but not the UK, of course, where the NHS is a sacred cow for the Labour Party).

Earlier in this thread -- or perhaps in another one (it's gone on so long that it's hard to be sure) -- some people were criticizing the U.S./HRC for threatening Iran, and suggested that we should be "using diplomacy" instead. I didn't really understand what was meant by that, and I don't really know what you mean, either. I've got the carrot ("giving stuff") and stick ("the U.S. Air Force.") But what does "diplomatic engagements" mean other than that? Yes, we can talk to them, but what are we saying when we talk to them?

There is a substantial subset of people on the left, and some who are not on the left, for whom it really doesn't matter. As long as there is talking they're happy. Talking is the end in and of itself, not a means to any ends. This isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world, ("Jaw jaw is better than war war"), but like everything else, there are costs to endless, meaningless negotiations.

With respect to Iran, I don't think there is any carrot we can give them that they would value more than having a nuclear arsenal, other than perhaps perpetrating a second Holocaust ourselves to save them the effort.

So, is there any reason (besides raw ambition) for her to continue campaigning?

Delusion.

Yeah, but the Democrats make this possible, by designing their system such that a close-enough election is ultimately decided by favors and back-room deals made by party hacks. Given the "political capital" the Clintons believe they have, and believe they have earned, is it really all that surprising they'll want to see it out to the end to make sure that all of their favors are called in before conceding that they've lost?

With respect to Iran, I don't think there is any carrot we can give them that they would value more than having a nuclear arsenal, other than perhaps perpetrating a second Holocaust ourselves to save them the effort.

Well the end-game carrots are pretty obvious. Some combination of (1) Remove Iran's need to have nuclear weapons by getting Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal. (2) Normalise trade/diplomatic relations. (3) Give Iran a significant say in the future of Iraq.

Now you might say that with respect to (3) the cure is worse than the disease, and that achieving (1) is beyond the capacity of American diplomacy, but this is what there is.

We expect to take them seriously, so we only ratify them if we actually plan to live up to them (*).

Yes, we only flaunt international law when it comes to things like the Geneva Convention.

As for picking a president to appease ferriners, the issue is not that Europeans or whatever don't like Bush... it's that you kind of have to agree with them. They're all like "Dude, your president is an idiot" and we're all "Dude, I didn't vote for him". Frankly, it's just embarrassing.

Usually when I get flack from Euros or Canadians about US foreign policy I just say "shut your mouth or we'll invade your pathetic little country next"

(3) Give Iran a significant say in the future of Iraq.

Done. Bush really is good!

Well the end-game carrots are pretty obvious. Some combination of (1) Remove Iran's need to have nuclear weapons by getting Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal. (2) Normalise trade/diplomatic relations. (3) Give Iran a significant say in the future of Iraq.

Now you might say that with respect to (3) the cure is worse than the disease, and that achieving (1) is beyond the capacity of American diplomacy, but this is what there is.

#1 is almost certainly beyond the the capacity of American diplomacy. #2 is almost certainly inadequate, even assuming the US was willing to accept the negatives associated with such a deal. #3, Iran is probably reasoning, correctly IMO, that they already have this, so why give up anything for it?

As for health insurance... his plan may be more conservative than most European countries have right now, but that's an almost Andy-esque misdirection. Most European countries are proposing to scale back their plans because of high costs/demographics. So as a *proposal* his ideas would be right in the mainstream for most of Europe (but not the UK, of course, where the NHS is a sacred cow for the Labour Party).

Glad to see that I've achieved the advanced status of having thoughts put in my mouth; on prior occasions it's merely been words.

But I'll let you all continue with your trans-oceanic feud. My website's patriotism speaks for itself. No soccer snobs need apply.

For instance, it is in America's interest that Iran not develop nuclear weapons.

I think that almost everyone would agree with you. Except me. I am on the fence here. Why should America care if Iran has nukes? Why anyone has nukes? Don't nation states have the right to defend themselves?

