May 6, 2020--Yellow Peril

The one foolhardy thing Trump has not (yet) tried to distract the public and rescue himself from responsibility for making the coronavirus crisis worse is "wagging the dog."

Traditional wagging the dog involves getting the U.S. military involved in a small scale war against a feeble opponent. All designed to elevate presidents' approval ratings. 

Like the small war in Grenada during Ronald Reagan's administration, in Panama when George H.W. Bush was in office, and in Kosovo when Bill Clinton was president and ensnared in a sex scandal.

As in all such situations the message to the world is that America is not to be messed with. More accurately, President So-In-So is a tough dude and not reluctant to carry and use a big stick. 

He might even be represented as a little crazy and thus extra dangerous. With Kissinger shilling for him, Nixon played that card.

In regard to Trump and wagging, keep an eye not on Iran but China. Yes, China. By no means a feeble opponent.

Then why China?

From even before he was elected it has been apparent that Iran is in Trump's crosshairs. He unilaterally abrogated Barack Obama's deal with them to limit for 15 years their nuclear weapons' program and recently there has been an intensification on both sides of saber rattling.

But this emerging confrontation seems to have calmed since Iran-hawk John Bolton (remember him?) left the Trump Cabinet.

The focus now is preposterously shifting to China. Not just to it's cheating in the acquisition of purloined intellectual property and its unfair trade practices, but also in response to our charging them with the intentional fabrication and spread of COVID-19. 

This, in an effort to shift blame from Trump's inability to limit its impact by attributing it to the "Yellow Peril," the way conservatives and American isolationists during the Cold War in a racist way referred to the Chinese Communists.

Secretary of State Pompeo has been mobilized by Trump to assert that there is "enormous evidence" that the virus "originated" in a lab in Wuhan and to imply to the Chinese leadership that unless they cease this behavior the United States is even prepared for military intervention.

In response the Chinese Foreign Ministry has accused the Trump administration, in their words, of "shirking responsibility for their own epidemic and prevention and control measures and divert public attention."

In other words, classic wag the dog. In this case a very big dog but Trump has a big crisis to wish away and an ego out of control that is bigger than the island of Grenada.

January 14, 2020--Jack On Iran

"I know you don't want to talk with me. I get under your skin. But this won't take long. I'll talk, you listen. You don't have to say a word.

That sounded like a good deal to me and so I said, "OK," put the phone on speaker, and continued to sip my coffee.

"So, all right, here's the dope on Iran. I assume you're following what's going on there." He paused to lure me in. I remained silent. "I know from things you've written that you think Trump's various ways of tormenting the Iranians is a wag-the-dog thing. To lure them into a confrontation. Increasing economic sanctions, pulling out of the arms control deal, and most recently taking out their number two--Soulman or whatever he's called. Was called."

Under my breath I said, "Soleimani."

"I heard that, "Jack said, "and stand corrected. I'm assuming you and your friends think Trump doesn't have a big-picture strategy, that everything he does is impulsive, self-serving, and political. And his moves in the Middle East will result in a potentially big war that will drive a further wedge between us and the Arab world."

That about summed up my position. Though Iran isn't an Arab country.

"Actually," Jack said, "I think some of that is true and not attractive."

Attractive? I thought that didn't begin to scratch the surface.

"But when it comes to Iran what Trump's been up to has been very smart. And is working. You'll find out how well come November."

He raced on. "Take a look at what's going on there. In Iran for months there have been street demonstrations that are aimed at toppling the current regime. Many hundreds of the protesters have been killed by the Revolutionary Guard--they don't mess around--and more than a thousand are already in prison. Trump's people have been trying to find ways we can help them as have other countries in the area. Saudi Arabia, for example.

"The economic sanctions have been working. Iran is pretty much broke. They're having trouble selling their oil to China and Japan. Inflation is out of control. A lot of the young Iranians are well educated but there are no good jobs for them. They're among those protesting. But the protests also includes even poorer rural people. In fact they appear to be among the leaders of the revolt. They traditionally side with the religious leaders. But not this time. 'It's the economy, stupid, works for them as well." 

Jack said, "Some who are experts say the regime may be vulnerable to being overthrown. That would be a big deal since many Iranians seem to have good feelings about America. If this was to happen it could be a game changer.

"But your people, who reluctantly admit Soleimani was a bad guy and it's good he's gone are beating up on Trump for not consulting with Congress and abusing his power as commander in chief. Ignoring the War Powers Act which was passed when Nixon was president and the Vietnam War still had two more bloody years to go.

"The Democrats are missing the political point so let me tell you about Grenada. You remember Grenada?"

