A Bad Day For (American) Politicians On TV

Two politicians, one Democratic--President Obama--and the other a Republican presidential wannabe--Rick Santorum--embarrassed themselves and, in so doing, tossed a pie in the faces of many Americans.  Of course, it is a bit unfair to equate the two as one is a member in good standing of a large but still fringe group of We the People and the other is the chief executive of a country which is still a Great Power even in its self-inflicted decline.

Santorum, in his bid for commemoration in the Hall of Exceptional Bad Taste In Politics was assisted by members of the audience present for the Fox/Google Debate in Florida.  A large portion of the audience was comprised of the same sort of self-destructive Republicans as had made noteworthy performances in two previous debates.  These people constitute the slavering red meat eaters of the intellectually challenged segment of the Party of Elephants whose most evident characteristics are a lack of good taste, a deficiency in empathy, and, most importantly a strong unconscious desire to lose elections.

The former senator from Pennsylvania and champion of the farther Right shores of the badly misnamed "social conservative" wing of the GOP was goaded into a profound demonstration of deep ignorance regarding the realities of military life particularly during wartime by a question posed by a gay soldier currently stationed in Iraq.  The question had to do with the deletion of "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) so that homosexuals can serve openly in the US armed forces.

Needless to detail at length, Mr Santorum is against the current policy.  He would seek to turn the calender back to the years of DADT with the accompanying demand that non-heterosexuals engage in a combination of deceit and denial.  Leaving aside the political impossibility (and ignoring the boos issuing from the oral cavities of the denizens of the Very Very Right) suffice it to note that Santorum's stated desire to emulate Dr Who or Mr Peabody constituted the lesser part of his exceptional ignorance of military life.

The peak of Santorum's idiocy and lack of knowledge came when he stated, "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."

That observation is a show stopper for sure.  As any and everyone who has spent time in any of the armed forces knows, sex is a constant and highly favored activity often bordering on obsession.  So it has been since Achilles was a private.  So it will be as long as young people are found in a military service.  Even years hence when combat is delegated to machines, it is highly probable that the people monitoring the killbots will have a hard time keeping their utilities buttoned tightly.

Not since the anti-sex campaigns of World Wars I and II when the American morality police pretended that our troops were so pure of heart and mind that they must be protected from the evils of prostitutes both amateur and professional has anyone betrayed the degree of out-to-lunchness exhibited by Mr Santorum.  If, indeed, he really does believe what he said, then he has disqualified himself from serious consideration for any office of trust and confidence under the Constitution by virtue of pure, unadulterated ignorance and irremediable stupidity (or ideological blindness.)

A far more important bit of televised damage was inflicted on the US by President Obama's speech to the UN General Assembly.  It was more than enough to make a person squirm in raw and unrelieved embarrassment as the POTUS delivered a set of remarks which could have been written by the execrable foreign minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman.  The kindest explanation for the presidential exhibition of seriously pathetic policy arises from the overarching Obama need to be reelected--and the crucial relation between that goal and the Israel Lobby.

As the recent by-election in New York demonstrated, there is a strong current of unhappiness with Obama's stance on Israel within the American Jewish community.  Shoring up support in this portion of the eroding Democratic base is an urgent matter.  Not surprisingly, more than a few political analysts both here and abroad have identified this as the prime mover behind the Obama position, which constituted a nearly complete reversal of policy (such as it was) a year ago.

The problem with this explanation even if it is as accurate as appears, is that international politics is a more unforgiving arena than the domestic sort.  Very real lives are at stake.  Very real countries with equally real interests are in play.  The issue of an Israel-Palestinian settlement is inherently existential in nature and does not allow for the flexibility or retakes common in domestic affairs.

The president threw away the good offices stature once enjoyed by the US.  The strident tones and relatively extreme nature of his position taken in the context of past stances undercut any possibility of Washington being seen as an honest broker seeking a fair and equitable solution to the several seemingly intractable problems besetting the Israelis and their Palestinian interlocutors.

This leaves the task to such as the European Union or the Quartet with the US playing a marginal role at best. Mr Obama's "approved by AIPAC" speech also eroded to the point of nonexistence any influence Washington might have had with the Palestinian Authority or its Mideast state supporters.  Worse, the president appeared to put the US squarely in opposition to the majority of the "Arab Spring" movers and shakers.

This last consideration is arguably the most critical of all.  While the US would see its influence reduced in any event as the groups espousing austere, politically oriented Islam will be the power either in or behind the throne in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and elsewhere, there was and remains no need to reduce influence all the more.  The status of the Palestinians ranks high as a motivator on much of the "Arab street."  While it is more than a bit hypocritical that this was not the case in the ancient days when Jordan "occupied" the West Bank and Egyptian troops held the supreme hand in the Gaza Strip, it is a reality today which must be recognized and addressed by American policymakers.

Obama's Mideast policy (to use the term generically only) has been and remains an area deserving of the attentions and ministrations of FEMA.  He and his "team" have done the seemingly impossible--gotten each and every aspect wrong for more than two and a half years.  Far more than even George W. Bush, the Nice Young Man From Chicago has managed to alienate every stakeholder in each and every Arab state as well as non-Arab countries such as Turkey.  The UNGA address was the final nail in the coffin of American presence in the Mideast.

Santorum (with the able aid of the boo happy bunch) humiliated the Republican Party in the eyes of all but the most avid of elephants.  Mr Obama did much more.  The president managed--without assistance--to put the US firmly behind the eight ball throughout the rapidly changing Mideast.

No American president has done that before.  No American president in search of reelection has ever degraded the influence of his country in pursuit of votes.  Finally, Mr Obama has something real to apologize for.

A Democracy Fails

Israel was established as a Western heritage democracy.  In and of itself this was an amazing phenomenon.  There was little in the history of the Jews, either in Biblical days or in the long centuries of the diaspora which linked democracy with the Jewish tradition.  Yet the driving personalities of the Zionist movement as well as those who fought for an independent Jewish state insisted on bringing the democratic ideals of Western and Central Europe to the country which was simultaneously ancient and new.

The seamless merging of ancient and modern can be seen in two defining characteristics of Israel and the Zionists who worked so long and hard to bring the dream to fruition.  The long dead language of Hebrew was brought back from the linguistic graveyard.  Democracy was embraced.  King David could walk the streets of Israel today and understand all that was said around him.  But the Biblical King would not begin to understand the democracy which is, or to err on the side of accuracy, was basic to Israel.

One of strongest reasons so many Americans supported Israel with ardor and depth during the Fifties, Sixties, and beyond was its highly evident commitment to democracy.  When someone stated that Israel was the only outpost of democracy in the Mideast during the first forty or fifty years of the state's existence, it was simply a recognition of reality.  In more recent years, the same claim must be seen not as a statement of fact but rather the product of the propagandist's tendentiousness.

It is important to keep in mind that there was no tradition of democracy in the historical experience of the Jewish people either before or after the savage Roman repression of the second uprising.  Only insofar as Jews participated in democratic processes as such developed fitfully and painfully in the several European states or in the US was there any direct experience with the complex nature of democracy.  In a very real sense, the pioneering Zionists and the Jews who answered the call of freedom implicit in the creation of the Jewish state brought democracy in all its manifold ways and complexities with them, political freight carried in their knapsacks as they got off the boat on the sandy shore of the land which would become Israel.

It is also critical to recall that the Jews of Western and Central Europe were not the only Jews involved in the project called Israel.  Arrivals from the autocracies of the Mideast constituted a great and growing part of the citizenry.  Later, vast numbers of Jews arrived from the wreckage of the Soviet Union.  The latter like their coreligionists from the Mideast had no direct experience with democracy.  They had no basis on which to predicate an understanding of the mix of processes of trade offs, of compromises, of partial successes which jointly make up the intricate interior of democracy.

For many years, Israel against all odds remained a vibrant democracy.  Not even the addition of refugees from the autocratic antisemitic states of the Mideast threatened the effectiveness and buoyancy of democracy, Israeli style.  The robust nature of Israeli democracy was demonstrated repeatedly under extreme stress.  Neither a surprising initial defeat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War nor unending terror attacks undercut or distorted the democratic processes.

Democracy it appears could survive and prosper no matter what until Israelis themselves turned against the concept and its instrumental effects.  While a portion of the Israeli sellout of their own democracy can be assigned to the impact on the polity of the influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union, that was only a minor factor.  The major cause of the erosion of democracy has been the combination of an increasingly fundamentalist form of the Jewish faith with an evermore strident sense of nationalism.