Is it because they are our "enemy"? Do we fear attack from them? Or is it simply "realpolitik" - if Iran has nukes, then they are off the list of countries we can invade?

Geez, Andy. I think this fills in some of the missing pieces for us:

In addition to books, one of Andy's lifelong interests has been sports, and particularly the historical imagery associated with it. From the time he was a small boy, he tortured his mother

Usually when I get flack from Euros or Canadians about US foreign policy I just say "shut your mouth or we'll invade your pathetic little country next"

I tried that in Ireland last summer, and they thought I was being serious...it almost got ugly, my friends were like "he's joking, relax" but with all the alcohol we'd consumed it escalated quickly. There's a good deal of resentment that the airport in Shannon is used as a halfway point for soldiers on their way to Iraq given that the Irish have been against the war from day 1. I wasn't really aware of this when I decided to parody jingoistic Americans...

Geez, Andy. I think this fills in some of the missing pieces for us:

[From my website]

In addition to books, one of Andy's lifelong interests has been sports, and particularly the historical imagery associated with it. From the time he was a small boy, he tortured his mother

I knew I never should have hired Nieporent as my ghostwriter, and you as my editor. And I'm sure glad I'm not running for President....

ALOU: "Europeans will be pleased that the new US President has a policy agenda and world awareness that makes sense to them, as opposed to a guy who tears up the Kyoto Treaty..."

DMN: "On the other hand, all the European countries signed onto it, and then simply ignored their obligations under the treaty."

ALOU: "This is just not true."

Alou, do you feel that countries like Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, Portugal, etc., all of whom fully embraced the Kyoto Protocol, did not "tear up the treaty," while the U.S. did? If so, that's an odd conclusion in that those embracers have increased their carbon emissions far more than the U.S. has.

We've gone over this territory before, but the principal mistakes in Kyoto were twofold: 1) It does not apply to all countries, most notably China and India; and 2) the cap and trade system will never work. The correct answer is to have a carbon tax, where all of the net revenues are transferred to users and suppliers of low or no-carbon energy sources.

I had to follow Andy's link just to see if he had a 1939 USC-Duke poster. (He does.) My mother's cousin's lifelong claim to fame.

For instance, it is in America's interest that Iran not develop nuclear weapons.

I think that almost everyone would agree with you. Except me. I am on the fence here. Why should America care if Iran has nukes? Why anyone has nukes? Don't nation states have the right to defend themselves?

Is it because they are our "enemy"? Do we fear attack from them? Or is it simply "realpolitik" - if Iran has nukes, then they are off the list of countries we can invade?

Partly it is realpolitik- they they'd be off the list of nations we can invade-
what's interesting is that the US invasion of Iraq convinced one country- Libya, to give up its pursuit of nukes, but apparently convinced some others (N Korea- Iran and Syria) that they really had to have them.

The problem with nukes (one of them any way) is they cost a fortune to develop, maintain, figure out how to deploy, etc., and unless and until Armageddon comes- you can't use them.
Israel's possession of Nukes simply means that Israel cannot be invaded and conquered by a conventional army. That doesn't change if Iran gets nukes- it means that Iran can't be invaded and conquered by a conventional army- well Israel was not going to be invading Iran any time soon...

So the argument that Iran "needs" nukes because Israel has them is completely specious. (They may want them in part because Israel has them)-
Iran wants nukes for the same reasons everyone else who has gone to the expense to acquire them has done:
1: They are the ultimate defensive weapon- NO ONE one will launch a full scale invasion against you.
2: "prestige"- nationalism etc.
3: It expands your foreign policy options- you can now "offer" your nuclear protection to other countries.

If Iran gets nukes what does that accomplish? Are they going to commit national suicide by using them against Israel or the US? I don't think so.

