Quoting gwlaw99: "Why Israel must reach a two-state solution now"

I thought this segment title was appropriate because in neatly encapsulates all the sides who actually want a two state solution. Unfortunately, Israel can not reach a two state solution with itself. The Palestinian Authority only represents a part of the Palestinian population while Hamas will never agree to a two state solution making any deal moot until it does.

You're correct. I try not to speak ill of people on BH, even when I disagree with them, but bringing on a coauthor of The Israel Lobby? :\

It will be interesting to see how these two factions play out on the democratic side. Isolationist vs interventionist. For my part I hope Walts faction fails to take hold comlpetely. Call me a dreamer, but I still think American HARD power can still be used for the good in many places (i.e. Kosovo). On the Israel Two state solution, I agree with the above poster. People like Walt like to paint Israelis as the road block. I do not think that is honest, and the crucible was at the end of the Clinton Administration. Anyone who reviews that and sees the Israelis as the main issue, is just against Israelis imo. Lastly, bolting from Afghanistan before it is stabilized is insane, flat out insane. At some point a line must be drawn on the issue of terrorist support.

Anne Marie and Stephen, forget Iraq, Iran or Afganistan, or Israel, for reasons that are too complicated to go into at this time, I believe that Obama's first foreign policy disaster will be civil war and partition in Macedonia. Greece has vetoed membership for Macedonia for Nato and the EU. It will not surprise you that Obama is no saint. But you may be surprised that he supports Greek racism in contrast to Bush and McCain who support Macedonia's position. Should Macedonia implode, then the Albanians will seek assistance from Obama, while the Macedonians turn to Putin. Richard Holbrooke (more) will pronounce it a test by Russia and all hell will break loose with Kosovo, Republica Srpska added to the pile. See:Oprah, Obama Will Disapoint You!

Quoting David Edenden: Anne Marie and Stephen, forget Iraq, Iran or Afganistan, or Israel, for reasons that are too complicated to go into at this time, I believe that Obama's first foreign policy disaster will be civil war and partition in Macedonia.

Greece has vetoed membership for Macedonia for Nato and the EU. It will not surprise you that Obama is no saint. But you may be surprised that he supports Greek racism in contrast to Bush and McCain who support Macedonia's position.

Should Macedonia implode, then the Albanians will seek assistance from Obama, while the Macedonians turn to Putin.

Richard Holbrooke (more) will pronounce it a test by Russia and all hell will break loose with Kosovo, Republica Srpska added to the pile.

See:Oprah, Obama Will Disapoint You!

Interesting, I can't say I'm that familiar with Macedonia. I'd love for Obama to concentrate on Congo, but that's not going to happen. I agree with Jon that Afghanistan is of paramount concern for the sake of international security, and withdrawing would have grave consequences. I also agree with Jon about hidden motives of those who continue to heap the lion's shre of the blame on Israel.

Bob, please invite Anne-Marie's husband on to do a diavlog on Europe some time, preferably with a neofunctionalist. I'm sure the silent majority of the bloggingheads community is teeming with poli sci majors that have fond memories of their sophomore class in European integration. Seriously though, there's a lot diavlogs on politics and policy, but I have yet to see one about scholarly political science theorizing.

i totally diasgree with staying in afghanistan. dumbest....war....ever. slowly withdraw and forget it. these people have been fighting off outsiders for hundreds of years and we're no exception. like i said a couple of days ago: all the taliban has to do is keep recruiting and having babies, be willing to blow themselves up, and most importantly...never ever ever give up. all these lines about it "hurting global stability" if we withdraw is total right wing b.s. they simply don't want to show weakness, admit defeat and lose a "stronghold" in the middle east. i got news for you: the entire middle east is destabilized....so is a lot of africa, etc. and if anything...we're the ones making it unstable. so people keep repeating this line about "stability" that the Generals want you to repeat because they have dreams of democracy or other motives and it's total fantasy land. a completely abstract ideal not based in reality. this area has been invaded by the brits, the russians, etc. many many times over hundreds of years and no one can couquer it because there's nothing to conquer - just shrubs and dirt. Iraq is organized enough to

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: i totally diasgree with staying in afghanistan. dumbest....war....ever. slowly withdraw and forget it. these people have been fighting off outsiders for hundreds of years and we're no exception. like i said a couple of days ago: all the taliban has to do is keep recruiting and having babies, be willing to blow themselves up, and most importantly...never ever ever give up. all these lines about it "hurting global stability" if we withdraw is total right wing b.s. they simply don't want to show weakness, admit defeat and lose a "stronghold" in the middle east. i got news for you: the entire middle east is destabilized....so is a lot of africa, etc. and if anything...we're the ones making it unstable. so people keep repeating this line about "stability" that the Generals want you to repeat because they have dreams of democracy or other motives and it's total fantasy land. a completely abstract ideal not based in reality. this area has been invaded by the brits, the russians, etc. many many times over hundreds of years and no one can couquer it because there's nothing to conquer - just shrubs and dirt. Iraq is organized enough to

I agree that we should be out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Now is the time to build a nonpartisan coalition to get out. If Obama significantly escalates, we risk a quagmire and a prolonged war. Some on the "left" and in the Pentagon are falling in love with Afghanistan escalation scenarios. Big mistake, in my view. I am gladly willing to work with Republicans on this, but they need to get on board for nuclear disarmament and for UN-mandated interventions to prevent genocide Getting nuclear weapons as close as possible to zero on the planet is an important component in ending the narrative that we must invade countries to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. No nukes, no proliferation, no Osama bin A-bomb. The abolition of nuclear weapons is a cause now embraced by former secretaries of State and Defense like Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, and William Perry; as well as Sam Nunn (a powerful player in the Obama transition). Developing a robust international response to failed-state crises also removes US justification for bombing countries and occupying them in order to install corrupt puppet democracies. If there are interventions, the responsibility needs

Quoting Wonderment: I agree that we should be out of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now is the time to build a nonpartisan coalition to get out. If Obama significantly escalates, we risk a quagmire and a prolonged war. Some on the "left" and in the Pentagon are falling in love with Afghanistan escalation scenarios. Big mistake, in my view.

I am gladly willing to work with Republicans on this, but they need to get on board for nuclear disarmament and for UN-mandated interventions to prevent genocide

Getting nuclear weapons as close as possible to zero on the planet is an important component in ending the narrative that we must invade countries to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. No nukes, no proliferation, no Osama bin A-bomb.