"Grenada?" Unable to stifle myself, in frustration I shouted in response to his seeming non sequitur.

"How back in 1983 President Reagan invaded that small Caribbean country because it was allegedly taken over by Communists and that could threaten the region, The invasion was over in what seemed like a couple of hours. They didn't have a real army and couldn't defend themselves. Reagan did this to tell the world not to mess with us. That he was willing to use our military to protect our interests.

Jack said, "I see similar things going on with Iran. After being criticized for incendiary rhetoric--mainly Tweets--he has consistently backed off. Threatening but not acting. So like Reagan, with Iran he's putting on display his willingness to use force.

"He bombed Soleimani but when he spoke publicly about it didn't take a victory lap or turn up more heat. In fact he did the opposite. For him what he said was pretty moderate.

"So here's the bottom line--as a result Trump gets to look tough (I bet the North Koreans have taken note of that) and like Reagan doesn't make a big mess. And then of course he will reap the political rewards."

"We'll see," I said, now fully engaged, "Iran has 80 million people and a pretty advanced military, and so . . ."

Jack cut me off, "Don't forget what's goining on in the streets. The ayatollahs, who are corrupt, have made things worse for themselves, shooting down that plane and lying about it."

"There are these demonstrations, you're right about that, but the military there as you said doesn't mess around so we can expect to see the protesters squelched."

"We'll see," Jack said, "One final thing, the New York Post yesterday, on page one, had a picture of the demonstrators being careful not to step on Israeli and American flags that were neatly spread out in the road. And they were not shouting 'Death to America,' but rather 'Death to Supreme Leader Khamenei.'"

January 9, 2020--Trump the Nation Builder

Virtually all presidents shy away from talking positively about nation building. They know from experience and history (a few presidents actually know something about American history) that more frequently than not it doesn't work and that the nation attempting to carry out the nation building usually winds up paying a huge political price.

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon come to mind. Both presidencies collapsed as the result of sinking into the quagmire that was the Vietnam War. 

And then we have George W. Bush who, during the October 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, when asked by Jim Lehrer about nation building, said--

I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win wars. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops . . . I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the strategy obvious.

Then, ignoring his own advice, Bush authorized nation building after invading Afghanistan and Iraq. In both instances this turned out to be an expensive, bloody disaster that to this day many years later continues to fester.

And now we have Trump who as a candidate and later as president spoke contemptuously about his predecessors' nation building efforts.

Trump though now finds himself in an ironic situation. Like it or not, after mocking Obama and Bush he too finds himself supporting nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran where neo-con advisors such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been pressing him to abrogate the de-nuclearization deal struck by Obama and a number of allies and to act more confrontationally.

I refer to current pressures that Trump is placing on Iran as ironic because the demands he is making and the aggressive military actions he has authorized are having unanticipated consequences.

Until Trump turned up the volume of threatening talk, bragging that we have the capacity to bring down the current regime and devastate the country, there were dissident political factions in Iran that might very well, with the right kind of support, have had enough power to challenge the ruling ayatollahs.

But the decision to assassinate general Soleimani so inflamed Iranian national pride that the contesting factions are now fully united in their hatred of Trump and America. Now everyone in Iran is chanting "Death to America."

For this example of nation building they and we have Donald Trump to thank.

January 8, 2020--"Imminent Attack"

Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Back in 1964 it authorized then president Lyndon Johnson to expand our military involvement in the Vietnam War. 

The U.S. command claimed that one of our ships, a destroyer, in international waters, was attacked by three North Vietnam torpedo boats. Based on this assertion, Congress voted to allow LBJ and the Pentagon to enlarge our footprint in the region and the resolution was cited frequently during subsequent years to justify direct attacks on North Korean cities, harbors, and military facilities.

Then do you remember how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and his senior national security and military staff claimed that the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in January, 2003 was justified because Iraq was actively building weapons of mass destruction and would soon have the means to deploy them against the American homeland and our European allies? Recall how National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke vividly about how if we failed to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein it would lead to "mushroom clouds" over European capitals.

Though seemingly unrelated, these two incidents have a number of things in common--most significant the threats they identified were  largely untrue. 

The North Vietnamese had not initiated an attack on one of our naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin, and Iraq was found after our invasion and occupation not to have WMDs.

This brings us to today where the current administration is unleashing the dogs of war.

Trump authorized "taking out" Iranian general Qassim Soleimani because he was allegedly plotting an "imminent attack" on U.S. military and diplomatic assets in the Middle East.