Is Iran going to give them to terrorists? If you think so, name one other nuclear power who has "shared" such weapons. Also see number 1- If Hezbollah has a nuke and uses it- well pretty much everyone is gonna know who gave it to them.
If Hezbollah is given a nuke by Iran, proudly announces that they ill use it, unless Israel agrees to A, B and C... Well Israel is going to launch a pre-emptive strike- a NUCLEAR pre-emptive strike (Israel- like Iran BTW, has never shown any concern about being an international pariah- if it believes Hezbollah has a bomb or two, that's an existential threat- it will attack first, and it won;t be like the last time - they will almost certainly immediately go nuclear)

Rich, you are completely, utterly missing the point. And frankly being extremely misleading with your quotations.

I wrote "This is just not true" as a reply to DMN's comment "Bush did not "tear up the Kyoto treaty." There was no Kyoto treaty.". You're a smart guy don't try and mess around what I said.

The extent to which other countries may or may not have complied with the treaty following ratification* is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Bush tore up the treaty, and in so doing became highly unpopular throughout Europe. That you think that some countries' faulty compliance since then is in any way relevant is an utter mystery to me. If Bush (like me!) thought Kyoto was a bad idea, he should have dealt with the situation very differently.

I am not defending the Kyoto Treaty - I agree 100% with your criticisms of it.

*Of course the whole thing became fairly moot once the world's biggest polluter decided to take its ball and go home.

Reagan in Iran/Contra

The other examples brook no reasonable demurrer, but Reagan's second term was filled with accomplishments, not the least of which was his soaring speech at the University of Moscow and setting the stage for the soon-to-be-doomed Berlin Wall. 1984-89 was a watershed time in the history of human freedom, and the US president was its leader.

This legacy has of course been squandered by the current holder of the office, which is why people born between 1956 and 1976 are fleeing his party in droves.

I think part of what people are missing when they talk about diplomacy is that you're not just dealing with monolithic countries, you're dealing with individual leaders/administrations within those countries. Leaders who have constituencies, want to stay in power, and care about public opinion.

Diplomacy isn't just about what stuff you give and receive from other countries, it's about how the process is managed and how it is communicated within those countries. If our country is "liked" abroad, it will be easier for a government to ally with us, or make a compromise with us, without damaging its own political standing. Likewise, if it appears that they've actually *won* a concession after real diplomatic talks, that should make it easier to sell. Going through the UN also makes it easier to sell those agreements in many countries, even if it doesn't do so here.

I don't think that should determine who you vote for, but when I agree with a candidate's policies and I think the candidate/policies will likely improve our standing in the world, that's an added bonus.

what's interesting is that the US invasion of Iraq convinced one country- Libya, to give up its pursuit of nukes

Now I had forgotten about Libya. Somehow, what you state here doesn't seem to be the whole story. Why did Libya drop off the Axis of Evil lists?
Did killing Qaddaffi's kid make him see reason?

From the CIA fact book:

. UN sanctions in 1992 isolated QADHAFI politically following the downing of Pan AM Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. During the 1990s, QADHAFI began to rebuild his relationships with Europe. UN sanctions were suspended in April 1999 and finally lifted in September 2003 after Libya accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing. In December 2003, Libya announced that it had agreed to reveal and end its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and to renounce terrorism. QADHAFI has made significant strides in normalizing relations with Western nations since then.

Did sanctions _work_?!?!?

Does this mean there will be a war? Almost certainly not - the schoolyard taunt, "you and what army?" applies and I think is determinative. But the fact that major players in US foreign policy, who have allies going right to the top in the US decision-making apparatus, want to see armed conflict with Iran, is hard to deny. It is absolutely in the interests of Americans to get these crazy people out of power.

There already is a war, and Iran has decided to participate. Without arguing the merits of the wisdom of fighting their fighters, its hard to say it would be unjustified.

The broader point is that Iran participating was essentially certain to happen and we, of course, had no plan to deal with the eventuality -- reason number 17 million and one why this adventure was such a disaster.