The abolition of nuclear weapons is a cause now embraced by former secretaries of State and Defense like Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, and William Perry; as well as Sam Nunn (a powerful player in the Obama transition).

Developing a robust international response to failed-state crises also removes US justification for bombing countries and occupying them in order to install corrupt puppet democracies.

If there are interventions, the responsibility needs

There were consequences to leaving Vietnam abruptly, slaughter. If you must leave then at least do so doing as much as possible to prevent slaughter. Particularly if you had a hand in stirring the hornets nest. In any event, consider this old saying: Success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.
People do not jump onto your bandwagon when you are losing, they do so when you are Winning. The fact is, giving the Taliban the ability to say they kicked the Americans out of Afghanistan would be a terrible blow to American foreign policy. If we leave we should do so on better terms than that.

Thanks to both for the whirlwind tour of the immediate big issues. In some ways, the list sounds beyond daunting; in other ways, there almost seemed a sense of dominoes. In a good way, I mean -- make progress on one problem, and the others become a little easier. If there's any hope for progress at all on the Israeli/Palestinian problem, my feeling is this is worth pursuing aggressively, right out of the gate. I always have the sense that major players in the Mideast use the plight of the Palestinians as an excuse for other actions and inactions. (As an aside, this lends something to the semantic quibble over whether the security of Israel is a strategic consideration for the US.) Probably the most discouraging aspect to this diavlog was the reminder that once again, no one has the slightest idea what to do about Afghanistan. Stephen's one concrete suggestion -- to build up the Afghan national army -- sounds disturbingly like the same thing people have been saying for five years about Iraq. Maybe we're making some gains with the latter, but nowhere near as quick as was once promised, and meanwhile, the

This is not to say the war and stabilization will not be costly, it will. But I say it is worth it.

One criterion that I find useful in deciding if war is worth it is to ask myself would I be willing to die for it. If I think it's worth it, but only if I or my parents or spouse or children or grandchildren don't have to die or be maimed, then I'm just talking shit. Another good standard is how much I'm willing to pay for it with my own money. Am I willing to write Obama a check for say $100,000 to bring democracy to Afghanistan? Will I trade some privileges, like college for my kids or health coverage if I need an organ transplant? If we don't assess decisions to go to war in this way, we're guilty --in my view -- of immense moral sloth, denial and evasion of responsibility. It's somebody's blood and treasure, so we ought to assume it's ours.

Quoting bjkeefe: ....
Probably the most discouraging aspect to this diavlog was the reminder that once again, no one has the slightest idea what to do about Afghanistan. Stephen's one concrete suggestion -- to build up the Afghan national army -- sounds disturbingly like the same thing people have been saying for five years about Iraq. Maybe we're making some gains with the latter, but nowhere near as quick as was once promised, and meanwhile, the costs are horrendous.

Honestly, I do not think the cost is all that high based on historical levels. We spend less on defense than we did during the cold war in terms of percentage of GDP. As for casualties, however bad people think they have been, MANY more lives have been lost in previous wars. By comparison to say Vietnam, the casualty levels of Iraq for example are lower by a factor of 10. But then perspective means little to people arguing a point and reaching for any nugget of evidence to support their preconceived views, measured evidence or not.

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks to both for the whirlwind tour of the immediate big issues. In some ways, the list sounds beyond daunting; in other ways, there almost seemed a sense of dominoes. In a good way, I mean -- make progress on one problem, and the others become a little easier.

If there's any hope for progress at all on the Israeli/Palestinian problem, my feeling is this is worth pursuing aggressively, right out of the gate. I always have the sense that major players in the Mideast use the plight of the Palestinians as an excuse for other actions and inactions.

(As an aside, this lends something to the semantic quibble over whether the security of Israel is a strategic consideration for the US.)

Probably the most discouraging aspect to this diavlog was the reminder that once again, no one has the slightest idea what to do about Afghanistan. Stephen's one concrete suggestion -- to build up the Afghan national army -- sounds disturbingly like the same thing people have been saying for five years about Iraq. Maybe we're making some gains with the latter, but nowhere near as quick as was once promised, and meanwhile, the

Quoting Wonderment: One criterion that I find useful in deciding if war is worth it is to ask myself would I be willing to die for it.

If I think it's worth it, but only if I or my parents or spouse or children or grandchildren don't have to die or be maimed, then I'm just talking shit.

Another good standard is how much I'm willing to pay for it with my own money. Am I willing to write Obama a check for say $100,000 to bring democracy to Afghanistan? Will I trade some privileges, like college for my kids or health coverage if I need an organ transplant?

If we don't assess decisions to go to war in this way, we're guilty --in my view -- of immense moral sloth, denial and evasion of responsibility.

It's somebody's blood and treasure, so we ought to assume it's ours.

MOST people support the retaliatory actions in Afghanistan. Even IF many people would not want to go themselves. Or are those people talking sh*t as well? Am I talking sh*t for supporting busting gang members, even if I do not want to be the police officer tasked with that? The argument is sloppy and wrong, on

obviously, we had to go in initially but after missing bin laden and then getting bogged down, the alternative is to cut our losses and leave. just like the brits did and the soviets and also like we did in vietnam. once you look at the history of invasions of the middle east it makes what we're doing now seem so pathetically naive. the "spillage" you speak of was caused by our presence in S. Arabia in the first place and also for supporting multiple dictatorships in the middle east so I guess I'll just say I'm not quite as "honor driven" as i used to be on the intervention issue.

Quoting Wonderment: One criterion that I find useful in deciding if war is worth it is to ask myself would I be willing to die for it.

this is a good quote. it's a very simple rule that is not used nearly enough and a lot of times i'll find myself making a list: "ok, vietnam - definitely no; WWII - yes; korea - probably not; Gulf War I - sure, why not, etc. however, sometimes i get stuck at Civil War cuz it seems so honorable but at the same time so damn avoidable....

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: obviously, we had to go in initially but after missing bin laden and then getting bogged down, the alternative is to cut our losses and leave. just like the brits did and the soviets and also like we did in vietnam. once you look at the history of invasions of the middle east it makes what we're doing now seem so pathetically naive. the "spillage" you speak of was caused by our presence in S. Arabia in the first place and also for supporting multiple dictatorships in the middle east so I guess I'll just say I'm not quite as "honor driven" as i used to be on the intervention issue.