In this dynamic, quite evident after 1990, the Israelis have echoed the Muslim states surrounding them.  From the time of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the contemporaneous "Holy War" against the Red Army in Afghanistan, the force of the more austere and fundamentalist schools of Islam have combined with growing nationalism to produce the plethora of groups espousing political Islam.  This includes those groups and leaders embracing violence as an acceptable tool of politics.  The Israeli responses have included the growth of a similar, even identical, mix of religion and nationalism to the disadvantage of real democracy.

This process can be tracked easily by looking at the ever lessening status of the political Left in Israel.  Looking back at the salad days of Israel, one sees the Left as ever triumphant at the polls.  The Right was marginal at best and irrelevant most of the time.  Only since the First Intifada has the Right emerged to power.

In recent years, the nature of Israeli politics has become one of the Right versus the Further Right.  In the current Israel, the Left has become instrumentally a mere ghost, a marginal figure with less substance than a desert mirage.  Electoral contests are between the "Moderate" Right and the Further Right.  All too often it has been and is the Further Right which wins.  In the recent past, the biggest loser has been not the Left per se or the "Moderate" Right but the nature and character of democracy itself.

During the current administration of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Knesset has lurched evermore to the farthest shores of the Right.  The Nakba Law, the loyalty oaths, the overkill reaction to the "flotillas," and, most recently and disturbingly, the anti-boycott law are all demonstrations of the way in which the Further Right is willing to lethally distort the appearance of democratic processes and structures to enervate democracy and imperil the future of the state.  While some manifestations of religion linked nationalism run amok such as the demand that Israeli universities sing the national anthem at all conceivable occasions are bizarre but not harmful, others such as the recently passed full fledged assault on freedom of speech--the anti-boycott law--are fatally injurious to any meaningful exercise of democracy.

There is no fundamental difference between the abridgement of free political speech contained in the law prohibiting any Israeli from speaking or writing in support of the boycott on products originating in the "settlements" constructed on land seized during the Six Day War and the continued attempts by the renamed Organization of Islamic Cooperation to prevent something called "defamation" of religions and religious figures.  Both are misguided efforts to protect something "sacred" from any criticism or opposition by limiting rights of expression.

The status of the "settlements" is contentious to say the least.  There are many activists in many countries, including Israel, who consider the new cities built on land occupied by the IDF forty-four years ago to be illegal at worst and illegitimate at best.  As a result, there is and has been an effort to boycott products originating in these areas.  Since the government of Israel does not identify those goods or products originating in the settlements, the only course of action available to those who wish to boycott settlement products is that of boycotting all goods made or grown in Israel.  This is true even for Israelis who have no desire to see their country de-legitimized or otherwise harmed.

Urging boycotts on the settlements including denial of services by Israelis to the settlements is a legitimate political tactic for those Israelis who see their government's hanging on to the settlements as inherently wrongheaded.  The goal of the new law--which is probably, almost certainly, violative of the several basic laws held by the Israeli Supreme Court to be equivalent to a constitution--seeks to deny this tool of political speech to Israelis and others in Israel who oppose current government policy.

The Israeli Further Right is like Muslim political advocates in that it refuses to compromise.  The Further Right goes to the mat on everything.  It is dedicated to an all-or-nothing approach to politics which is anathema to democracy.  Under the sway of the Further Right, Israel bodes well to become just one more standard issue Mideastern state lacking the will and ability to practice genuine democracy with all its messy deal making, horse trading, and compromises which leave no one completely happy.

Absent a genuine democracy, Israel loses a powerful claim on American understanding and support.  Actions such as the anti-boycott law are repugnant to American norms and values.  Even the powerful efforts of the Israel Lobby will not be able to hide this reality from politically articulate Americans and their congressional representatives.  Not even the best efforts of AIPAC can convince Americans that Israel deserves support when its governmental actions show the country to be one more semi-autocracy with some democratic trappings.

Israel must rediscover its roots.  Not the ones in the Hebrew Bible, but the ones carried ashore by the early Zionists and the refugees from the hectatombs of Europe.  For its future, Israel must get back to its past, to the past containing genuine democracy and all the risks which accompany democracy.  Artificial, monolithic consensus, the consensus of enforced silence, serves Israel very poorly.  To secure its future, Israel and the Israelis must channel their past, the noisy, vibrant democracy which characterized the place for decades.  Only then will they have a genuine claim on American sympathy and support.

More "Followership" From The Hindmost

Coming late and out of breath from the unusual bout of exertion, the US today decided that the rebels, The Transitional Government" is the only legitimate game in Libya.  The US has extended full diplomatic recognition to the far less than coherent bunch in Benghazi.  The practical effect of this move is the freeing of the billions of Gaddafi bucks languishing in American custody, impounded under UN sanctions.

The American extension of recognition comes long after similar acts by the UK and France as well as other, lesser members of the anti-Gaddafi coalition.  The reasons for the lengthy American delay are inscrutable although it may be contended that Mr Obama has been too involved with negotiating a treaty over the deficit with his Republican interlocutors to have had much time to waste on minor matters such as Libya.

Arguably, there was no real need to grant diplomatic recognition and the international legitimacy that entails in order to give the Libyan money back to the Libyans in the personage of the Transitional Government.  Arguably, the granting of diplomatic recognition was premature in that the nature of the Benghazi crew is not exactly pellucid.  It is still unclear as to who holds the balance of power in the Transitional Government--the advocates of violent political Islam (some of whom have pulled triggers against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan) or the secularists.  There is no way of being sure that the end result of the regime change will be more or less favorable to American national and strategic interests.

There is a larger reason to have not extended the prize of diplomatic recognition to the Lads In Benghazi.  The US has no direct stake in the country.  Other than the general imperative of countering the actions of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the US has no definite or definable interests in play.  That reality enough was enough to have militated against our involvement in the air campaign against Gaddafi and Company.  It is also sufficient to undercut any push to granting enhanced status to the rebels whose interests more likely than not do not run in parallel with our own.

There is something even more disquieting contained within the delayed but unnecessary recognition of the rebels as the only legitimate government in Libya.  It is the same disquieting factor already seen in play with the vacillating policy regarding Mubarak and the "Lotus Revolution" in Egypt or the similarly disconnected set of moves masquerading as policy regarding Syria.

The disquieting, not to say alarming, dynamic at work in Libya, Syria, and Egypt is that of indecision, lack of focus, and an apparent unwillingness to engage in the messier, less pleasant aspects of diplomacy.  The Nice Young Man From Chicago is too given to compromise, too willing to evade responsibility, too averse to making clear cut decisions and holding to them (unless a basic tenet of his ideology is at work) to engage in the risky business of establishing and hewing to a foreign policy.  While the Secretary of State may not be as averse to muscular diplomacy, it has become evident that Ms Clinton lacks the capacity to differentiate between that which is really important and those options which simply appeal on an emotional level.

One of the inevitable results of the Obama approach to foreign policy has been that of eroding confidence in the will of the US to undertake difficult actions.  An excellent example of this is the Saudi decision to broaden their weapons acquisition efforts to include Germany and Russia.  The movers and shakers among the gerontocracy running the Kingdom have concluded that the US is unreliable even as a source of expensive hardware.

The Saudis have noted with interest and no doubt considerable apprehension the way in which the US under both George W. Bush and Mr Obama has evaded the formal request by Taiwan to purchase sixty new generation F-16 aircraft.  In doing so the Obama administration has blatantly violated the law, specifically the law requiring the US to see to Taiwan's defense needs as defined by Taiwan not the US.  Considering that not selling the F-16s to Taiwan will result in the loss of thousands of good paying jobs during economically tenuous times, not even American self-interest can offset the stifling influence of Beijing on US policy.

If Beijing can put the screws to the US such that American jobs are sacrificed along with the law and US interests in Asia, Prince Bandar among others must have reasoned, what are the odds that at some point the US will go lame in an area crucial to Saudi existential interests?  Right now only one feature ties US interests to those of the Saudis.

No, bucko, not oil.  The only real coinciding national interests between ourselves and the Saudis is fear and loathing of Iran.  It is important in this context to underscore the importance of the recent high profile allegations of Iranian complicity in lethal attacks on US service personnel in Iraq.  These statements are aimed in part at the bootless excuse for a central government in Iraq to be sure.  But there is a far more important audience.