If our country is "liked" abroad, it will be easier for a government to ally with us, or make a compromise with us, without damaging its own political standing.

But that assumes the conclusion, that countries operate out of "standing" rather than self interest.

Iran wants nukes for the same reasons everyone else who has gone to the expense to acquire them has done:
1: They are the ultimate defensive weapon- NO ONE one will launch a full scale invasion against you.
2: "prestige"- nationalism etc.
3: It expands your foreign policy options- you can now "offer" your nuclear protection to other countries.

If Iran gets nukes what does that accomplish? Are they going to commit national suicide by using them against Israel or the US? I don't think so.

You omit the fact that by being "the ultimate defensive weapon," they're also an offensive weapon. If Iran has nuclear weapons, it can (e.g.) attack one of its neighbors, and it makes it much less likely anybody will respond, and definitely will limit the response. Imagine the first Gulf War, if Iraq's nuclear program had actually been successful. Iraq invades Kuwait. Do we really go all out to throw Iraq out of Kuwait? (We certainly don't even consider going all the way to Baghdad.)

As for whether Iran will "commit national suicide by using them," you don't think so. Probably not. But there's a chance of it, right? People do do suicidal things. Particularly in that part of the world.

Israel's possession of Nukes simply means that Israel cannot be invaded and conquered by a conventional army. That doesn't change if Iran gets nukes- it means that Iran can't be invaded and conquered by a conventional army- well Israel was not going to be invading Iran any time soon...

Israel's possession of nukes also means that other countries won't launch a *nuclear* attack against it.

Iran's possession of nukes (and the ability to deploy them) would likewise mean that Israel or the U.S. won't launch a nuclear attack against it.

Is Iran going to give them to terrorists? If you think so, name one other nuclear power who has "shared" such weapons.

Well, the other countries that support terrorism don't have nuclear weapons, in part because the international community has worked hard to limit the list of countries that have those weapons.

Also see number 1- If Hezbollah has a nuke and uses it- well pretty much everyone is gonna know who gave it to them.

But that only works the first time. Once you decide you don't care who else has nuclear weapons, Iran and Israel won't be the only Middle Eastern countries to have them.

If Iran has nuclear weapons, it can (e.g.) attack one of its neighbors, and it makes it much less likely anybody will respond, and definitely will limit the response. Imagine the first Gulf War, if Iraq's nuclear program had actually been successful. Iraq invades Kuwait.

So, your argument here is - basically - Iran shouldn't have nukes because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Or is it that only the US should have the ability to attack countries with impunity?

As for whether Iran will "commit national suicide by using them," you don't think so. Probably not. But there's a chance of it, right? People do do suicidal things. Particularly in that part of the world.

In other words "they're crazy".

Well the end-game carrots are pretty obvious. Some combination of (1) Remove Iran's need to have nuclear weapons by getting Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal. (2) Normalise trade/diplomatic relations. (3) Give Iran a significant say in the future of Iraq.

Number 1 isn't going to happen and never should. There's no moral comparison or equivalence -- other than in the faulty European diplomatic (and borderline anti-Semitic) mind -- between democratic Israel and Islamist Iran. No American president will even broach the idea with Israel.

Nor should #3 happen, though it looks like it would take force to prevent it at this point, given the bungling that's transpired.

Is it because they are our "enemy"? Do we fear attack from them? Or is it simply "realpolitik" - if Iran has nukes, then they are off the list of countries we can invade?

None of the above.

It's because the country is run by undeterrable nuts who have publicly pronounced a desire to use their nukes offensively.

Ray, you might want to re-read my post 3760, because I think you seriously missed the point, and I don't know how to make it clearer.

But that assumes the conclusion, that countries operate out of "standing" rather than self interest.

No, it assumes that politicians within those countries operate with domestic political motivations. That doesn't conflict with their self-interest, it *is* their self-interest.

There's no moral comparison or equivalence ... between democratic Israel and Islamist Iran.