Since neither Trump nor his national security team have provided credible intelligence evidence to justify this explanation it sounds suspiciously like the way the Gulf of Tonkin incident and WMD claims were represented. 

Perhaps in coming days we will hear more, but I remain skeptical. This feels all too familiar and Trump of course is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth.

June 24, 2109--Jack: "Disproportunate"

Jack said, "How are you liking your president these days?" Without waiting for something snarky in return he added, "To me he's looking very presidential."

I hadn't seen Jack in a couple of weeks and with so much going on wasn't surprised he showed up at the diner where I was nursing a cup of coffee.

"As Trump put it, he's 'cocked and loaded.'"

"If he knew anything about guns he'd realize it's locked and loaded. Not cocked. But what does he know about guns? Or for that matter very much anything else?"


"I didn't know you were such a gun nut."

"I'm not and neither is he. He grew up in Queens New York for God sakes. The only people there with guns packed Saturday Night Specials."

"You're changing the subject because you don't want to acknowledge him as being presidential."

"This I have to hear."

"It's how he's finessing the Iran situation."

"You mean how he can't make up his mind what to do? Finessing is the last way I'd describe him. One minute he's drawing red lines in the sand and launching missiles, the next he's saying the Iranians shooting down one of our drones doesn't deserve a military response. After how he excoriated Obama for backing away from a red line of his own after the Syrians used chemical weapons on their own people while he blithely does the same thing is sheer hypocrisy. Not that I'm in favor of going to war with Iran over this. We haven't had much luck with war in the Middle East. Even candidate Trump realized that. It was the one few thing about which he was right."

Jack sighed, "You are so closed minded. Trump for you can never do anything right. But anyway, let me try to enlighten you."

Not in the mood but unable to restrain myself, in a weary voice I said, "Start by telling me how his most influential advisors come from Fox News. How Tucker Carlson is advising him not to get involved militarily. That if he does he'll lose the election next year. And Sean Hannity is putting pressure on him to launch strikes otherwise he'll look weak and lose his reelection bid. Trump actually listens to these people?"

"And who is keeping his own counsel? Trump asks their views and then follows his instincts and makes decisions. You call that irresponsible I call it presidential. And don't forget many previous presidents had their favorite reporters and columnists. I looked that up yesterday. Kennedy had Ben Bradley and also leaked information to the Time's Arthur Krock, who was on his father Joe Kennedy's payroll. And there are others. Many others. Like James Reston and the Alsop brothers. All presidential whisperers. So don't try to hang this one exclusively on Trump."

I said, "This is still no way to make foreign policy. Especially when it comes to matters of war and peace. I don't think any of the journalists you cite--and I give you credit for digging that out--advised presidents one way or the other when it came to launching military strikes. They dealt mainly in the political realm. Offering political advice and clearing the way for their presidents. It was straight use-use. Not that Carlson and Hannity are above that. Using Trump to build ratings."

"With this," Jack said, "Trump is having it two ways. On the one hand he threatens to attack Iran and this makes him seem tough."

"With emphasis on the 'seem.'"

"And then he shows moderation," Jack said, "saying he pulled back the attack when he was told 150 Iranians would be killed. He didn't want that blood on his hands. He wanted to appear to be compassionate."

I said, "He tweeted that he didn't want to do anything 'disproportionate.' Shooting down an unarmed drone doesn't cause any deaths."

"What's your problem with that? I thought you'd like your president not to be casual about a loss of life."

"I'm very OK with that. Using force only as a last resort. But this didn't qualify. My problem is his not having a clear, coherent plan so that both our allies and opponents would know what to expect. That, as in this case, we won't inadvertently stumble into a real war."

"Again," Jack said, "I think this is exactly what Trump is doing."

"That's not how I see it. In fact, I'm suspicious of the whole thing. A tipoff for me is his use of the word 'disproportionate.'"

"You have a problem with that? I thought you would see it to be a good thing. Evidence that Trump has a better temperament than he is given credit for."

"A couple of things. First, it appears he endorsed a cyber attack on the Iranians. Not bloody but still an act of war. And then again there's his use of the word 'disproportionate.' Do you really think that's in his vocabulary? Does it sound like the Donald Trump we know?"

"Picky, picky. What will you guys come up with next."

"It reveals to me," I said, "that what we are witnessing is pure fabrication conjured up in his favorite place--the White House basement Situation Room. TV producer that he is he's creating a screenplay. He's spinning out one that's more reality TV than reality. And as in all thrillers this one too has a scene where everyone in danger at the last minute gets pulled back from the brink by a super hero. None other than Donald Trump."

"Again," Jack said, "I don't see why this is making you so crazy. To me it shows him acting responsibly."