That more important group of auditors is located in Tehran.  In a real sense the comments regarding Iranian sponsorship of the attacks on Americans stands as a proxy for the most recent developments in the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  The Iranians have installed examples of two next gen centrifuges.  More importantly, these as well as hundreds of the older, less efficient models have been placed in hardened, underground facilities.

Taken together, these twin, interlocking developments make manifest the nature of the Iranian nuclear effort.  It is focused on getting the bomb.  Period.  There is no need for any more discussion on that aspect of the Iranian nuke program.

Rather, the only place for discussion is on the general question of options available to the US.  In this discussion the unique Obama approach to policy in the Mideast becomes relevant, highly so.  As the administration's fit-and-start facsimile of policy in Libya, Syria, and Egypt demonstrates, it is germane to ask whether or not the US will deign to lead from the front.

"Leading from behind" is not, as the White House creator of the term must have believed, a feat of brilliant statesmanship putting Obama on a par with Bismark or Talleyrand, but rather a total abdication of leadership. As the resulting mess in Libya shows in full color and stereo sound, the concept of leading from the rear is not only intellectually bankrupt but operationally equates with self-inflicted defeat.  A robust, albeit unpopular, US presence at the head of the NATO pack would have allowed a bad policy to be redeemed from the failure it so richly deserved.  The absence of the Americans in any meaningful, violent way from the effort has assured that the bad policy would fail, and, worse, would fail in a way which rebounded to the discredit of NATO as well as key allies.

Despite the documented successes of the sanctions imposed on Iran, most notably those impinging on maritime trade, the mullahs move closer to the "Mahdi Bomb" with every spin of every centrifuge.  This means that push-comes-to-shove time looms closer by the day, by the hour.  We the People place great faith in the efficacy of diplomatic and economic sanctions as the best form of coercive diplomacy.  In doing so, the American public overlooks the unpleasant reality that the effectiveness of sanctions rests in the last analysis on the perceived will and ability of the imposer of sanctions to use military force should the sanctions fail.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the Iranian government and the mullahs behind it are convinced the US lacks the will to use military force.  They may (in private) be willing to grant that the US has the material capacity to destroy not only the nuclear facilities but Iran, but they are of the view that mere material ability is irrelevant.  The mullahs are right in this.  Ability without political will is simply so much very expensive hardware.

The Iranians are not alone in this appreciation.  The Israeli government shares it.  Benjamin Netanyahu along with the majority of his cabinet and party are convinced that the US is a toothless tiger regarding the looming Iranian threat.  They are also certain that the Obama administration is already willing to adjust its policy to an Iran with nuclear capabilities along with the implications this brings to the region and the world.  A similar sense of things must be growing as well in Saudi Arabia and other conservative Gulf states.

The current government of Israel is both crazy enough and filled with existential dread enough to go it alone in a strike on the Iranian nuclear plant.  There may even be a lingering belief that should Israel start the war, the US must join in.  If nothing else, the Netanyahu ministry probably believes that should Israel mount the first strikes and cause a mass attack in return by Iran and its closer adjuncts in Lebanon and Gaza, the American congress will do the necessary heavy lifting to assure the US moves fast and hard to bring the new war to a successful conclusion.

Given the power of the Israel Lobby in Congress, the Israeli calculus is not irrational.  It is a realistic reading of the political landscape of the US.  Even though an Israeli originated war with Iran would be devastating to the fragile American (and global) economic recovery, the US would have very few choices other than to join the fight with the goal of bringing the war to the most rapid and decisive conclusion.

The most rapid and decisive ending to an Israeli-Iranian war would be the total destruction of the Iranian governmental, military, and economic infrastructure.  The US could accomplish this using only conventional munitions, but the job would be longer and more difficult than might be presumed at the outset.  As the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have shown, the ancient saw holding that wars are always longer and more difficult to end than seems to be the case at the beginning has not been obviated by changes in technology.

A war between Israel (and the US) on the one side and Iran (and its proxies) on the other would be a world historical event.  But, the obtaining of a nuclear capacity by Iran would prove to be such as well.  This means the matter is a choice regarding the perceived lesser of two evils.

To the Israelis, particularly the government of Netanyahu, the choice is a no-brainer.  To the US, the choice is not so simple and clear cut.  However, to be in the position to make a choice, the US, and, more specifically the Obama administration, must be universally perceived as a leader.  In this context it is critical to recall that the most effective form of leadership is leadership from the front.

The leader, as the Infantry School at Fort Benning makes plain, shouts, "Follow me!"  The leader does not say, "Go ahead, I'm right behind you."

As today's decision regarding the rebels in Libya shows, Mr Obama has not yet learned this vital fact.  By default he has handed control of the future of the US and the world to Benjamin Netanyahu.  That is not a failure of policy.  It is not even a simple error of judgement.  It is a world class blunder.

Once More With Feeling--Let's Talk About Peace

Once more the air is filled with the sound of the cuckoo. That bird is crowing, "Peace! Peace! Give peace a chance." It's calls are echoing around Washington. Reverberating through Israel. The bird's cheerful noise is bouncing through the wadis and souks of Palestine. Resounding across the capitals of at least some Mideast states. And, throbbing amidst the gunfire and IED blasts of Afghanistan.

Fer sure, dudes.

The world has been through the cycle of unwarranted optimism and unmerited depression too often to exhibit the slightest joy over the recent announcement by the Obama administration that it is investing whatever might still linger of its diplomatic and political prestige and influence on hosting the opening round of the latest bout between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The chances of success were in no way enhanced by the belief expressed by senior members of Team Obama that within a year a comprehensive settlement on substantial issues will be achieved.

That rhetoric of faith is akin to the "peace in our time" piety expressed by Neville Chamberlin on his return from the Munich Conference. If the Secretary of State or any one else in the administration really, really believes that, there is a desperate need for a change in medications.

Even if the hard right coalition headed by Prime Minister Netanyahu is ready, willing, and, most importantly, politically able to achieve peace at the cost of pulling thousands of "settlers" out of the disputed territories, there is no reason to conclude the weak, fractured, Palestinian Authority government of Mahmoud Abbas can agree to any formula which settles for less than their maximum demands.

Netanyahu has promised to take any deal reached over the next months to both the Knesset and the Israeli people. Not that he would have any choice. Any agreement will be both at Israel's expense and risk. As the Israelis learned to their sorrow in the wake of evacuating the Gaza Strip, the rest of the world cheers the withdrawal but is terribly unconcerned if the aftermath includes the loss of Israeli lives to the "liberating" rockets and mortar bombs of Palestinian "freedom fighters" and Islamist killers.

The Palestinian Authority is a government in name rather than substance even in the territory which it purportedly rules. Its legitimacy is questionable in the minds of many Palestinians. Of course the PA is under direct, continual, quotidian threats from the very hard line Islamist regime of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Any sign of purported "weakness" on the part of the PA will be seized upon by Hamas and its allies, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran as one more lever with which to pry the Palestinian territory further into the irredentist camp.

The PA has a record of rejecting far better offers than any which can or will be made by the Netanyahu government. In the previous acts of pure rejectionism, the PA has continued the splendid record of diplomatic failure established back in the Thirties by the Arabs of the region and enhanced by the sorry and totally avoidable blunders of Fatah during and after the First and Second Intifadas.

As diplomats the Arabs of Palestine have a history which shows a level of sheer incompetence rivaled only by their success in military operations. The government of Israel is perfectly well aware of the Palestinian capacity for self-inflicted diplomatic defeat and will be prepared to take full advantage of it.

Of course, the PA is counting on the US and the European Union to do the necessary diplomatic heavy lifting. In this the PA is showing a shrewd understanding of the stance of both the Obama administration and the political and opinion molding elites of the EU.

The EU is clearly, if not pro-Palestinian, at least, quite anti-Israel. There is no doubt but the EU elites are fed up with the situation in the Mideast and hold the Israelis solely culpable for the current situation. There is equally little doubt but the EU will lean on Israel in every way possible regardless of reality or even without regard for the interests of the EU member states.

The Europeans have convinced themselves that a two state solution will not only bring in a permanent era of peace, love, and flower power between Israel and its Arab/Muslim neighbors, but will also end the global threat of terrorism and their domestic problems of creeping Islamism. This unicausal model is attractive because it is simple. It is wrong nonetheless.