There was no moral comparison or equivalence between the USA and the USSR. How do you feel about the various multilateral disarmament treaties?

Moral equivalence ain't got nothing to do with it.

There was no moral comparison or equivalence between the USA and the USSR. How do you feel about the various multilateral disarmament treaties?

Moral equivalence ain't got nothing to do with it.

There's no strategic comparison or equivalence between Israel and Iran, either. Iran isn't in danger of being destroyed whether it has nuclear weapons or not.

There was no moral comparison or equivalence between the USA and the USSR. How do you feel about the various multilateral disarmament treaties?

Moral equivalence ain't got nothing to do with it.

I worried a little bit that the old USSR would cheat and I'd worry a lot more about Iran cheating.

It doesn't really matter what I think anyway, since there's a less than zero chance of Israel trading its nukes for Iran's phony promises. There's a very good chance Israel will bomb Iran's nuke facilities, which would be an eminently justifiable course of action.

Iran isn't in danger of being destroyed whether it has nuclear weapons or not.

Neither was Iraq.

It's because the country is run by undeterrable nuts who have publicly pronounced a desire to use their nukes offensively.

So... the US trying to prevent someone who can't be deterred from having nukes...

It's because the country is run by undeterrable nuts who have publicly pronounced a desire to use their nukes offensively.

There's just absolutely no evidence that Iran is undeterrable. In fact, the entire history of the regime shows that in 30 years, they've never rocked the boat, internationally, to a degree that any major power came down against them.

The Soviet Union was held in the grip of an ideology with demanded complete world conquest, and yet basic deterrence prevented nuclear war, or any open conflict between Soviet and American troops.

The belief that Iran, which has now a 30-year history of not invading other countries or anything like that, is somehow an utterly new thing on the international scene, the very first nation not subject to basic laws of self-preservation, is unsupported and frankly ludicrous.

I had to follow Andy's link just to see if he had a 1939 USC-Duke poster. (He does.) My mother's cousin's lifelong claim to fame.

Hell, I've even got a 1933 Notre Dame vs. Vassar poster, although it's not on the website. Your mother might appreciate that one....also a Radcliffe vs Lehigh.

OCF, your mother's cousin wasn't Doyle Nave, was he? Because then he really would have something to brag about, in addition to living into his 90's.

There's no strategic comparison or equivalence between Israel and Iran, either. Iran isn't in danger of being destroyed whether it has nuclear weapons or not.

Well, you got to look at it from their POV- their mortal enemy has over a 100,000 troops next door.
Even with as much trouble as 100,000 US troops has in suppressing an "insurgency" and restoring order- they still would have no trouble wiping the Revolutionary Guard in a stand up fight-

and you better believe the Iranian regime cares more about its (the regime's) survival than it does about anything else- sure a US invasion would be an ill-considered clusterfock from the US POV- but from the Iranian regime's POV it's own removal from power would be an ultimate defeat- how our occupation would go after that would be meaningless to those currently in charge

The Soviet Union was held in the grip of an ideology with demanded complete world conquest, and yet basic deterrence prevented nuclear war, or any open conflict between Soviet and American troops.

Once the first generation of Bolsheviks was out of the way I doubt their were any ideological true believers in a position of power in the USSR: Kruschev? He planned on cheating on his agreement with the US resolving the Cuban missile crisis, secretly leaving nukes there- he changed his mind when Castro managed to convince him that he, Castro, was a true believer, Brezchnev? Wanted stability above all...

The belief that Iran, which has now a 30-year history of not invading other countries or anything like that, is somehow an utterly new thing on the international scene, the very first nation not subject to basic laws of self-preservation, is unsupported and frankly ludicrous

My sense is that MCoA is right here. I have no illusions about Iran: it is a theocracy with some deeply anti-humanist ideals. But within the extremely narrow limits of its theocratic system, it is a democracy of sorts. We may think their government lunatic, but it is a government with some internal legitimacy. Most Iranians are Persian; not many Persians live elsewhere. Nearly all are Shi'a Muslims. There is a strong sense of nationalism in Iran that has never even remotely prevailed in Iraq. Those facts have, so far, made post-1979 Iran pretty stable and pretty un-imperialist, at least as far as the Middle East goes.