"It shows him playing with, not dealing seriously with his awesome commander-in-chief responsibilities."

"I give up," Jack said fully exasperated.

"Good," I said, "Now I can concentrate on my coffee and try to get Trump out of my head."

November 27, 2018--South of the Border

Silly me, all along I thought Trump would wag the dog when Robert Mueller's findings were about to be published by bombing nuclear installations in North Korea or Iran. To distract from the main Mueller takeaway--the indictments of half the Trump family--he would start a war either place and watch his approval ratings soar. 

Don't they always when a president shows muscle? Like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did in the early days in Vietnam, Ronald Reagan did in Grenada, as George H. W. Bush did in Panama and Iraq, as Bill Clinton did in Bosnia, and George W. Bush did in Afghanistan and again in Iraq. Approval numbers in all instances went off the charts. 

But then (is there a lesson here?) in almost all cases the numbers came crashing back to earth. In fact so low for LBJ and Nixon that for this and other reasons they both wound up having to resign the presidency. (Lesson here as well?)

But now I think Trump's first (note that--first) wag situation will not be with Iran or North Korea but along the 1,900 mile border with Mexico.

With our border patrol people already using teargas and rubber bullets à la Israel to contain asylum seekers and Trump authorizing the use of "lethal force" if they or the military he has deployed to the area have rocks thrown at them, the visuals are already so intoxicating to the cable-news-addicted president that how can he be expected to resist a wider, more telegenic little war? And of course not have to worry that these fleeing Guatemalans might lob nukes on San Francisco or Trump Tower in New York City.

While all this excitement is going on who will care about the beans spilt by former campaign manager Paul Manafort or former fixer Michael Cohen? Who will notice that Trump pardons Don Junior, son-in-law Jared, and Ivanka? Who will pay attention to the legal spatting about the constitutionality of subpoenaing or indicting a sitting president?

After running this riff by Rona, she said, "A little snarky, don't you think?"

"Maybe a little," I said, "But this is serious."

"And for something this serious you think snark is the right tone? Thousands in the caravans are suffering and back in their home countries there are millions more being preyed upon by violent gangs, collapsed economies, and governmental corruption."

"So what are we supposed to do? Open our borders and let anyone in who wants to work and live here? I agree the situation is serious but what are we realistically supposed to think much less do? I get the demagoguery and the rhetoric, how Trump is playing with these people's lives for his own political purposes. To feed his base of terrified haters. If you were president what would you do?"

"It is very complicated," Rona said, "Look at what happened to poor Hillary the other day. When she said in an interview in The Guardian that 'Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame' of nationalism in England, Western Europe, and with Trump the U.S. too. She got beat up, most claimed, for not getting off the stage and letting the next generation of Democrats move into the spotlight. But I think she was castigated because she told the truth. The truth that American liberals don't want to deal with because they fear it will alienate some members of their own base--those who want more open borders and a permissive approach to immigration."

"What we need," I said, "Is a whole new immigration policy. It needs to be humanitarian and efficient but also has to place limits on who we can admit to the country and need for our economy. That's the hard part."

"We can and should talk more about this because I can't figure out what I would like to see. But in the meantime I agree with you about Trump. You can safely bet your last two dollars that he's hoping for some significant violence along the border to justify a more and more aggressive response by our security forces. Sort of like how Lyndon Johnson jumped on a supposed incident in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam to justify a major ramping up of our commitment to defeat the Vietcong. My guess is that Trump is looking for his Gulf of Tonkin opportunity to take the focus off Mueller."

"In the meantime," I said, "Back to the snark."

April 23, 2018--Contortions

It has been painful to witness progressives, Democrats twisting themselves into contortions as they attempt to come to grips with what is happening with the North Koreans.

Their problem is less with Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans than with how to think about and react to Donald Trump's involvement.

Remember how during the 2016 primaries he said it would be his "honor" to meet face-to-face with Kim? He was roundly criticized and mocked by both his Republican and Democratic opponents as being naive and inexperienced in the world of global diplomacy. He was chastised for asserting that traditional forms of diplomacy (which included many months of pre-summit negotiations between lower-level staffs) were the necessary prerequisites to meetings between heads of states. Particularly hostile ones.

Think Kissinger meeting privately with Zhou Enlai before Nixon would consider getting together with Zhou much less Mao.

Failing to recall how neophyte Barack Obama was roundly criticized and mocked by his political opponents (Hillary Clinton leading the pack) during the 2008 campaign when he declared he would be willing to meet face-to-face with the leaders of Iran and North Korea in the search for peace, progressives, opposing Trump now in such ahistorical, knee-jerk fashion are being, well, intentionally forgetful, hypocritical, or both.  