I see, and what was the spillage for those Buddhist statues of Bamiyan? http://www.rawa.org/statues.htm
What was the provocation of the radical Islamists there? In Spain? In India? on other factions within Islam? There will always be a scapegoat for bad behavior. But we need not blame ourselves for all of it. People bring up Bin Ladins objection to our presence in the middle east as if that reasoning is perfectly sensible and a great point !!! I do not doubt that

yeah, i know the taliban are basically monkeys but I was just saying the war is pointless.

Quoting bjkeefe: In some ways, the list sounds beyond daunting; in other ways, there almost seemed a sense of dominoes. In a good way, I mean -- make progress on one problem, and the others become a little easier.

In some ways this seems true. Making major progress with the Israel - Palestinian problem for example would help reverse the US vs. Islam theme and would undoubtedly be helpful with various issues throughout the Islamic world. The problem is the difficulty in attaining that progress, and the apparant lack of will among major players on either side of the conflict to make that progress. There have been serious good-faith efforts from US administrations earlier, back when the US could present itself as an honest broker, and the progress made has been meager. An unfortunate fact of life is that it is often easier to make things worse than to make them better. The former can be quickly done with little effort, the latter often takes time and consistent application. A new president is very unlikely to be able to do everything he would like, even if a good case can be made that a lot of those things

Sorry, but I couldn't make much sense of your post. This whole section was incomprehensible to me:

The argument is sloppy and wrong, on its face. We should not judge the worthiness of an endeavor based of in individuals level of courage in facing such a challenge. Particularly with an all volunteer army. And the idea that someone sacrificing their own blood and treasure means ANYTHING to you in your analysis is wrong, at best, and probably worse. To test this, lets assume that 95% of our all volunteer army supported staying in Afghanistan and completing their missions there. Would that change your mind? An individuals support for the war (the ones ACTUALLY fighting it) mean nothing to you, only YOUR support or lack thereof. Lets be honest.

It's obvious that Steve's "bee in the bonnet" is a 2 state solution in Israel. Now, does anyone really think that it is possible? I think something should be done or else eventually the people of Jewish extraction will be facing a situation similar to the whites in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, the hardliners on both sides for whatever reasons seem opposed to any sort of compromise. John

Quoting cragger: [...]

Couldn't agree more. I guess I didn't mention the energy aspect of this diavlog because there's nothing (for me) to debate or worry about here -- I think what Obama wants to do is a good plan, and it appears to be at the top of his domestic agenda.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Honestly, I do not think the cost is all that high based on historical levels. We spend less on defense than we did during the cold war in terms of percentage of GDP. As for casualties, however bad people think they have been, MANY more lives have been lost in previous wars. By comparison to say Vietnam, the casualty levels of Iraq for example are lower by a factor of 10.

I don't completely dispute those comparisons, but I'm not convinced that they show that the Iraq situation isn't still horrendously expensive. One quibble, if you want to compare based on fraction of GDP: I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but it's my sense that we're cooking the books on defense spending more than a little these days. For example; a lot of the costs of the Iraq invasion and occupation are not included in the DoD budget, but are listed separately as appropriations. For another, other things that used to be under the DoD budget no longer are, like nuclear weapons work done under the DoE and privatized support services work that used to be done by soldiers. There's also a problem in

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I try not to speak ill of people on BH, even when I disagree with them, but bringing on a coauthor of The Israel Lobby? :\

What is wrong with having the co-author of The Israel Lobby on BHtv? If you have actually read the book or the earlier article, where were Mearsheimer and Walt wrong? No ad-hominem attacks - valid criticism only. BTW - John Mearsheimer was already on BHtv - an interview that Bruce Feiler could not do.

Quoting Wonderment: Sorry, but I couldn't make much sense of your post. This whole section was incomprehensible to me:

I was just making the point that using peoples attitude on whether they would be OK fighting a war to test whether it is reasonable or not, is not a good metric. It is not a good metric in my view because individuals have vastly different thresholds in terms what would provoke them to take up arms and go to war.
You sidestep the strategic merits and detriments, and go off personal feelings. That is not a sensible strategy.

Quoting bjkeefe:
Don't know what this is supposed to be a response to. Sort of sounds like you're arguing with yourself, doesn't it? I mean, I was talking about Iraq being expensive and it taking a long time to get a reliable Iraqi army up and running, and worrying that the same might prove true in Afghanistan, and you want to talk about, what, historical DoD spending as fraction of GDP and casualty rates in Vietnam? Sounds like nugget-reaching to me.

And as for perspective, were I to say that Vietnam was a disaster, would you then say, "No it wasn't. You're forgetting about the Civil War!"?

That last quoted part was not really directed at you, more a frustration with people who throw out casualty numbers. The implication being we should not be there, just look at these casualty numbers !!!!! It bothers me because I know the death tolls at the very least were far higher in past wars. That and the other reality that even if casualties were a TENTH of what they are now, that would not change the opinion of the VAST majority of people who throw those numbers out in terms of their lack of

Quoting JonIrenicus: That last quoted part was not really directed at you, more a frustration with people who throw out casualty numbers.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

Just have to say: Most. High-powered. Diavlog. Ever. Congrats, Bob.

Quoting MikeDrew: Just have to say:

Most. High-powered. Diavlog. Ever. Congrats, Bob.

I'll second that. So fine to have a couple of clear-eyed incisive minds jousting gently over these matters of great moment. I hope both will agree to return either together or with others. Definitely a great get, Bob. (You're hit-rate is all of a sudden on the upswing: Even where I'm perhaps less than thoroughly charmed by the house band, their guests have been improving markedly, as for instance with Berube, Ackerman, and Hammer, all of whom were fresh and stimulating presences.) EW

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I try not to speak ill of people on BH, even when I disagree with them, but bringing on a coauthor of The Israel Lobby? :\

Actually, I was delighted to see Stephen Walt appear. He and his co-author performed through airing of their views one of the most brave and patriotic services to this country that have occurred in the last decade. As I saw it, the Mearsheimer-Walt take was shown to be unimpeachable, although of course it set off a huge (but very predictable) scream of protest among those who are most afraid of a balanced telling of the truth. EW

It's a privilege to hear two of the stars of the IR set debate. Yet, amongst the wish list items Anne-Marie Slaughter and Stephen Walt bring in the sloppy language where states are anthropomorphized and metonymized, I wonder where Slaughter lost her interdependence? Slaughter wrote one of my fav IR books, A New World Order, in 2004. On this diavlog, she sounded like the sort of pundit she criticized in that book.