The Obama administration will undoubtedly put the muscle on Israel. That is all it can do. It--and the US--have no measurable leverage on the governments of the Arab/Muslim states and no genuine credibility with the Arab/Muslim street. All the famed Obama "outreach" program has done is raise and quickly dash expectations among the many who are so ill-informed as to believe the hoary trope, "if the US can put a man on the moon, it can (fill in the blank.")

However there are very real limits on the amount of coercion the Obama administration can use on Israel. These limits are imposed by domestic political considerations which far transcend the purported power of the Israel Lobby or the alleged importance of the "Jewish vote," although neither of these are trivial matters. Poll after poll demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of We the People, particularly those who meet the Rasmussen poll definition of "mainstream," not only support Israel but pin the tail of blame on the Palestinian donkey.

Further limiting the capacity of Mr Obama or his administration to play an effective role in the upcoming direct negotiations is the absence of credibility. If LBJ had a "credibility gap" during the Vietnam War, Obama has a yawning credibility canyon. His word simply cannot be trusted by the government of Israel. To say this limits his capacity to influence affairs is to state the overly obvious.

Over in Afghanistan the Karzai government has acknowledged the self-evident. Karzai personally allowed as how his government is engaged in ongoing conversations of an informal nature with members of Taliban. That admission is scarcely stop-the-presses news.

The Karzai government and the president himself would be criminally negligent as well as suicidally out-to-lunch not to have been talking with representatives of both Taliban and the Haqqani network. Conflict resolution, even hostilities termination, depend upon the achievement of a working agreement with the insurgents. When the shooting stops--or even to facilitate the stopping of the shooting--a power sharing arrangement must be achieved.

Unless an insurgency is focused solely upon the ejection of what is perceived as a foreign political and military presence, the two contestants will have to live together at war's end. Thus it is essential to redefine the conflict in a way that assures neither combatant sees the war as existential in nature.

It is clear that this has been Karzai's goal for some years now. He is a very able politician in the Afghan context. He understands perfectly that the greater the body count, the more inflexible the dividing lines between insurgent and government, the more war weary the uncommitted majority population becomes, the more difficult, even impossible it will be to end the war without one side or the other existentially eliminating the other.

Being both a realist and a powerful nationalist, Karzai has laid down only one key condition regarding who from Taliban and the Haqqani is an acceptable interlocutor. He demands that only those who are not aligned with or dominated by al-Qaeda or other "foreign" entities come to the table--even for the informal conversations which have been underway.

To his credit Mr Karzai has made no grandiose promises. He has put forth no timetable. He sees no specific result eventually coming from the conversations. Once again he is showing both realism and a keen grasp of the potentials of Afghan politics.

Best of all Mr Karzai has kept the Obama White House and administration basically out of the loop. Keeping the current administration at a very long arm's length is probably the best way to assure something positive emerges from the shadows of informal conversations, the talks which happen but never are given more than tacit, offhand mention.

If only the Israelis and Palestinians could do the same--success might crown their efforts.

The Israeli Bomb--And Iran's

Of late the Obama administration has started putting pressure on Israel to come clean on its nuclear arsenal, sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, implicitly at least, follow the lead of South Africa and abandon its nuclear capacity. There has been more than a little bloviation about a link between the Israeli bomb and the inability of the US and its partners to convince the mullahs of Tehran to give up their quest for a "Mahdi Bomb."

There has even been some degree of quacking over the High Minded concept of a regional pact making the Mideast an area free of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. This notion, which is much more a product of Fantasyland than an emigrant from the shores of Utopia, is of a piece with the Obama vision of a world without any nuclear weapons anywhere.

There is not much to say in favor of nuclear weapons. Except one small, but very relevant fact. They, and the much maligned doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, have made the world safe for war.

That's right. The shadow of the mushroom cloud hovering over the chancelries of the globe have made the place safe for the waging of controlled, more or less purposeful war.

One can never say that the Big Bomb has kept the peace per se, not in the face of the historical record covering the past sixty-four years. But, the wars have not involved widespread, high intensity operations of the massively destructive scale of, say, the two World Wars. And, that is no small accomplishment given the international dynamics of the period.

Without the Israeli nuclear capacity the wars of the Mideast, including that of 1967, would have been far greater, far more bloody and not necessarily any more decisive in outcome than the low scale conflict which has occurred during this period of "Nuclear Ambiguity." The unchallenged possession of the "Samson Option" by Israel, not the diplomatic support of the US nor the nanny like nattering of the UN has limited and prevented regional hectatombs from happening.

The documentary hints which have leaked out around the Great Wall of Secrecy make it clear that the US government has been fully aware not only of Israel's ultimately successful efforts to develop and refine its nuclear weapons capabilities but the existence and size of the resultant stockpile. There is also no doubt of our complicity in maintaining the thin and porous scrim of secrecy behind which lurk the missiles and bombs of Israel.

The policy of nuclear ambiguity was dictated to Israel by the forces of reality.

The first was particularly important early in the Israeli development and procurement effort: The ambiguous threat is always perceived as being larger than any reality would dictate. Ambiguity encourages the enemy to contemplate the worst conceivable case, not the worst realistic one.

The second justification--no, requirement--for the ambiguity policy is the US Congress. In one of its fits of High Mindedness, Congress legislated that no country which possesses either nuclear weapons or an active research and development program in that area can receive US military assistance including monetary aid. Israel may no longer be dependent upon US money for its defense needs, but what rational government is going to chuck gigabucks without a very, very good reason?

Even the achievement of that long sought, but always elusive Holy Grail of a comprehensive Mideast peace agreement in no way nullifies the cruciality of Israel's nuclear deterrent. The German diplomatic maestro, Bismarck was reputed to have said regarding treaties--they are "mere scraps of paper." So also might any emergent Mideast leader.

Given the record of diplomatic agreement longevity in the Mideast, any dropping of defenses and deterrents in the warm glow of the post-signing celebrations would be the height of folly. It would be folly as well for Israel to rely upon some external protecting power rather than itself when faced by an existential threat.

Offers to extend the American nuclear umbrella over Israel are well-intentioned, but ultimately meaningless gestures. Forty-five years ago the abrasive but quite insightful French president, Charles de Gaulle, made that point in a characteristically blunt fashion when he questioned the willingness of the US to expose New York to the possibility of nuclear obliteration in order to protect Paris.

His point was very well taken. Other European leaders whispered what De Gaulle shouted. It was only the presence of American troops in the potential killing fields of Europe which gave any credibility to the nuclear umbrella concept. Except for the anglophobic French president, most Europeans were willing to concede that the US would go nuclear if and when their troops were on the receiving end of a Soviet strike.

Even the political power of AIPAC and other components of the Israel Lobby lacks the potency necessary to turn any American nuclear pledge from the dross of rhetoric to the gold of action in a time of dire need. Would We the People really, truly, undoubtedly continence the placing of New York or any other city at risk in order to protect Tel Aviv?

The second guess doesn't count.

Absent the Israeli nuclear deterrent, even though the shield of ambiguity has been holed, most notably by Robert Gates during his confirmation hearings as Secretary of Defense, there is no means of inhibiting a Mideast leader, Islamist most likely, from abandoning any then extant treaty or agreement to mount total jihad against the "Zionist Entity." There would be nothing to inhibit the manufacture and use of chemical, biological or radiological munitions against Israel with results which would lethal on a grand scale.

Nuclear weapons may be icky-poo in the extreme. Their use may be revolting to civilized sensitivities. They do have one redeeming factor in comparison to their equally nasty relatives in the clan of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Compared to chemical, biological and radiological munitions, nuclear weapons are both expensive and difficult to produce and stockpile. Chemical munitions can be manufactured quickly, easily and cheaply from widely available industrial precursors. Biological threats can be conjured up in a modestly equipped laboratory from progenitors which are available globally. Radiological weapons require nothing more than access to high level radwaste, a little bit of explosives and operators who are willing to die.

None of the "Smaller Three" demand major investment in infrastructure facilities which are as visible as they are expensive. None require highly trained and skilled technicians in brigade lots. None require equipment which is readily identifiable as to purpose and thus easily interdicted before or during shipment.

While the "Small Three" of the WMD clan lack the diplomatic prestige of the nuclear option, they make up for this deficiency by their ease and invisibility of manufacture. They are also more suited to ambiguous signature operations, which is an advantage if the author has reason to apprehend a military response to an attack.

And, as the recent "swine flu" imbroglio amply demonstrated, biological munitions have a potential for terror effects far outweighing any actual damage inflicted. Fear without any concurrent high body count is the terrorist's ideal. It represents maximum damage with both limited investment and very low potential of a military response by the victim country(ies.)