So now we not only have a heads-of-state meeting on the books for late May/early June, but we appear to have Kim making all sorts of preemptive concessions about his nuclear weapons program.

First he announced he was suspending all testing of missiles and nuclear warheads. Then, again without demanding anything in return, he announced over the weekend that he will be shutting down his nuclear weapons research and fabrication facilities. He wants, he says, to turn his focus to the collapsed North Korean economy.

This latter promise is discombobulating progressives. On Saturday and Sunday, for example, on CNN and especially MSNBC, former senior Obama national security advisors and staff have been all over the airwaves struggling with how to think about and respond to these overtures.

First, and most appropriately, they expressed skepticism, warning that the North Koreans for decades have made promises of this sort that they haven't kept. Then they dismissed the evidence that the extra-severe sanctions imposed on the North Koreans, mainly by the U.S. and China, have led to the further hollowing out of the North Korean economy, such as it is, and this is forcing Kim to the table. 

They are ignoring this evidence because, as with Kim's pledge to scale back his weapons program, not to have criticized what seems to be unfolding would give tacit if not overt credit to Trump, as unlikely and crazy and as confounding as what may be happening might turn out to be. 

Liberals so despise Trump that they cannot bear to give some credit, much less offer any praise for his leading the effort to bring this about.

Most outrageously, if Trump pulls this off he would be a leading candidate to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. If the unthinkable were to occur, he as well as Obama would have one. 

Worse--all of us in our heart-of-hearts know Obama didn't really deserve his whereas if we manage to make a verifiable deal with the North Koreans, Trump will have earned his.

Sometimes the world is too confounding to deal with. This may turn out to be one of those occasions.

Kissinger and Zhou Enlai

March 23, 2018--Trump & Friends

Donald Trump's appointment of John Bolton to serve as his National Security Advisor is the most dangerous in a long series of high-level hirings.

Bolton does have the semblance of an appropriate resumé--he served for a time as Ambassador to the UN during the George W. Bush presidency (though because of his extreme hawkish views he was never confirmed by the Senate: his was a seemingly endless "recess" appointment)--his positions on Iran and North Korea are such that it will be difficult to sleep through the night.

He favors withdrawing from the nuclear weapons deal with Iran and recently attempted to make the case for a first-strike military attack on North Korea.

The National Security Advisor does not have to be confirmed by the Senate so we will have to figure out a way to live with his having the unraveling Trump's ear. This will not be easy.

To quote Rona again, she says that what's going on is that Trump is setting up a version of Fox & Friends in the White House. With CNBC's Larry Kudlow as his new chief economic advisor, with Fox News' Joe diGenova as his new chief lawyer, and with Fox's John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor, right there in the Oval Office he has his very own Trump & Friends.

My question is who from Fox will be his next Secretary of Defense (Sean Hannity?) and weather "girl"?

May 23, 2017--Trump On the World Stage

Tell the truth--weren't you, like me, expecting, even hoping to see President Trump stumble on the world stage? While in the Middle East, while with the Pope in Rome, while meeting in Sicily with European counterparts at the G-7 summit?

Weakened at home as criminal investigations swirl around him, if he made a fool of himself, if he insulted Islamic leaders, made a botch of talks with the Israelis, again insulted Chancellor Angela Merkel, and said something inappropriate to the new president of France, in the aggregate, if his trip turned out to be a political disaster, it would move him one step closer to impeachment or resignation.

But, four days into his nine-day trip, from all reports, even from media sources that are not well disposed to him, he appears to be staying on script and, remarkably, actually saying a number of things that make sense. Or at least are worth putting on the table.

Before an assemblage of more than three dozen presidents of Sunni Arab nations, carefully avoiding the phrase "radical Islamic terrorists," Trump drew a distinction between ISIS fighters and the peaceful citizens of Islamic nations--

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion, people that want to protect life and want to protect their religion. This is a battle between good and evil.

These comments were met with enthusiastic applause.

He continued, saying he wanted "partners not perfection" and that it was up to Muslim leaders to expunge extremists from their midst--

Drive them out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of earth.

This was a play to engage Sunni leaders in contrast to President Obama's alleged desire to strike deals with Shia-dominated countries such as Iran.

One could delete references to Obama and still make the case that a focus on Sunnis, the vast majority in the region, makes more sense. Including as part of an attempt to broker movement toward a two-state solution in Israel, something Trump spoke about yesterday when he told Benjamin Netanyahu that he heard from Sunni Arab leaders while in Saudi Arabia that if this were to happen they would consider expanding relations with Israel. Something that is occurring in private as power shifts across the Middle East.