The conception of the unitary state is a fiction, but it has ben a useful fiction, allowing analysts to reduce the complexities of the international system to a relatively simple map of political, economic, and military powers interacting with one another both directly and through international organizations. But today it is a fiction that is no longer good enough for government work. It still holds for some critical activities such as decisions to go to war, to engage in a new round trade negotiations, or to establish new international institutions to tackle specific global problems. But it hides as much as it helps. (p. 32)

Slaughter goes on to advocate that a "disaggregated sovereignty" inhere in subnational governmental units, not as autonomy from foreign interference, but

It's true that things seems better now than they have for a while on the Israeli/Palestinian front, and so in a sense there's a window of opportunity -- but just because these things don't tend to last very long. I'm in favor, by the way, of moving quickly toward a two-state solution, and of the US applying some pressure on both parties (I especially wish the US the best of luck in pressuring Hamas to accept Israel's legitimacy). This business about the window of opportunity for a 2-state solution beginning to close, however, strikes me as entirely baseless, notwithstanding Olmert's pronouncements and Palestinian threats to the contrary. There's pretty much ZERO support for the idea among Israeli Jews; and if Palestinians adopted the tactic of demanding Israeli citizenship, there's no chance they'd get it -- at least not without first winning a very bloody war (in which case they wouldn't need Israeli citizenship). Far more likely -- though, still, not especially likely -- is that Israel would withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank, as it did in Gaza, and let past "occupiers of Palestine" (Jordan, Britain, the Turks, etc.) take responsibility for the territory, if the Palestinians don't want to. Olmert's statement

Michael: Interesting perspective on the (allegedly) closing window. Thanks.

Stephen Walt thinks not, "because Israel has a robust nuclear deterrent of its own and the Iranians could not use their weapons against Israel without essentially committing national suicide..." This is something one hears over and over. Now I'm no expert on this nuclear stuff, but I don't find this the least bit convincing. It seems to me that a nuclear Iran might be able to attack Israel without having to worry much about an Israeli reprisal -- if the attack originated outside of Iranian territory. I mean, Iran doesn't seem to have much trouble, e.g., getting truck-loads of weaponry into Lebanon (even with the "beefed up" UN presence there since the 2006 war). Might Iran not be able to initiate an attack from there (i.e., so long as Syria is still lending a helping hand, and Iranians are riding in the truck)? Or perhaps Iran could get a few dirty bombs into Gaza through the tunnels connecting Gaza with Egypt (through which weaponry is smuggled all the time). Maybe a small nuclear explosion in the middle of the Negev Desert, followed a statement by some "hitherto unknown Islamic group" (wink wink) claiming

I tend to agree with you Wonderment. Nuclear weapons in this day and age are worse than useless. It is time to be rid of them entirely. It’s doable. The hope for humanity is to utilize the power of the atom to generate electricity and produce hydrogen to elevate the worldwide standard of living; thus eliminating the deep seeded desperation that leads to hatred fed terrorism. Obama is one who can make this happen if he doesn’t get drunk on the power of the office.

Obama is one who can make this happen if he doesn’t get drunk on the power of the office.

Sam Nunn is a good sign. Bill Gates (if Obama keeps him around) however, is a bad one, in that he is a strong supporter of nukes and nuke spending. Obama could make significant progress by saying he is continuing the nuclear disarmament vision and work of Ronald Reagan. I worry more about Obama appointing the right people to the right positions than about him getting drunk on power.

Quoting JIM3CH: Nuclear weapons in this day and age are worse than useless.

That's what you think. Nuclear weapons came pretty handy to Russia in wars in Chechnya and Georgia.

Quoting JIM3CH: The hope for humanity is [...]

There is no such a thing as humanity. There are only nations and their states.

Marty Peretz had one of the better takedowns of it, so in place of making many of the same arguments (and having to review over some things before doing so), I'll only link to it:http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-150.htm

oh and this is a relevant video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Yun11eTIU Keep trying to blame Israel.

God help us!...Stephen Walt is a case in point - he doesn´t seem to understand, really, anything. Barack Obama confounded his adversaries, and that is really his only strong asset. The only way out of the Afghan quagmire is to do a deal directly with OBL - sort of a Kissinger/Nixon/Cho En Lai covert operation. Yes, OBL has killed many innocents, but Mao far, far more....millions! Possibly offer OBL Saudia Arabia in exchange for his help with Pakistan, Iran and Russia. Sound far-fetched? Maybe, but it is at least more imaginative than what Stephen is offering us.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Marty Peretz had one of the better takedowns of it, so in place of making many of the same arguments (and having to review over some things before doing so), I'll only link to it:http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-150.htm

Peretz is an anti-Arab racist. His opinion is worthless to anyone who is looking for a balanced view of the Middle East. Just read what some former TNR writers think of him: Eric Alterman
Glenn Greenwald
Spencer Ackerman
Or Richard Silverstein in Tikun. Or just search on "marty peretz" and racist. This is not a man to be taken seriously.

Quoting mvantony: Stephen Walt thinks not, "because Israel has a robust nuclear deterrent of its own and the Iranians could not use their weapons against Israel without essentially committing national suicide..."

This is something one hears over and over. Now I'm no expert on this nuclear stuff, but I don't find this the least bit convincing. It seems to me that a nuclear Iran might be able to attack Israel without having to worry much about an Israeli reprisal -- if the attack originated outside of Iranian territory. I mean, Iran doesn't seem to have much trouble, e.g., getting truck-loads of weaponry into Lebanon (even with the "beefed up" UN presence there since the 2006 war). Might Iran not be able to initiate an attack from there (i.e., so long as Syria is still lending a helping hand, and Iranians are riding in the truck)? Or perhaps Iran could get a few dirty bombs into Gaza through the tunnels connecting Gaza with Egypt (through which weaponry is smuggled all the time). Maybe a small nuclear explosion in the middle of the Negev Desert, followed a statement by some "hitherto unknown Islamic group" (wink wink) claiming

Quoting thprop: Peretz is an anti-Arab racist. His opinion is worthless to anyone who is looking for a balanced view of the Middle East.

I completely agree. I stopped reading The Plank for a while because it got to be too much work to filter out Peretz's screeds from the rest. With the bylines at the end instead of under the titles where they belong, I'd over and over again find myself two paragraphs into a post, suddenly wondering about that burning sensation in the back of my throat. When TNR finally walled him off in The Spine, it was as though the windows that had been sealed on a damp basement for five years had finally been thrown open to the fresh air of a bright spring day. Thanks for the links. In particular: that Eric Alterman is the man.