Without its nuclear deterrent Israel would be wide open to chemical, biological or radiological attack. Only the deterrent and uncertainty as to the threshold level which would trigger an Israeli atomic reaction has any genuine likelihood of keeping the "Small Three" threat remote in probability.

The government of Israel has taken a dim view of the NPT's inherent efficacy. While Brazil and South Africa abandoned their pursuit of a nuclear capacity it is doubtful that the NPT had any role in the decision. Brazil, by its own admission, had no reason to acquire the bomb. It had nothing to gain and much to lose by going ahead with its program. South Africa made its move as part of the groundswell of internal governmental change. Again, any linkage with the NPT owes more to High Minded wishful thinking than political reality.

Adherence to the NPT did not inhibit North Korea. The NPT is, after all, another of those "mere scraps of paper" to be abandoned when reasons of state demand. The Hermit Kingdom of the North ditched the NPT officially three years before its first test.

Not too much should be made of Japan or South Korea not pursuing a nuclear procurement effort. Each has the base for very rapid breakout. It would take either country only months, not years, to put a deliverable weapon on the shelves. Each could (and would) resign from the NPT if it saw more to gain by the action than would hypothetically be lost.

Like all treaties the NPT is no stronger, no more effective than the political will and self-perceived, subjectively defined national interests of the states which are signatory to it. The Great Menace of that chimera, global public opinion, in a manner akin to the sanctions of the UN Security Council, are toothless in comparison with a reason of existential nature compelling abandonment of the NPT.

Even when no official abandonment of the NPT has happened, as in the case of Iran, reasons of state will both allow and compel the "illegal" pursuit of nuclear weapons. As the Iranians have shown to date, the risks of doing so are acceptably slight. The differences between the Permanent Members of the Security Council as well as the needs of important constituencies within industrialised countries assure that economic and diplomatic sanctions are less effective than would be a black powder muzzle loader on a modern battlefield.

The Australians estimated in a recent White Paper that as many as twenty countries will have joined the Nuclear Club within the next decade or two. This conclusion does not seem to be unwarrantably pessimistic. Nuclear technology is ever more broadly disseminated around the world as is the supporting hardware. The proliferation of "civilian" reactors both research and power producing will drag the potential of increased distribution of nuclear weapons in its wake. There is no way around that reality. Knowledge plus hardware plus fissile material equals a bomb--actual or potential.

The lesson is simple. And, to many, unpleasant. The NPT is a thin, greasy, slippery rope on which to take a grip. It is more delusion than reality. It will let us down, hard, unless we put it in the same category as the halcyon hallucination of a "nuclear free world."

Getting a grip on the alternative of a world in which more countries have nuclear weapons or the rapid capacity to acquire these weapons is hard. Not impossible. Only hard. Deterrence, particularly that which resides in the hands of a responsible country such as the US (or, history shows, Israel) has protected us from worst case wars for over a half century. There is no reason to anticipate any change in the future.

A world without nuclear weapons is pleasant to contemplate. A continuation, even an expansion of mutually assured destruction is not.

Now ask yourself, would a world without nuclear deterrence in which the threat of the "Small Three" reigned supreme, its use not susceptible to effective retaliation be any better? Perhaps, it would be even worse?

Israelis Have Cause To Be Very, Very Nervous

Israelis have more reasons today to be reaching for the bottle of tranquilizers than ever before in the history of their country. The reasons are all good. And, all emerge from what old Soviet terminology called, "the correlation of forces."

Today, as for several years now, the correlation of political, diplomatic, military and global opinion forces are oriented against Israel's national and security interests. The revision of the previously pro-Israel correlation has been accelerating. This political delta V shows no sign of slackening.

To put it bluntly but accurately: The continued existence of Israel as currently constituted is not a priority--or even a significant consideration--for most of the world's politically articulate elite. Even in the US which has been Israel's more-or-less voluntary champion since the state's foundation, there are clear signs that the tide of elite opinion no longer runs fast and hard in Israel's favor.

In 1967 American applause for Israel's highly effective war of preemption and territorial expansion was instant, loud and long sustained. The Egyptian attack of Yom Kippur 1973 assured there would be no diminishing of American support for Israel, even if there was more than a little irritation in the higher echelons of the US Government over Israel's intransigence at relinquishing the Occupied Territories.

The Arab/Palestinian reliance upon terror tactics directed against Israel and (to some limited extent) its supporters may have been justified from the perspective of its employers (and the employers of terror's employers,) but it was counterproductive in that it both increased Israeli political will as well as that of the US to continue its support. Not until the First and Second Intifadas allowed, even encouraged the media of the US and much of the world to portray the Israelis as a species of terrorist employing overwhelming violence against children, youth and women did the correlation of forces start to shift away from Israel and in favor of that hazy group, the Palestinians.

For fifteen or so years now Israel has been losing the battle for the support of the politically articulate elite of Western countries generally. In so far as the Israelis have lost, the Palestinians have won. It has been and continues to be a zero-sum game.

The West--particularly members of its chattering class with their new found love affair with multi-culturalism and "diversity" (whatever that may mean) has been bombarded with images which at least purport to show the Israeli Goliath trampling the Palestinian David into a bloody mudhole. The venality, incompetence and ideological blinders of "Palestinian" leadership have gone by, if not unnoticed, then, at least, without comment.

The greed, corruption and utterly incompetent negotiating skills of Yassir Arafat and the posse of "Abu's" who surrounded him that are in largest single measure responsible for the current morass in which the "Palestinian" population tries to survive has not been appreciated by many, even most of the public opinion molders of the West including the US. These unphotogenic realities have been plastered over by images of IDF soldiers firing "non-lethal" rounds at Arab teenagers, videos of IDF bulldozers levelling Arab homes and IAF fired missiles hitting what seem to be civilian structures in Gaza.

When faced with the power of emotion invoking images, words of reason have no defense. And so the correlation of forces shifts tectonically in ways that cannot be countered even by the power of the Israel Lobby or the patently bloodthirsty policies of the ideologues running Gaza, and, to a lesser but still critical extent, the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank.

The Israelis should have seen it coming. They and their government well know the power of pure emotion to drive opinion and policy in democratic governments. After all, it was the power of emotion which assured support, particularly that of the US, for the creation of Israel.

It was the power of emotion and the historical facts upon which that emotion was both based and exploited by the founders of Israel which gives the words of Iranian president Ahmedinejad their force of authority both in the Muslim countries and, unfortunately, in much of the West. In the midst of the nest of hate and loathing Ahmedinejad's venomous spewing creates, there is an egg of truth.

The egg of truth is simply this. Without the slaughter of the innocents performed by Nazi Germany and its eager helpers elsewhere in Europe during World War II, there would have been no Israel. The lives of the six or so million Jews snuffed out by the Nazis and their supporters from France to the Ukraine bought the sympathies and understanding of post-War western governments--particularly the US--for the establishment of the State of Israel.

Yesterday Ahmedinejad made that accusation before a deeply divided audience in Geneva. The Iranian Orator-in-Chief was wrong in branding Israel a racist country headed by a racist government. He was all-too-correct in claiming that Europe and the US paid their debt to the dead of world Jewry by facilitating the creation of Israel.

Rightly or wrongly the emotional torrent of disgust and guilt which greeted the belated public revelation of the Nazi extermination of the Jews of Europe gave force to the Zionist goal of assuring Jews had a state, a state which would provide both refuge and protection to a dispersed and persecuted people. Moral revulsion would not have been enough. The task demanded the full enlistment of powerful emotion. The pictures and survivors' stories of the Nazi inferno enlisted and focused emotion such that even the still more than a little antisemitic American public approved of Truman's recognition of the new Jewish state.

Emotion, periodically restoked both by dramatic resurrection of the Holocaust and well guided fondness and admiration for the heroic Israelis and their state blooming in the desert went a long, long way to assuring continued, virtually unquestioned support for Israel and its government. The negative emotion of fear--fear of being branded "antisemitic" by the Israel Lobby or some other group of Israel supporters has also gone a long, long way to assuring that it is impossible for the US to treat Israel as though it were a standard issue nation-state with self-defined national and strategic interests.

Ahmedinejad is not engaging in hate-mongering when he challenges the West, including the US, to examine the degree to which emotion drove the process of off-loading a long festering and finally very, very bloodily expressed antisemitism upon the Mideast. History is not that simple, that lacking in irony.