It was also noted that Air Force One's direct flight from Riyadh to Tel Aviv is the first time there has been such a flight. Whoever added that to Trump's agenda (likely Jared Kushner) deserves praise. Gestures and symbols go a long way in that fraught region.

April 19, 2017--Crazy-Fat-Kid

That's how John McCain last week referred to Kim Jong-un, president of North Korea.

It's understandable that Senator McCain would be feeling frustrated. Most American are. Kim may be crazy or crazy like a fox, but it is indisputable that he is a very dangerous threat to peace in the region. And then some.

Even the Chinese finally seem to be taking the situation seriously. Until now they have been his principal "ally," largely responsible for propping up the collapsed economy of North Korea through their involvement in multiple trade deals that are of sustaining benefit to the North Korean leadership class.

Perhaps because of coming to some sort of agreement to work together during Chinese president Xi Jinping's visit with Donald Trump two weeks ago in Palm Beach, or because the Chinese are concerned that Trump is a crazy-fat-president and might, if provoked, decide to bomb North Korea's nuclear facilities and missile delivery systems. This would mean all-out, possible nuclear war on the Korean peninsular, resulting in millions of refugees crossing the Yalu River to seek sanctuary in China.

The Chinese crave stability and predictability and Trump represents neither and so they may be taking the lead to see if there is a way forward, out of this unfolding doomsday scenario.

I do not think of Kim as leading a suicide cult. War would likely mean we would go after him and his elite followers--the one's who get fancy uniforms, electricity, cars, and food to eat. They and he like living and have many of the good things life offers. And they are not ideological. Fanatical, yes, but in a materialistic way that suggests they might be more interested in living and enhancing their national stature than going down in martyrs' flames. We saw that with the Japanese during World War II, but Korea is no Japan.

If Kim and his followers desire recognition perhaps we should move carefully to begin to provide that as part of a deal that would have them, under Chinese monitoring, begin to phase out their nuclear program. Muammar al-Gaddafi did this is Libya, surprising many who thought he would never agree to such a thing. He saw the writing on the wall and din't want to be obliterated. Of course he eventually was, but that's another story.

During the campaign Trump said he would be willing to meet with Kim Jong-un to see if a deal is possible. Kim might jump at this chance. It would have to be after a number of other conditions were agreed to to test Kim's seriousness. The process would not begin with a Kim-Trump summit but would be a reward when the two parties were, say, halfway to an agreement.

When Barack Obama said during the 2008 campaign that in pursuit of peace he would be willing to meet face-to-face with Iranian leaders, Hillary Clinton's mocked him, claiming he was naive and suggested this demonstrated that he was unsuited to serve as commander in chief. But then, during his first term, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, worked hard behind the scenes to bring this about. A year or two later, with John Kerry having replaced her, the U.S. and Iran made a deal and as of today much of Iran's nuclear weapons program has been shut down. It is not perfect (as Trump took relish in pointing out almost daily during the campaign) but so far we are not at war with the Iranians. And, as a demonstration that Trump may not always act impulsively, he has not (yet) abrogated the treaty.

My scenario may be a stretch, but most analysts who attempt to understand what is going on in North Korea and what Kim is thnking are feeling pessimistic. The New York Times has concluded that we are moving to a confrontation similar to the one the world faced during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But this time with a potentially unstable leader on one side.

It is generally agreed that it will be two to three years before the North Koreans develop the missiles and miniaturized atomic warheads to reach South Korea, Japan, and the west coast of the U.S. But as they are moving inexorably and rapidly in this direction, we need to figure out how to make a deal well before then that provides at least some enhanced sense of security.

Otherwise . . .

May 24, 2106--Kim Jong-un

Donald Trump told Reuters last week that he is open to negotiating directly with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. After 30 years of failing to contain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, under Republican as well as Democratic administrations, Trump called for a different approach.

He said--

"I would speak to him. I would have no problem speaking to him."

The foreign policy establishment, including Hillary Clinton, immediately seized on this as more evidence that Trump is not qualified to be either commander in chief or the nation's chief diplomat.

For example, "experts" concluded that if Trump somehow managed to become president, a policy review by him, no longer shooting from the hip on the campaign trail, would lead him to "take a similar approach toward Pyongyang as a Clinton administration."