Quoting Steve: Suppose you're right about all this. The conclusion, then, is that Israel is doomed to destruction, right?

No, I don't see that. I was speaking of the threat Iran could pose to Israel were it to acquire the capability to produce nuclear weapons. If Iran is kept from achieving that capability, it will be unable to threaten Israel in that way.

Israel and the United States won't be able to control nukes for the rest of human history.

The important question seems to me to be not so much what the US and Israel will be able to do, but whether humans will some day be able to control nukes on the planet. I'm not at all convinced that we won't some day be able to do that.

So how are you going to avoid the nuclear obliteration of Israel?

Me? Um, I don't know. So far I've just been doing little things like writing posts to influential public intellectuals who erroneously -- and dangerously -- present a nuclear Iran as posing no threat to Israel to reconsider the matter. Perhaps I should do more. I also believe that solving the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict would lessen the danger, if only

What you tend to ignore is the threat posed by Israel and the USA to launch a preventive war against Iran (as the USA did in Iraq), based on the premise that Iran MIGHT obtain nuclear weapons. To many people, such a catastrophe is a far more likely scenario than Iran nuking Israel, even if Iran could obtain nukes. A preventive war could easily turn into a world war and economic meltdown (which probably wouldn't turn out well for Israel either). So now we have a terrible stalemate of the Iranians pursuing nuclear power, and the US and Israel saying that they can't and will be prevented from doing so by force, if necessary. As the intellectuals you criticize maintain, there is too much at stake to see who blinks first.

Quoting Wonderment: What you tend to ignore is the threat posed by Israel and the USA to launch a preventive war against Iran (as the USA did in Iraq), based on the premise that Iran MIGHT obtain nuclear weapons.

I won't speak for the US, but, as I've said before, I feel confident that Israel would not launch an attack against Iran recklessly, if for no other reason than that the possibility of an Iranian+Hezbollah+Syrian+more? conventional/chemical/biological response is threatening enough (to put it mildly). The US faced nothing remotely similar when it attacked Iraq. Israel's intelligence would have to be very solid indeed (as I would guess it already is; but neither of us has any knowledge about this).

To many people, such a catastrophe is a far more likely scenario than Iran nuking Israel, even if Iran could obtain nukes.

What lay people like you and me believe to be likely won't be given much weight in Israel's calculations concerning this matter -- and rightly so.

So now we have a terrible stalemate of the Iranians pursuing nuclear power, and the US and Israel saying that they can't and will be prevented from doing so by

What lay people like you and me believe to be likely won't be given much weight in Israel's calculations concerning this matter -- and rightly so.

You present this as if the Israelis were rational actors up against insane and unpredictable enemies (not just in the quote above but throughout your recent posts). According to you, Israel's "calculations" will be not be reckless. Presumably you view the US-Israeli alliance as just as prudent and rational. But the US has acted with extreme recklessness in waging war in the Middle East since 2003, and at tremendous cost to the American and Iraqi people. A candidate who sang about bombing Iran almost became president, and an opposing party candidate who threatened to "obliterate" Iran would have won by a bigger margin than Obama had she run (according to exit polls). Also, we just spent 8 years with the maniacal Dick Cheney and his saber-rattling sidekick menacing Iran. The Israeli hawks that I hear sound anything but prudent, and Israel has also waged stupid and reckless war in the very recent past (Lebanon 2). So I don't buy your analysis. Both Israel and the US are

Quoting Wonderment: You present this as if the Israelis were rational actors up against insane and unpredictable enemies (not just in the quote above but throughout your recent posts).

I don't know what you mean. Since I've been posting on BhTV, I've always characterized Israel's enemies as rational, just as having a different set of beliefs and values.

Presumably you view the US-Israeli alliance as just as prudent and rational.

I was speaking about how cautious Israel would be -- because of the enormous risks involved -- in the event that it is forced to deal with the Iranian threat on its own. I was not talking about the US-Israel relationship. However, because of the risks a US (plus Israeli?) attack on Iran would pose to Israel (and other American interests), as well as for other reasons, I don't believe the US would proceed nearly as incautiously as it did in Iraq either. Not to mention the fact that there's little American public support for such an attack.

Israel has also waged stupid and reckless war in the very recent past (Lebanon 2).

I think it was Nasrallah who acted stupidly and recklessly, and no doubt he'll

Any foreign policy that calls for our troops to be deployed in South Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Afganistan (I'm sure I have left out some other countries) is a flawed one. This is one major issue Texas Congressman Ron Paul won hands down when he ran for the president. Bring them home! John

I forgot how good that Alterman piece was on TNR. Sadly, it reminds me of just how overboard Beinart (who I've enjoyed on BHTV) went in the run-up to the Iraq War. Thanks for the link.

Where do Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran fit into this recipe? When and how do they get defanged?

They're included. Hamas is part of the two-state deal. Hizballah is put out of business by a Syrian-Lebanese-Israeli component of peace deal (Israel gets out of occupied Syria). Iran is a harder problem, but with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia all supporting the new state of Palestine and the new borders for Israel, the whole dispute basically dissolves. When Israel comes clean about its secret nukes stockpile and begins to disarm (along with all nuclear states), Iran will be part of the program.

Any foreign policy that calls for our troops to be deployed in South Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Afganistan (I'm sure I have left out some other countries) is a flawed one. This is one major issue Texas Congressman Ron Paul won hands down when he ran for the president. Bring them home!

And Dennis Kucinich in the other War Party. That's where the new anti-militarism coalition needs to come from: the Kucinich left (there are millions of us) and the Paul right (there are millions of them).

Wonderment, you seem to have forgotten that my point in starting this thread was to suggest that a nuclear Iran could in principle forward its aim of destroying Israel with little likelihood of incurring an Israeli nuclear reprisal. Without even addressing my examples, you've simply ignored them, and are making exactly the same overly-simplistic claim that Walt, Cole, Alsan, and the rest make over and over, and which I was challenging in this thread: Iran wouldn't nuke Israel because to do so would be suicidal.