And my sense is that it's also a xenophobic, intolerant, certainly anti-Semitic, and deeply alien (to us) place in a lot of ways. But as Matt implicitly points out, it's different than Saddam's Iraq, or North Korea, or Libya, or Venezuela, or Cuba, or other troublesome localities. (And they are all different from one another.) One of the most disheartening things about 43's foreign policy is this "axis of evil" talk, which seems to think of any opponent state as a sort of wild enemy dictatorship on a global Risk board, just itching to push into the region next door and start rolling those dice.

Andy: Yes, I really do mean Doyle Nave. But he didn't live into his 90's; he died in 1990. See here: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/individual/331769 . He turned down offers to play in the NFL and had a long career on the technical side of the movie industry.

It's because the country is run by undeterrable nuts who have publicly pronounced a desire to use their nukes offensively.

Source, please. (I'm not trying to give you a hard time.)

Since realpolitik has been mentioned, why, other than hawkish excess, if the aim is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, wouldn't you need only a handful of small, precise strikes, absolutely minimizing nonmilitary casualties, on a couple of essential facilities? For me, the answer to this separates the sane hawks (if that's not oxymoronic) from the crazed.

The belief that Iran, which has now a 30-year history of not invading other countries or anything like that, is somehow an utterly new thing on the international scene, the very first nation not subject to basic laws of self-preservation, is unsupported and frankly ludicrous

I agree that it's incorrect to state that Iran is undeterrable... that's too strong a factual claim. However, it IS a theocratic state, led by adherents of a religion that has shown considerable support for suicide attacks. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that elements of the Iranian government are composed of people who are not rational actors, at least as we understand the term.

Perhaps its my personal bias speaking here, but on this matter, I'm never going to give a theocracy the same benefit of the doubt I would give a secular regime, however nasty. China is authoritarian and amoral, but I'm not particularly worried that they'll initiate a nuclear exchange.

The belief that Iran, which has now a 30-year history of not invading other countries or anything like that, is somehow an utterly new thing on the international scene, the very first nation not subject to basic laws of self-preservation, is unsupported and frankly ludicrous.

Huh?

It fought a major war with its neighbor, Iraq.

It fights proxy wars in Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip ... and now in Iraq again.

It obviously would fight Israel if the balance of forces was more in its favor.

It has publicly warned of "incinerating" Israel.

It remains a state governed by a revolutionary (theocratic, to boot) body and ideology, whose natural inclination is to irrationally believe its revolution threatened from without -- like Napoleon.

I agree that it's incorrect to state that Iran is undeterrable... that's too strong a factual claim. However, it IS a theocratic state, led by adherents of a religion that has shown considerable support for suicide attacks. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that elements of the Iranian government are composed of people who are not rational actors, at least as we understand the term.

I agree that it's incorrect to state that the United States is undeterrable... that's too strong a factual claim. However, it IS a theocratic state, led by adherents of a religion that has shown considerable support for pre-emptive attacks. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that elements of the United States government are composed of people who are not rational actors, at least as we understand the term.

Just sayin'...

It fought a major war with its neighbor, Iraq.

After Iraq invaded Iran!

It fights proxy wars in Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip ... and now in Iraq again.

So did the US and Soviets all through the Cold War. Willingness to fight proxy wars in no way implies willingness to risk nuclear annihilation.

It obviously would fight Israel if the balance of forces was more in its favor.

Unknown, and irrelevant, because Israel has MAD capacity in nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran.

It fought a major war with its neighbor, Iraq

Which invaded it, and which was the one really and truly run by a Risk-playing regional conqueror.