In token of that irony and complexity, an American diplomat, Loy Henderson, as well as that towering figure, George C. Marshall, warned President Truman that the emotion of the moment, understandable and justifiable as it might be, would eventually evoke a countering emotional climate in the Mideast which would vex the US for generations yet to come. Both men (as well as others occupying positions of grave responsibility in those years of transition) warned of unending Arab hatred being the inevitable price to be paid for what Arabs and their governments would necessarily see as a foreign body inserted by outsiders in the Arab flesh.

Ahmedinejad is doing just what Henderson, Marshall and the others warned would be the case. It is true that other, many other Mideast voices over the past sixty years have made the same charges and spouted the same hate. Ahmedinejad not only has a propensity for very blunt and infuriating statements, he is adept at capturing the attention of the media and has the good fortune of riding a rising tide.

The tide is rising in Israel's disfavor in large measure to the success of the Iranian Revolution and its ongoing campaign of getting away with flipping the bird at the US, the West and standards of international deportment generally. The success, defiance and over-the-edge rhetoric assure that no Arab leader--including those of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, can afford to be seen as any less resolute, any less absolutist in their opposition to Israel and its supporters--the US in particular.

A second reason for the tide to have turned against Israel is the behavior of the government of Israel and its military forces. Both have been widely portrayed as militaristic and militarily ineffective. The net result of both the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the recently concluded incursion into the Gaza strip has been to elevate the perception of Israel as a bully and its military as being a weapon both blunt and ineffective.

The unveiled threats by Israel to singlehandedly abate the latent Iranian nuclear program in a manner akin to their 1981 air strike on the Osiris reactor in Iraq has done nothing to dispel the widespread view that Israel is an out-of-control aggressor willing to place the peace of the world as well as the global petro-economy at risk. At the same time there is little or no belief that Israel could undertake such an attack with the slightest chance of even partial success without the full cooperation of the US.

The effect of Israeli posturing and tough talk coupled with the rather non-credible nature of the threats has been counterproductive to both Israeli interests and the chance for success in the pursuit of the "Two State Solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma.

The latest roadblock to the "peace process" (The Geek feels intestinal revulsion for that buzz phrase as it is inherently meaningless.) is the refusal by the Palestinian Authority to recognise Israel as a Jewish state prior to two-state oriented negotiations. On the surface the PA's refusal to do so is irrational. After all any number of states dub themselves "Islamic republics." And, Israel was diplomatically recognised by the US and other countries as a Jewish state.

However, the PA position is anything but irrational. Faced with the Iranian paradigm of total rejectionism and Iran's support of Hamas, no PA official with hopes of continuing in office (or even staying alive) can do less. The intransigence of Iran has meshed perfectly with that of Israel to block meaningful progress in the search for a solution to the Palestinian affair.

The falling stock of Israel in the eyes of many in the Western politically articulate elite limits severely the pressure which can be brought to bear on the PA, let alone Hamas. Given the existential threat which Israelis perceive to exist in the Iranian nuclear project, there is little or no political inducement for any Israeli politician with a hope for his or her political future to be seen as backing down.

Unless and until the Israeli government can take effective action to recover its previous glory in the eyes of European and American opinion molders, it must rely on the formidable capacities of the Israel Lobby to keep US politicians on the reservation.

The limits of the Lobby may be in sight as the American public becomes increasingly weary of war and rumors of war, as it seeks, perhaps, to return to the presumed innocent and glorious days of isolationism. Certainly, there is little or no reason to believe that the American public would support an attack by one nuclear power (Israel) against a wannabe owner of nukes (Iran) which resulted in a worsening of our current economic disaster zone.

Equally there is no reason to believe that the Obama administration, which is facing new and growing problems in Pakistan and the Gulf of Aden while trying to solve the old ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants to add an Israeli strike on Iran to the mix. (And, one has to wonder if any perception of American support, even that of the tacit sort, would simplify our challenging dealings with China, Russia and LatAm.)

The incoming Israeli Prime Minister has made his career from tough talk and tougher action. It has been just that sort of robust rhetoric and fierce action which has produced the radical change in the correlation of forces. The challenge for him is not figuring out the weapons mix which will best delay Iranian nuclear ambitions or how to play Hamas against the PA. The challenge for Bibi is that of reconstructing the old correlation of forces.

Good luck, Bibi.

The challenge for the US is to retrieve the long abandoned reputation for even-handedness with which we were once seen in the Mideast.

Good luck, Barack.

Obama Shows No Change From W. Bush

While the Geek was writing the last post, word came down that the Obama administration has decided "with regret" not to attend Durban II. The justification was that the changes in the Outcome Document were not sufficient.

The administration averred that the lingering reference to Durban I and its objectionable singling out of Israel as a racist violator of human rights as well as continuing odors of the Islamist backed restrictions on free expression made our participation undesirable. The administration is correct in pointing out the deficiencies in the Outcome Document. It is wrong in choosing to surrender the field to the enemy.

History shows that refusal to participate has never advanced US interests. Nor has it served to make the world a better place for humans. From our non-participation in the League of Nations to our refusal to sign the Kyoto Accord, from our policy on non-recognition of the Soviet Union to our isolation of Cuba, the lifting of American moral skirts from the mud of combat with adverse forces has worked to our long term disadvantage.

Apparently the Obama administration--or the president himself--has failed to learn one diddly damn thing from history. From American history. From the history of the past few years even.

Well, presumably the Israel Lobby and the State of Israel are happy with the decision. The bitch is this: By staying away from the Durban II conference, the US has acted in a way which erodes rather than increases the long-term stability and prospects for peace in the Mideast. In short, the pressures of the Israel Lobby and the Government of Israel will prove in the long haul to be against their interests.

And ours.

And the world's.

Well, It's A Start--And Long Overdue

The Iranian ForMin has allowed that Iran will participate in a regional conference on security and stability in Afghanistan if the US does in fact offer an invitation. If the Iranians are not carrying a hidden agenda filled with assorted and irrelevant terms and conditions, this is an encouraging first small step toward constructive engagement.

Iran has a very long and equally permeable border with Afghanistan. The Mullahocracy has much to worry about should instability, Taliban-inspired enthusiasms, and ethno-religious insurgency pour across the border along with the flood of opium and opioids which has flowed for the last several years.

The extreme antipathy Tehran's mullahs held toward the Taliban was behind the incontrovertible fact that no country provided more to the American sponsored exercise in regime change way back in '02. The US and Iran had coinciding national interests then.

And, we and Tehran have them today. Coinciding national interests--the vanilla ice cream form of diplomacy.

But, before the Obama Administration and We the People take a lick from the old vanilla cone, some cautionary words are necessary. As the folks topside in the Obama Administration undoubtedly remember quite well, the initial, cautious open hand offered by the president was rudely, crudely slapped aside by Iran's Orator-in-Chief, Ahmedinejad.

Showing the diplomatic gaucherie which typifies not only Ahmedinejad but the Iranian regime generally, the Orator-in-Chief attached a list of conditions to any possible acceptance of the US demarche. These included offering a "sincere" apology to the Iranian government and people for all the icky-poo things the US has said and done over the last several generations.

The recycled Clinton crew may have a collective institutional memory up to the task of recalling just how often and in what ways the Iranian regime has initially seemed to accept an offer only to turn the acceptance into effective rejection by attaching provisos or demanding discussions on utterly irrelevant matters. There is no guarantee that this will not happen with regard to the regional conference on Afghanistan.

Mitigating against this possibility is an increasing Iranian alarm over the flood of opioids. As long as the narcotics were just passing through Iran with the usual gratuities being provided to the customary recipients including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the traffic was acceptable and good for the economic climate generally.

But, in the last couple of years an ever-growing amount of the traffic has stopped in Iran. Since the regime is not about to join in a chorus of "It's alright, ma, everybody gotta get stoned," the drug trade is now a sort of public enemy.

(Hmm, the Geek wonders, could the explosion in heroin and opium use in Iran be at all connected with an inflation rate in excess of twenty percent and an unemployment rate above thiry percent? Well, Ahmedinejad would disagree with that and point the finger at capitalism in the West. But, the Geek is of the view that were he to live in a tanked economy like Iran's, he would seek the pleasures of drug induced euphoria. Of course, the way things are going here, he may get that chance--and inducement.)