I thought I did address your point. Your argument is an indirect justification for an Israeli (or American) first-strike, preventive attack on Iran, if you know (or think you know) that Iran has (or is close to getting) a nuke. The whole way of thinking is dysfunctional and potentially brings us to the brink of world war without Iran actually engaging in any acts of war. Very weird. Why not, instead of that, try to understand their position on nukes. It's very simple: " You guys can have them. Why shouldn't we? " ANSWER: Nobody should have them. Let's work together to eliminate them. REBUTTAL TO ANSWER: "But you guys don't do shit to eliminate them, except talk about it." [Enter Obama, the Russians and Livni to seriously discuss nuclear disarmament. ]

I'm partial to multilateral cuts on nukes, with elimination as the final goal, too. Ronald Reagan's support for that position was actually his one substantively humanizing tendency as a pro pol. Yet, such an approach means being as tough on Israel's "knowledge" of nukes as Iran's. Also, what's crazier - reacting to Israel's real "knowledge", or Iran's bluster? Basing a foreign policy backed with very real assets paid with taxpayer cash on Iranian electoral rhetoric sounds like American impotence, not prudence. Where was the prudence when the CIA knew A.Q. Khan was selling kit to Iran, but didn't want to disturb its intelligence-gathering activities if the President actually tried to raise a flag? And, where was the prudence when successive administrations gave carte blanche to the Shah? Or, enlisted Teheran's help destabilizing Saddam Hussein? It will take cleverer heads and luck to undo all these mistakes. Solution: Pretend eight years just didn't exist, and send out a response to Iran's offer to help undermine the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Quoting Baltimoron: ...Iran's bluster...Iranian electoral rhetoric...

The activities of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria which Iran supports are very real and concrete. What leads you to state -- as though there's nothing more obvious -- that Iranian anti-Israel pronouncements are mere "bluster" and "rhetoric"?

Occasional B'head Gershom Gorenberg has advice for Obama, beginning:

Time's up. Despite the bluster at George W. Bush's Potemkin peace conference in Annapolis one year ago, Israel and the Palestinians will not reach a peace agreement by the end of 2008. Please folks, don't all faint at once from surprise.

Barack Obama will inherit this mess, along with all the others. Very soon, he must decide how quickly to throw his weight behind Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, what to aim for, and how to succeed where so many others have failed.

The answer: Move fast, very fast. Ignore all advice from old diplomatic hands who'll tell you to avoid big, difficult issues and to stick to crisis management and interim accords. Seek a full end-of-conflict agreement. And apply lessons from your electoral campaign: Enforce absolute message discipline in your own team, and employ dramatic public events and rhetoric to restore people's belief that change is possible.

The temptation for delay is obvious. The list of crises facing Obama starts with the economic collapse, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But as he's said, "A president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time."

Immediate, high-profile engagement with Israel and the Palestinians

Iran's decision to privatize its foreign policy is not my preferred recommendation, and making those activities transparent would be a goal. But, Israel is not defenseless. Neither state, or its people, or leaders, are criminal, or innocent. Those concerns are irrelevant except for the politicians' communications staff. Israel is as much a tool of American security policy as any other state, including Iran. I have no sentimental attachments to any state, only two separate series of concentric circles within which my two families live. All else is noise. After stripping the two states down to the bone, now we can discuss just what each brings to the table. One has to ask oneself why one takes the noise seriously. The Jewish people (and my step-father is Jewish) are similar to my mother's Seminoles - and unlike Koreans. Kill us, starve us, fuck us, befriend us, it doesn't matter! Useful tools! Nice toys! The people belong to God, the Great Spirit, whatever it's called now. The Gentiles, the Long Knives, Yankees, whomever, are noise.

Quoting Baltimoron: [...]

I took you to be saying that Iran's bluster and campaign rhetoric (regarding its desire to see Israel eradicated), as opposed to Israel's "knowledge" (I assumed you were referring to Israel's nuclear capability) is mere bluster and rhetoric, and so needn't taken particularly seriously. Perhaps I misunderstood. I offered reasons to think Iran is interested in more than mere rhetoric: namely, it engages in more than mere rhetoric. It engages in deadly activity against my country -- not just "noise" -- like training, arming, and financing organizations that seek my country's destruction (just like Iran's "rhetoric," oddly enough), and actually do things like firing Katyusha and Qassam rockets indiscriminately and intentionally into civilian population centers, one of them happening to be one I and my family live in. Terror, pure and simple -- meant to further the organizations' stated goals of destroying Israel. And Iran's stated goal too, since Iran is supporting it (in addition to stating it in its blustery fashion). So it seems to me that your claim, as I've understood it at least, that Iran's bluster and rhetoric, is mere bluster and rhetoric, is pretty close to demonstrably false. What interests you, what countries you do or don't have sentimental attachments to, what

Quoting Wonderment: Hamas is part of the two-state deal.

No reason, so far, to think they'll ever offer more than a hudna, which isn't enough.

Hizballah is put out of business by a Syrian-Lebanese-Israeli component of peace deal (Israel gets out of occupied Syria).

So far Syria has stated that it won't sever ties with Iran. Plus, it's far more interested in remaining a player in Lebanon (which it's now doing through Hizballah) than getting the Golan back (which isn't to say Syria doesn't want the Golan back, or that I don't think they should get it), so it's far from clear how this will work out.

Iran is a harder problem, but with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia all supporting the new state of Palestine and the new borders for Israel, the whole dispute basically dissolves.

How so? How are the Ayatollah's --with nukes? -- persuaded to accept Jewish sovereignty in part of dar al-Islam?

When Israel comes clean about its secret nukes stockpile and begins to disarm (along with all nuclear states), Iran will be part of the program.

I believe Israel won't -- and shouldn't -- begin to disarm, until the threat of being overwhelmed by

Quoting Wonderment: I thought I did address your point. Your argument is an indirect justification for an Israeli (or American) first-strike, preventive attack on Iran, if you know (or think you know) that Iran has (or is close to getting) a nuke.

It's true that if, as I've argued, a nuclear Iran really could endanger Israel, that fact could be used in an argument for preemptively attacking Iran. But if it is a fact -- and I have been arguing that it is -- you can't simply say that it isn't (blot out a portion of reality, as it were), just because you think Iran shouldn't be attacked. Instead, you must construct an argument why Iran shouldn't be attacked even if it could use nukes against Israel without a high likelihood of incurring an Israeli reprisal. Perhaps that's possible. I haven't said it isn't. It would probably mean more work on your part (and Walt's, Cole's, Aslan's, etc.). But what can you do? Facts are facts. You need to work with them, not ignore them out of existence. (Notice, by the way, that I haven't been arguing that Iran should be preemptively attacked at this point.) Of course, maybe what I've argued is a fact isn't a fact. But then

Quoting bjkeefe: Gershom adds additional reasons, eventually culminating in:

The main reason for moving quickly, though, is that every wasted day makes a two-state solution more difficult to reach.