It obviously would fight Israel if the balance of forces was more in its favor

Or if, perhaps, Israel neighbored Iran, instead of being surrounded by Arab states that have had to come to a modus vivendi with Israel over the years.

Iran is absolutely an anti-Semitic state, and its current President is a vile lunatic. I think all that I'm really saying here is that it's also being held in check right now, by a combination of common sense on their part and alertness on ours, without John McCain doing his Beach Boys routine on it. (Actually we are all pretty well-agreed on that point.)

So did the US and Soviets all through the Cold War. Willingness to fight proxy wars in no way implies willingness to risk nuclear annihilation.

No, but it demonstrates a willingness to fight offensively against their neighbors, contrary to the assertion I was addressing.

There's just absolutely no evidence that Iran is undeterrable. In fact, the entire history of the regime shows that in 30 years, they've never rocked the boat, internationally, to a degree that any major power came down against them.

Hmm. I seem to recall at least one incident, starting about 29 years ago, lasting quite a while...

So, are all muslims too crazy to be allowed WMDs? Or only ones living in theocratic states?

Maybe the could be allowed Nukes if their leaders promise to take anti-depressants?

No, but it demonstrates a willingness to fight offensively against their neighbors, contrary to the assertion I was addressing.

It's very easy to draw a line between proxy wars and open, direct war. This was the case all through the Cold War, and there's no reason to dismiss the distinction now.

Iran is absolutely an anti-Semitic state, and its current President is a vile lunatic. I think all that I'm really saying here is that it's also being held in check right now, by a combination of common sense on their part and alertness on ours, without John McCain doing his Beach Boys routine on it. (Actually we are all pretty well-agreed on that point.)

As am I. I'm addressing only whetehr they should be allowed to possess The Bomb and what steps might be appropriate to stop them.

I agree that it's incorrect to state that the United States is undeterrable... that's too strong a factual claim. However, it IS a theocratic state, led by adherents of a religion that has shown considerable support for pre-emptive attacks. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that elements of the United States government are composed of people who are not rational actors, at least as we understand the term.

Just sayin'...

Haha, I knew Arky wouldn't be able to resist making a moral equivalency comparison of Iran to the US government! I know trolling is wrong, but when it's that easy it's hard to resist.

In all seriousness, A) The US is not a theocracy, however much you hate George Bush and B) The inability to recognize dangerous theocrats who hold actual political power (Iranian Mullahs), while harping on harmless, if loathsome, theocrats who have virtually no political power (Jerry Falwell) shows you to be a deeply silly person. Which I've known for a long time really, but it's still good to point out once in a while.

I think all that I'm really saying here is that it's also being held in check right now, by a combination of common sense on their part and alertness on ours, without John McCain doing his Beach Boys routine on it.

How much of that "alertness" on our part actually equates to "willingness to go all Beach Boys on them if they step too far out of line"?

That's a genuine question, by the way, not me being a smartass. I can see a legitimate argument that making sure Iran is aware of the consequences is a major element of holding them in check.

Most Iranians are Persian; not many Persians live elsewhere. Nearly all are Shi'a Muslims. There is a strong sense of nationalism in Iran that has never even remotely prevailed in Iraq. Those facts have, so far, made post-1979 Iran pretty stable and pretty un-imperialist, at least as far as the Middle East goes.

And my sense is that it's also a xenophobic, intolerant, certainly anti-Semitic, and deeply alien (to us) place in a lot of ways.

I asked a friend of mine here about this; he's jewish and is married to a persian jew who grew up in Iran. (By way of US politics, he's conservative and his wife is liberal.) His comment:

From my understanding through my wife, a lot of that is true, but there's this odd thing there where you have to separate the "party line" from the people at the local level. At the local level, most people are accepting of other religions and actually embrace and respect, for example, jewish people.

Then there's also a subversive undercurrent there in recent years, where people are basically living with western values behind closed doors, but act differently when in public, abiding by the crazy laws requiring burkas, etc. A big part of this is that the population, as a whole, is very young. They've been trying to rise up and take over the government for years now. This latest president was a step back.