That of course is possible. That of course is speculation. This has happened in the past. During the 1960 campaign, for example, John Kennedy cited a dangerous "missile gap" between the U.S and the Soviet Union. A missile gap that looked a lot less threatening once JFK assumed office and "discovered" it didn't exist. Something he actually knew at the time and thus, during the campaign, he was, well, simply lying to score political points.

And in 2008, during the primary campaign that pitted Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, when during one debate Obama said he would be comfortable talking directly with the dictators in control of Iran and Cuba, Clinton called him out, saying that exposed how naive Obama was when it came to foreign policy. Sound familiar?

Now, after the Obama administration negotiated deals directly with Iran and Cuba--something Clinton is eager to take half-credit for (she claims it was her leadership while Secretary of State that prepared the ground for these initiatives)--she is once again chastising her opponent for being diplomatically irresponsible. Deja vu all over again.

But as with so many of his shape-shifting positions, Trump with this offhand comment about North Korea, is also getting under Hillary's skin. This time in her area of policy primacy--foreign affairs. So she is now scrambling to come up with policies in regard to North Korea that aren't more of the same-old, same-old.

So just what would be wrong with Trump "speaking" with Kim Jong-un? It could actually work. And what's the downside? Kim has a public infatuation with odd-ball American celebrities. The ever-bizarre Dennis Rodman is a personal favorite. This might then be one example where Trump's celebrity and cartoon-like persona might be an asset.

Considering the threat North Korea represents, I'd consider giving it a try.

And, if Hillary wins, since she too is a larger-than-life star of the decades-long Clinton reality show, she also should look for an appropriate way to talk to Kim.

December 31, 2015--Happy New Year From Iran

Lost in the blather about Bill Clinton campaigning in New Hampshire and Donald TRUMP creeping up on Hillary Clinton in the national polls, is a story buried on page 4 of Tuesday's New York Times--

A Russian ship left Iran on Monday carrying almost all of Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, fulfilling a major step in the nuclear deal struck last summer and, for the first time in nearly a decade, apparently leaving Iran with too little fuel to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

Leave it to Rona to ask, "Is there a story about schlonging on page one?"

June 1, 2015--Remapping

Over breakfast at Balthazar late last week with a well-travelled friend, despite our attempt to be optimistic about things, he couldn't resist asking what I thought was happening in the Middle East.

"You need to bring that up while I'm still enjoying my scone?" I said as playfully as I could.

"Well, in fact there may be things to feel good about."

"Really?" I was skeptical.

"Put in perspective."

"In perspective?" I was still skeptical.

"Very long term perspective."

"Again, really? How does that work?"

"Maybe what's happening has to happen. If we think about the long sweep of history, I mean."

Beginning to get was he was suggesting, I said, "I guess you could push me to make a very-guardedly optimistic case for the region if you gave me maybe a 100-year time frame to project things onto."

"Look," he said, "I'm British and am old enough to have seen massive changes in our position in the world. I had family members who worked for the Colonial Service in South Asia. When India was in effect a British colony. Some of of the change was bloody others more peaceful."

"More than 'in effect,'" I said. "Look, you're as old as I am--and that's pretty old--and though I don't remember from personal history about the changes in your empire as the result of the American Revolution, they were profound."

"Very amusing," he said, "The  very old business."

"The results of the Revolution changed the map for a large part of the Western Hemisphere. And led to even more change when France made its Louisiana Territory available for purchase."

"And later you follows grabbed from Mexico a large part of what is now the American West. California very much included."

"Yes as a result of the Mexican War during the 1840s and don't forget ten years or so after that the Gadsden Purchase which allowed us to flesh out our southwestern border. And then later still there was the bargain-basement purchase from Russia of Alaska."

"So project onto that what is going on right now in the Middle East."

"For some years I've been thinking about that and writing about it on my blog--how if one looks at the map of the current Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia for that matter, we see the remnants of big-power colonial domination and the national borders that were imposed on Arab people, as well as Persians, Jews, Turks, and others after, for example, the First World War. Newly constituted or created countries that still exist. On paper at least. Countries without borders that take history or culture or religion into consideration. So, once the colonial powers backed off--and that includes us in the U.S.--things began to unravel."

"That's an understatement," my friend said.

"So perhaps what we're seeing is a remapping. Is that your optimistic scenario?"

"For me as well very-guardedly optimistic. Yes. That's what I'm thinking."

"I've been thinking and saying that too. How what we are seeing is an assertion on the ground of various Islamic factions seeking violently to settle scores and slough off the boundaries that they have been forced to live with by the Western powers. Borders that ignored culture. And, through the support and cynical use of dictators such as Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and the Saudi royal family, among others, attempted to tamp down and contain nationalistic strivings and the natural forces of history."