Thanks for the link Brendan. I scanned the article. As I've said, I'm also in favor of moving quickly, applying some pressure to both sides, giving the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank (with some land swaps) plus East Jerusalem, etc. I just want to point out that Gershom -- like most people who claim that the time for reaching a two-state solution is coming to an end -- has very little to offer by way of reasons. All he's got is: (1) not reaching a two-state solution soon will eat away at Abbas' credibility, and
(2) the number of settlers in the West Bank have been increasing, and "the more settlers, the greater the internal crisis that Israel would face in withdrawing." This is pretty weak stuff for such a weighty and ominous claim as that the chances for a two-state solution in particular are fading away fast -- i.e., that the only/main option that will remain thereafter is a one-state solution (meaning: the end of the state of Israel).

Quoting mvantony: Thanks for the link Brendan. I scanned the article. As I've said, I'm also in favor of moving quickly, applying some pressure to both sides, giving the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank (with some land swaps) plus East Jerusalem, etc.

I just want to point out that Gershom -- like most people who claim that the time for reaching a two-state solution is coming to an end -- has very little to offer by way of reasons. All he's got is: ...

I am not well enough informed to debate the finer points. I just thought I'd pass the link along because Gershom always sounds like he's making sense when he's on BH.tv. I do wonder why you are simultaneously "in favor of moving quickly" and disparaging towards others who feel like the time for coming to a two-state solution is running out, though.

No reason, so far, to think they'll ever offer more than a hudna, which isn't enough.

Hudna-shmudna. Put the deal on the table, get it ratified by a majority of Palestinians, take it to the UN, and enforce it with a robust Palestinian police force and a UN peace-keeping presence if necessary.

So far Syria has stated that it won't sever ties with Iran. Plus, it's far more interested in remaining a player in Lebanon (which it's now doing through Hizballah) than getting the Golan back (which isn't to say Syria doesn't want the Golan back, or that I don't think they should get it), so it's far from clear how this will work out.

Syria is a place where Obama can actually make a difference. The Bush crazies behaved so badly with the Syrians, demonizing them at every opportunity, that a simple change in diplomatic tone and the lack of immediate overt hostility may work miracles.

How are the Ayatollah's --with nukes? -- persuaded to accept Jewish sovereignty in part of dar al-Islam?

Well, A) that is why I favor a nuclear-free zone (and world), and B) What are the Iranians going to do, nuke the Palestinians in order

Michael, this makes sense to me but it still doesn't justify it to Iran. The cold hard truth is that enemies always want the same weapons that their enemy has. And the one who has the inferior technology has every reason to want to match their opponents destructive capabilities. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and whether or not it is the real reason, Israel's possesion of nukes gives Iran a justification to want them, so the best course of action is for Israel to begin to disarm and take away Iran's public incentive. Arguing that Israel has never used nukes only supports the case that they don't really need them. They have managed pretty well with conventional arms to date. So the answer to Wonderments question "why them (Israel) and not us (Iran)?" doesn't seem adequately answered by "they had them first." At least not in the eyes of Iran and other Arab states.

No, I mean bluster and rhetoric is part of diplomacy/confrontation in any situation. Take it, or leave it. I missed the part where I am supposed to feel any sentimental attachment to either Iran or Israel. There are good reasons for any state to engage iran; there are fewer reasons to support Israel. I won't argue you don't have a private interest in advocating certain policies for Israel. I would argue you are a minor factor. Honestly, geopolitically, from the Bosporus/Dardenelles, to the southern gate of the Caucasus, to the Persian Gulf, to the Horn of Africa, and across the Iranian steppes, is a huge pivot zone that is patently indefensible. No strategist would put markers on it and no one should expect stable polities for more than a few generations to endure in that cauldron. The region has been denuded of resource and transit value over the millennium. I would plant my navy outside its terminus and fire missiles to contain the regional hegemon. I wouldn't prioritize the region beyond the level of containment. Unless mountains and rivers spring up to alter the geography, the region is fit for emigration and little more. There are just parts of the

I missed the part where I am supposed to feel any sentimental attachment to either Iran or Israel.

Well, then you missed the part where billions of people all over the world, representing millennia of human history, are muttering prayers several times a day, singing ecstatic songs, indulging in lifelong fantasies and killing each other over Jerusalem and its environs. Perhaps people ought to view the real estate with the dispassion they generally reserve for parking lots and strip malls, but they don't and won't. This may look crazy to the Chinese and the Indians, but that's only because it is crazy. So what?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Michael, this makes sense to me but it still doesn't justify it to Iran. The cold hard truth is that enemies always want the same weapons that their enemy has. And the one who has the inferior technology has every reason to want to match their opponents destructive capabilities. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and whether or not it is the real reason, Israel's possesion of nukes gives Iran a justification to want them, so the best course of action is for Israel to begin to disarm and take away Iran's public incentive. Arguing that Israel has never used nukes only supports the case that they don't really need them. They have managed pretty well with conventional arms to date. So the answer to Wonderments question "why them (Israel) and not us (Iran)?" doesn't seem adequately answered by "they had them first." At least not in the eyes of Iran and other Arab states.

How about "you're a bass ackwards Islamic theocracy and they're a Democracy"

I didn't miss the prayers and singing. My own grandparents raised money for it, and I helped out. As an adult, though, I choose not to ignore it as if it didn't exist, or continue to aid the campaign, but never to advocate permanent alliances. If the US feels fit to match power with virtue, and avoid the cynical power politics of old Europe, it should be incredibly stingy about what states it calls an ally. American policy should shift from the current "State A is our friend, do or die for eternity, and all means are good to screw our enemies" to "We have no soul mates, but he/she looks nice for a few hours, and he/she won't wait for a second date" The US has survived adolescence, after over 200 years. It's time to act like a state.

Leaving aside the limitations of democracy compared with republicanism, that's a fairly bigoted view of the possibilities Iran's constitution could bring to Islam. The personalities might be repulsive, and there's always room for amendments, but it's better than autocracy - or mob democracy.