I am not sure of all the politics, but they've gone to a system that looks more like a western political structure, but it's overlayed over the theocracy. The ayottola ultimately okays things, but the president has powers to be more strict and whatnot and to direct the country in a certain way. And, the president helps to create a lot of the foreign policy, and we see now that he's tough along these lines, with all the nuke talk.

Haha, I knew Arky wouldn't be able to resist making a moral equivalency comparison of Iran to the US government! I know trolling is wrong, but when it's that easy it's hard to resist.

Well, given how easily confused you can get, Face, I'll gently point out that the limited equivalency I asserted had no moral overtones. It is useful, though, to consider things from the point of view of another, and it therefore shouldn't be hard to understand that many Iranians reasonably consider the U.S. to be lead by a pack of Christians who believe they have a direct line to Jesus. Grasping this is one of the essentials of reasoned diplomacy with Iran. You may fear them, but to some extent, they fear us. Knowing why is useful, yes? And aside from being dead, Jerry Falwell did indeed hold a fair amount of political power--how did you miss this?

I'm relieved you consider me "deeply" silly. No one likes being tagged with the superficial label.

Then there's also a subversive undercurrent there in recent years, where people are basically living with western values behind closed doors, but act differently when in public, abiding by the crazy laws requiring burkas, etc. A big part of this is that the population, as a whole, is very young. They've been trying to rise up and take over the government for years now. This latest president was a step back.

Fwiw, Reading Lolita in Teheran by Azar Nafisi gets into this a fair bit.

Very interesting, Ray. I think my perspective is skewed by living in Great Neck, Long Island several months out of the year. The Persian Jewish community there is very much in exile and heavily anti-Iranian-government, as one might imagine. I am not sure at all what things are like on a daily basis for Jews who stayed in Iran, whatever the obvious policies of the government are.

To those people who aren't worried about a nuclear Iran as a threat on the grounds that "Iran isn't suicidal," to those people who think that it doesn't really affect the U.S.'s interests one way or the other, then worry about this: Israel isn't nearly as sanguine as you are about Iran. If Iran looks like it's close to "going nuclear" and there doesn't appear to be any diplomatic or military solution coming from others, Israel will almost certainly solve the problem itself.

Now, is it in the U.S.'s interests for that to happen?

Hmm. I seem to recall at least one incident, starting about 29 years ago, lasting quite a while...

Jimmy Carter was quite possibly the only US President of the last 100 years who would not have (and didn't obviously) squashed them for that little incident. Perhaps they read him correctly, perhaps they didn't really read him, they were just lucky that Carter was Carter.

Unless you are talking about the Iran/Iraq war...

As long as we're talking strategic interests and not the absurdity of "moral equivalencies" and whatnot... the concern is not that Iran is going to initiate a nuclear exchange with the US - they don't have the delivery capacity. The serious concerns as I see them:

(1) It makes it harder for the US to intimidate Iran militarily.
(2) It will weaken Israel's security (although frankly I doubt this - and besides it will raise Iran's security correspondingly).
(3) It weakens Israel's capability to act as the US's proxy, invading/bombing other Middle Eastern countries, because Iran will threaten reaction if it does. Frankly I see this as a feature rather than a bug though (YMMV), unless...
(4) Israel is going to keep invading/bombing Middle Eastern countries periodically, whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not. This will therefore push the region to the brink of nuclear war.
(5) Iran will use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the Gulf States.
(6) Iran having nuclear weapons will result in a domino-chain where more states feel obliged to obtain nuclear weapons.

The thing is that Iran already has 2 neighbours with nuclear weapons (Pakistan, US army in Iraq), and a hostile regional power with nuclear weapons (Israel). It's really quite legitimate for Iran to want nuclear weapons. The problem is that their government is really not the kind which you can feel comfortable having them.