Iran has actually cooperated with both Afghanistan and Pakistan in the sharing of information and the effecting of arrests of suspected traffickers. Who knows, some of those arrested might actually be smugglers of drugs rather than subversive insurgency oriented ideology.

So, the US is best off pretending that the crew in Tehran is being upfront in wishing to participate meaningfully in the Afghanistan stability conference. In any event it is an excellent test match to determine the degree to which Iran will be a genuine interlocutor in any dialogue regarding other vital, vexing matters such as its nuclear aspirations and support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

The nuclear program of Iran is top on the list. There is something just so damn scary about the idea of an eschatologically oriented collection of mullahs having the capacity in-house to inaugurate a nuclear exchange.

The matter of Iranian nuclear capacity is of an existential sort from the perspective of Israel. It is not from an American point of view. Thus, it is critical that the US not allow itself to be stampeded by the usual suspects of the Israel Lobby. This will not be easy given the long established power of the Lobby as has been demonstrated recently by the withdrawal of Chaz Freeman.

There is at least another year, perhaps two, before the Iranians can have a meaningful stockpile of highly enriched uranium. It will take longer than that for them to extract plutonium from the fuel rods of their soon to go online Russian supplied heavy water reactor.

In either case the Iranians will need some time to effectively weaponise their fissile materials. This time frame is ample to test the willingness of Tehran to abandon their domestic production schemes and accept fuel from the EU, Russia or even the Great Satan US.

Right now, today, the US as well as its partners in the Six Power Talks accepts the North Korean possession of several tens of kilograms of plutonium as well as an unknown amount of highly enriched uranium. The North Koran regime has not shown itself to be susceptible to either pressure or rational discourse. Indeed, since the last elections in South Korea tossed up a government far less diffident to the desires of the Hermit Kingdom of the North than its predecessors the rhetoric out of the North has been at least as inflammatory and utterly irrational as the remarks of the Orator-in-Chief at his worst.

Admiral Blair, the Director on National Intelligence, opined to Congress that the North Koreans were not intending their nuclear weapons for actual usage but rather as instruments of diplomatic leverage and expressions of national prestige. It is not impossible that Iran would see a limited nuclear capacity in the same terms.

The DNI also advised his Senatorial auditors that it was not likely that the North Koreans would sell or otherwise transfer fissile materials to another party, either a state or a non-state actor since it would suffer nuclear obliteration if material bearing the Made in North Korea isotope signature were to be used anywhere, at any time, against any target. The same logic applies to Iran.

One important caveat is necessary. The analogy between North Korea and Iran breaks down if the Tehran regime is actually as eschatological in motivation as sometimes seems to be the case. It also breaks down if the Iranian president at some future date is as seemingly irrational as Ahmedinejad so often appears to be.

Indeed, while surveying the participants in any regional conference on Afghanistan, there is one far more troubling than Iran. That, of course, is Pakistan.

Pakistan has the bomb. Several dozen of them at the most conservative. Pakistan has a military and intelligence community well penetrated at all levels with people who are strongly Islamist in bent. While Pakistan has repeatedly "talked the talk" regarding its actions against Islamist terror and insurgent groups, it has rarely, if ever, "walked the walk." In short, whether meaning to or not, the government of Pakistan has been repeatedly tergiversatious. (That means they lie a lot.)

If the Geek had the chance to talk with the president and/or his secretary of state, the Geek would say, "Sure, talk to Iran. Start the process slowly and without any real expectations. Don't fall into the diplomat's occupational disease--the love of process regardless of results."

Then as the audience was nodding in agreement the Geek would add, "And, worry a lot more about the Pakistanis. They are far more dangerous."

Isn't The Campaign Over?

As far as the Geek is aware the election is over. Even the Electoral College ceremony has been concluded. Barack Obama is the one and only President-elect. Except for a few very disgruntled types on the far right wing who continue to question the location of Obama's birth, the country seems to have agreed on the identity of the next president. That's where the Geek thought reality resided.

So, please would someone brighter and more firmly rooted in the here-and-now than the Geek please tell him why the Official Obama/Biden Foreign Policy Agenda as released the other day by the transition wallahs reads like a poorly connected series of campaign blurbs? Please ease the misery of the Geek who believes now that he must have been abducted by ufonauts and dropped off in some alternate reality by letting him know there is a good, sound, well-rooted reason for the blathering of vapid feel good phrases and calling it a foreign policy agenda.

If you haven't read this sophomoric exercise in pandering to the Great Unwashed, it is available on line. The Geek pulled it from Maxim's, but there are probably other sites holding it. http://www.maximsnews.com/news20081215obamaforeignpolicystatement10812150102.htm

The Geek is perfectly well aware that incoming administrations are not given to laying out a real foreign policy agenda. He also is acquainted with the historical record which shows how the best intentions can be rendered nugatory under the compulsion of events.

Ike limited himself to a campaign trail promise "to go to Korea" with the implication that by so doing he would end the unpopular "police action" there. He went and eventually did help bring about an armistice.

LBJ promised that "American boys will not be sent to fight and die for Asian boys." The boys such as the Geek who were already ducking bullets and pulling triggers in Vietnam were not impressed by either the realism or the honesty of the Texan's commitment.

Nixon said as how he "had a plan for Vietnam." He did. More Americans died in that unpleasant place after His Richardness took office than before.

Jimmy Carter promised to work for peace in the Mideast. (What was the alternative? To work for war?) His efforts eventually did lead to the Camp David Accord. A nice agreement brought about by the compulsion of events in the region, but scarcely a milestone on the road to peace.

In short, incoming presidents tend to make few promises in the foreign policy arena. Those which they do make are usually vague and misleading. Most are kept in the breech far more than in the observance.

However, Mr Obama ran on the mantra of "change." In large measure he was elected because a hell of a lot of We the People very much desired a change after eight years of neocon ninnie agenda driven debacles.

Is it too much to expect--no--to demand that the Obama Administration come into office with something different? A change from past pre-presidential performances? Is it somehow out of line to want an outline of foreign policy goals and objectives that transcends campaign rhetoric? That is demonstrably related to the real problems of the real world? Which shows that the new team on the block has a sound grip of current and near-term future challenges to US national and strategic interests?

While one might cling to the thin rope of hope provided by Mr Obama's appointment of Robert Gates and General Jones, that isn't enough. It is offset by his designation of Susan Rice as UN ambassador with cabinet rank. It isn't helped by his tabbing of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Both of these latter appointees are correctly understood as carriers of ideological agendas rather than being realpolikers.

Rather than do a complete disection of the "Obama/Biden Foreign Policy Agenda" as released, the Geek would prefer to take just a couple of salient points. Consider the matter of nuclear proliferation and fissionable materials control.

Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
He joined Senator Dick Lugar (R-In) in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
He joined Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama and Biden will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While working to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama and Biden will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama and Biden will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
Move Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global

Sounds good, doesn't it? But that's all it does. Looked at closely the statement not only says nothing, it shows a remarkable lack of grip on reality.

We all know that both North Korea and Iran have already been the targets of a wide variety of admittedly inconsistently imposed sanctions. So far the sanction campaign has had nil results. Given the realities of Great Power dynamics today and into the foreseeable future this is unlikely to change. Extremely unlikely.

Unless and until other Great Powers (and a whole passel of the Not-So-Great Powers) see that it is in their own self interest to prevent these states from acquiring more of a nuclear weapons capacity than they already have, no sanction regime will have an effect. Neither will an approach that combines sanctions with inducements.

The self-interest of countries such as North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan include components far less easily quantifiable than gross domestic product or other economic factors but which are equally or even more important. These include the concept of national sovereignty, national dignity and pride, the political capital investment of the regime. None of these motivators of conduct are considered by the Obama/Biden Agenda.

Nuclear arms reduction by the US or Russia is both possible and desirable. But, reduction should never be confused with elimination. No country currently in possession of a nuclear force-in-being is going to be ready to renounce this capacity. The world is a very long way from achieving a political order that makes the nuclear option obsolete. The incoming administration recognises this. It has offered the extension of the American "nuclear umbrella" to Israel and other threatened countries should Iran gain a nuclear weapons capacity.

The efforts made to date to secure weapons grade fissionable materials should be continued. But, it must also be realised that there is not now nor is there likely to be a realistic way of tracking down and gaining custody of all the highly enriched uranium or plutonium which has been made or will be made. The nasty stuff is going to continue to float about in the shadows of the globe.

Now take a close look at the "Obama/Biden Agenda" as it regards Israel.