Quoting Baltimoron: Leaving aside the limitations of democracy compared with republicanism, that's a fairly bigoted view of the possibilities Iran's constitution could bring to Islam. The personalities might be repulsive, and there's always room for amendments, but it's better than autocracy - or mob democracy.

Well, the system is a step up from what we see in a few other Islamic countries, but it's still pretty bad.

You need to define "bad".

Quoting bjkeefe: I do wonder why you are simultaneously "in favor of moving quickly" and disparaging towards others who feel like the time for coming to a two-state solution is running out, though.

I agree it appears there's a window of opportunity to get something done now, since we've got some momentum going, and there's much more happening than there's been since before the outbreak of the second Intifada, and these opportunities simply don't last forever. So I believe that if the opportunity isn't taken advantage of, there could be a new outbreak of violence, and things would take a negative turn in several other possible ways, and it would be unclear when an opportunity for progress would arise again. But I don't see what any of this has to do with the two-state solution in particular. After the outbreak of the second Intifada, for example, it was also unclear when a new opportunity would arise to make progress. But no one was saying then that if we don't get a deal right now, the chance for ever reaching a two-state solution in particular will disappear, and the only possible remaining solution will

Quoting mvantony: [...]

Thanks for clarifying. Don't know if I agree, but as I said, I don't feel as though I understand the details well enough to be sure.

No arguments (at least no good ones) are ever given for why now, at this point in the history of the conflict, we have before us the final opportunity for reaching a two-state solution.

It's like peak oil: Everyone knows it's going to happen, but no one knows exactly when it will, until it has, and then it will be too late to do anything to mitigate the consequences, but everyone will have wished they had. There are two factors that are in flux: population and hope. At some point the demographics will start looking like Apartheid South Africa (they already do in the Territories, of course); and at some point despair and cynicism about two-states will reach a critical and irreversible mass. Meron Beneviste, former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, gave up on a two-state solution several years ago. His views are still not popular, but the case he and Ilan Pappe make could get more persuasive. There are probably a lot of people like me who still support a two-state solution but are quite fed up with 40+ years of occupation-as-usual. In principle, I have nothing against a 1-state resolution, provided that the state

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

Responding to the details of your post would mean going around in circles for me. Ditto for your other recent posts (except for your point that, if it wanted to, Iran could carry out operations like the one I described with chemical or biological weapons now -- which was a new and good one that I'll think about). I'll just say that I think this one-state solution (i.e., end of a Jewish homeland) business is going to be talked about more and more in the near future, spearheaded mainly by Israel's enemies (as well as others, like foolish Israeli Prime Ministers, alas), and it will require that Israel articulate a stronger case for the justice of having a Jewish state at this point in human history (i.e., where scores of other peoples still have states/homelands of their own: if everyone were to give up their homeland, I'd have no trouble with the Jewish people doing it too; short of that, however, it's discriminatory -- dare I say anti-Semitic? -- to demand it only of the Jews). The need for Israelis/Jews to articulate a new and up-to-date rationale for a Jewish state/homeland is likely to

Okay, I agree that we do a lot of going around in circles, so we can leave it where it is for now. I would only add in response to your comment that

if everyone were to give up their homeland, I'd have no trouble with the Jewish people doing it too; short of that, however, it's discriminatory -- dare I say anti-Semitic? -- to demand it only of the Jews).

A one-state resolution would never be framed in those terms. The Jewish people would still have their homeland. You have a homeland now with 20% of the population non-Jewish Israeli Arab citizens. Why would a homeland disappear if there were say four or five provinces within Israel: Gaza, WB, J-lem and Old Israel? Again, I favor the two-state outcome, and I hope it's doable. But it's not anti-Semitic to think of alternatives.

Quoting Baltimoron: You need to define "bad".

Well you can start with denying basic freedoms, executing homosexuals, and teaching Holocaust denial while making genocidal overtures.

That's not constitutional. That's political.

It's bad

Quoting Baltimoron: You need to define "bad".

A few bits from Akbar Ganji's long and informative Nov./Dec. 2008 article in Foreign Affairs, "The Latter Day Sultan: Power and Politics in Iran":

The Iranian constitution endows the supreme leader with tremendous authority over all major state institutions, and Khamenei, who has held the post since 1989, has found many other ways to further increase his influence. Formally or not, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government all operate under the absolute sovereignty of the supreme leader; Khamenei is the head of state, the commander in chief, and the top ideologue. He also reaches into economic, religious, and cultural affairs through various government councils and organs of repression, such as the Revolutionary Guards, whose commander he himself appoints.

[...]

Judging by the freedom of Iran's elections, there has been little progress. Whether they are for the post of president, the unicameral parliament (known as the Majlis), or local councils, elections in Iran are rigged pseudoelections. Candidates must pledge in writing that they are committed, in theory and in practice, to the Iranian constitution, Islam, the absolute sovereignty of the supreme leader, and the late Khomeini. Many left-wing members of parliament were banned from running for reelection in the 1992 contest, when

Yes, and George Washington, some of whose lieutenants were a lot less principled than he was, was the model for the presidency. Constitutions are not people. Congress was also believed to be the first branch in 1787, but Jackson challenged that in 1828. Constitutions can be amended. And, the precedent encourages other Islamic states to better Iran. I can quibble about any constitution on Earth. But their virtue, unlike people is, that they encourage a cottage industry in exegesis that makes them immortal. The US and Iran have good reasons to distrust and hate one another. At some point, they both became responsible for the failures caused by their mistakes. Every policy, even the best ones forced by circumstances, or arguably just the "best", have consequences. A big state, like both Iran and the US, admits that. From an IR perspective, not an American or Iranian security policy perspective, it's facile to take sides.

Quoting bjkeefe: One quibble, if you want to compare based on fraction of GDP: I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but it's my sense that we're cooking the books on defense spending more than a little these days.

However, I'm not too lazy to note them when I come across them by happenstance! See here. Excerpt:

For a start, the campaign is dishonest from the get-go. It's based on a claim that even Bush's profligate defense spending amounts to only 3.43% of GDP - but it neglects to account for $26 billion in non-DOD spending and $170 billion in supplementary spending on the misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Taken all together, those amount to 4.73% of GDP and a staggering $711 billion dollars - a bailout a year or almost 50% of the governments budget. It's a vastly higher sum, in real terms, than the U.S. has ever spent on defense before and it outstrips, by a wide margin, spending by the rest of the world.

(h/t: Teh Sadlys)