Israel
Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the region. They support this closeness, and have stated that the United States will never distance itself from Israel.

Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems

What about this differs from the position taken by any of the past ten or eleven presidents? With the sole exception of the reference made to the disastrous 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, any incoming administration from Eisenhower on could have (and did) make virtually identical commitments.

Apparently it is not yet time for a change in the area of American policy regarding Israel. We will continue to be held hostage by the political power of the Israel Lobby. Thus the dog of American foreign policy will continue to be wagged by the tail of Israel. This means that the US and others will keep trudging along a treadmill to nowhere in the Mideast.

Not surprisingly the "Obama/Biden Foreign Policy Agenda" is solidly behind the Global Poverty Act and its UN progenitor, the Millennium Development Goals. The Agenda promises a doubling of US foreign aid to achieve all sorts of High Minded things. Unfortunately the Lofty Ideal is presented without acknowledging any of the real world caveats such as the inability of the UN to do more than blather or the supreme skill with which assorted kleptocrats both in and out of recipient governments see foreign aid as being a highly personalised benefit of position.

The New Team, the fountainheads of "change" stand for "tough and direct" diplomacy--whatever that might mean. Do they think that the US has been noted for its "weak and indirect" practice of international politics in the past? The Agenda is also in support of a "new partnership" with Asian countries. That's nice, but what, exactly, has been wrong with the "old" partnership? The Agenda is silent on that point.

The Agenda is silent as well on other matters of salience. The sound of collapsing states in Africa is ignored. So also is the emergence of potential threats to US interests and security in Latin America.

It is inconceivable that the Obama/Biden bunch is unaware of recent developments to our south. That they have not noticed the election of governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay that are not favorably disposed to the US passes belief. Can the new crew possibly be heedless of the current conditions in Mexico?

But, the Agenda makes no reference to any of these.

Also unmentioned in the Agenda is the latest elephant in the living room. The critter isn't a recent arrival. It's been there for years now. It just keeps on eating and growing. As it noshes its way to greater potency, it keeps being ignored by the polite folks.

The elephant is the international trade in illegal drugs. More accurately it is the relation between the drug cartels and the rebirth of hostile insurgent movements. From the Taliban in Afghanistan to FARC in Columbia, drugs and violence directed against US interests are joined hip and shoulder. Now Sendero Luminoso which had been declared dead a decade ago has lurched back from the grave, resurrected by drug money.

But, the polite people of the new kids on the foreign policy block ignored this stark and highly unpleasant reality. A reality which will demand full attention in the months and years to come.

The Geek agrees that it is time for a change. Unfortunately, the Agenda indicates that the Obama Administration doesn't agree.

Join The Navy!

Since the Monster Debate on Foreign Policy may be postponed so that the candidates may posture appealingly next to the Wall Street Emergency Rescue and CEO Reduced Compensation Act of 2008, there is a little time for one or both contenders to reconsider his stance on US policy in the Mideast. In the (remote) hope that reevaluation might take place, the Geek has a modest proposal or two.

The United States is and always has been a maritime power. Maritime powers have an enormous advantage over continental powers such as Germany or Russia. Control and use of the sea allows for timely force projection without overseas bases.

This means that a maritime power can practice balance of power politics. The British played that game with great effect during the 19th Century. The US dabbled with the idea off and on during some of the 20th. The time has come for us to play the game with cold calculation.

What has been the historic US interest in the Mideast and Persian Gulf?

No. Not the oil. Or at least not the oil in and of itself.

Our interest since the middle of World War II has been assuring that no single nation controls all or most of the region's oil. For nearly sixty years the US employed economic, military assistance, diplomacy and covert actions to achieve the policy goal.

The Rapid Deployment Force was conceptualised in the wake of the Iranian Revolution as a way of continuing to assure the oil region did not fall under a single country's hegemony. That same reason underscored the (in)famous "tilt to Iraq" during the Iraq-Iran War.

The policy requirement of preventing a regional hegemon from emerging prompted the massive deployment of US and other forces to Saudi Arabia in the run up to the Kuwait War.

Had the foreign forces left the Arabian Peninsula in the wake of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, a major motive for Osama bin Ladin's 1996 "Declaration of War" against the US would have been undercut. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Although the massive American presence in Saudi Arabia was removed, the relocation of our bases to the UAE was a classic case of "too little, too late."

A strong argument may be made that the No Fly Zone in southern Iraq could have been adequately enforced by aircraft from naval carriers operating over the horizon in international waters. There was no crying military need for a large US presence anywhere in the Peninsula. Even the highly unlikely possibility of a resurgent and aggressive Saddam would have been detected in time for sea based, invisible force to be brought to bear.

With that as background, it's time to get a grip on the options now available.

The first option is to get out of Iraq. The US might take the Iraqi government and its delusions of adequacy seriously. The Iraqi politically articulate elite doesn't want our forces in its country now that the noise level has been reduced to an acceptable level.

Fine. It is no longer possible for the US to "not lose" militarily in Iraq. It is most assuredly not our responsibility to make certain that the Iraqis can do a passable job of running their own country.

We have accomplished our minimum necessary policy goal. We have not lost. The black turbans could not and did not defeat us either militarily or by enervation of our political will to continue the fight. Now it is up to the autocthones. The Iraqis in all their varied sectarian and linguistic stripes have to decide how the show is going to be run.

As long as we follow a balance of power approach, our basic policy of assuring open access to the only thing in the region that matters--oil--is preserved. We can do that best by remembering that we are a maritime power.

A second requirement of a new, balance of power oriented policy is to constructively engage Iran. The Iranian regime(s) have shown a willingness to do this, most recently in 2003. It wouldn't have been easy to arrange an all-inclusive bargain then and it will be immensely more difficult now, but that is no reason not to go ahead with the effort.

This approach does not imply an Obama-esque "negotiations without preconditions." Rather it relies on old style diplomacy with the only wrinkle that the US will have to eat some crow to jump start the process. For those who argue that we can't deal with Tehran while the mullahocracy supports Hezbollah, aids black turbans in Iraq, and slips assistance to Taliban, the Geek replies that history is the guide.

Remember that the US talked openly and repeatedly with the Soviet Union--to include a Summit Meeting in 1967--even though the Soviets were sending weapons by the shipload to North Vietnam and these weapons did in fact kill and wound Americans. (The Geek has a personal involvement in the latter part of this reality and carries fragments of Russian origin metal in his body to this day.)

Sure, an effort at constructive engagement might not pay off now after years of sanctions and saber waving, but the risks are far smaller and much more easily controlled than those attendant upon the military option. And, the benefits are far greater.

Beyond that, should force be necessary, the US possesses the over-the-horizon platforms to assure the rubble formerly called Tehran to bounce past the tropopause. Still, tough talk, tough bargaining is to be preferred over tough action.

Then there is Israel.

The seemingly eternal problem of Israel.

The time is long past for the US to treat Israel with the same respect, dignity and self-interested basis as it treats all other countries.

Yes, the US should be every bit as concerned with the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Israel as it that of France, Germany, Canada or Georgia.

Yes, the US should have all the normal diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel that it does with other countries.

All the normal features of relations the US has with other democratic, more or less pluralistic regimes should and must exist with respect to Israel.

But no more than that.

No more excessive military aid. No more excessive diplomatic and political support. No more foreign aid. (Israel is by all normal criteria a developed nation and needs foreign aid no more than does Canada or Sweden.)

For our own national interest we must give the Government of Israel (GOI) a choice regarding the West Bank and Gaza. Choice one: negotiate a two state solution immediately and in good faith with our support. Choice two: continue as an oppressive colonial power in the West Bank and Gaza without our support.

Again, the US has the over-the-horizon capacity to assure Israel's territorial integrity and national sovereignty. By giving the GOI the stark choice outlined above, we are not withdrawing from effective overwatch and protection.

Will this, any of the foregoing realpolitik approaches be embraced by either of the two major candidates?

No.

John McCain has openly embraced the neocon perspective and his campaign advisers include people such as Max Boot who have learned nothing from the greatest US foreign policy debacle in history and are eager to have the Israeli tail wag the dog of US policy. Senator Obama is a neophyte in foreign policy which makes him captive of the same Democratic movers and shakers who have followed the Israel uber alles view for more than forty years.

Also, the Geek is well aware of the Israel Lobby which, like the China Lobby of sixty and more years ago, has shown itself both willing and able to inflict massive damage on the interests of the United States in order to further the interests of another country.

Lord, help us.