"So in your remapping scenario," my British friend said, sipping his morning tea, "you agree that this is something that has to happen? That's inevitable?"

"Yes. In history, there has been a lot of remapping. That which is the result of warfare where the victors impose new boundaries. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions are examples as is the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I."

"Other examples are the result of the invasions of exploding empires--the Roman Empire and Islamic Caliphate that dominated most of north Africa and western Europe. And of course our British Empire. The one where the sun never set."

"We could go on. The point being that what gets left behind or imposed as the result of these powerfully aggressive movements result in unnatural affiliations where people of very different backgrounds are forced to think about themselves as Iraqis or Syrians or Libyans. Big picture--there is no such thing as an Iraqi. Nationalities of this kind have been constructed by conquerers. This goes against the history of these peoples where they think about themselves as Sunnis or Shia or Kurds, not Iraqis. And as a result, what we have wrought are powder kegs throughout the region waiting for some spark to ignite them. And we're seeing those sparks all over the world. Very much including the emergence of ISIS."

"Thus my optimistic thought," my friend said. "As I said, perhaps there has to be this movement toward the reestablishment of cultural borders. Maybe even a few that are fluid since some of the people who live in the region are nomadic. Also, in some cases this may not even involve the concept of 'country' or 'nation.' And this of course doesn't mean that peace will break out. There will still be disputes and incursions but hopefully not at the level of all-out warfare."

"Sounds good to me, though, if you're right, I won't be around to see it."

"There you go again about being old. In the meantime, can I treat you to another cup of coffee and maybe some toast?"

April 16, 2015: Germany, Japan, Cuba & Iran

They bombed Pearl Harbor and after we defeated them in World War II, with great loss of life and limb as American's invaded island after bloody island in the Pacific, after just few years of occupation, Japan became one of our closest allies.

They invaded and conquered most of Western Europe; exterminated more than 6.0 million Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies; and mercilessly bombed civilian populations in England and elsewhere. After we entered the war, they killed more than 300,000 U.S. soldiers. And yet, again, after the allies defeated them and after just a relatively few years of occupation, with our help Germany was rebuilt and became one of our closest allies.

As with Japan, this relationship endures.

So why is there such a big problem with Cuba and Iran?

We were versions of allies with both until 1959 when Fidel Castro seized power and quickly thereafter announced that Cuba was in fact a client state of our Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union. And, in Iran's case, we related well (perhaps too complicitously) until 1979 when the Islamic Revolution erupted and the new government, dominated by ayatollahs, captured and held hostage 66 American embassy workers.

Now, via his executive power, President Obama is moving rapidly to resume normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and there is evidence that Iran wants to make a deal with the West by agreeing to scale back its nuclear weapons program.

The former, normalized relations with Cuba, is long overdue and now all but certain to occur. The most significant resistance to such a deal is the demagogic posturing of presidential candidate Marco Rubio, whose parents were born in Cuba, and his pandering to the remnants of the Cuban-American community in the hope that they and other American Latinos will rally to support his ambitions.

There are also Cold-War-minded dead-enders who are still fighting the Soviets through its former proxy, Cuba.

Then of course there is the on-going resistance to anything Barack Obama wants to do, especially if it is potentially historic and would burnish his image as president.

Much more troubling is the widespread opposition among virtually all Republicans, and sadly many Democrats, who oppose the semblance of any deal with Iran, out of fear that they will be smitten politically by the Israeli lobby or yelled at by Benjamin Netanyahu.

If things were not to work out with Cuba, it would not be catastrophic. They are not strategic players and are no longer military allies of the Russians. No Soviet missiles with atomic warheads remain on the island and they are not in any way a threat to our security.

But unless the West is able to consummate a deal with Iran it is likely that we will be maneuvered into a war with them, siding with the Israelis and egged on by congressional hawks and passionate evangelical supporters of Israel. So this is quite serious and should not be a venue for political striving and demonologizing.

If we managed to overcome our hatred for the Japanese and Nazis and established sound and enduring relations with them, we should be able to do something similar with Cuba and especially Iran. But it is very much a we'll-see situation.

April 6, 2015--The Iran Deal

I just heard this on Face the Nation.

Without blinking Senator Lindsay Graham said that the deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program is not acceptable because it was negotiated by Barack Obama. He didn't cite one specific disagreement with the outline of the agreement (he didn't appear to have read it), rather he said that if Obama had anything to do with it by definition it is flawed and that we should not do anything regarding Iran until we have a new president. He mentioned that Hillary Clinton and all the Republican candidates except Rand Paul could do a better job.

Not do anything, I assume, means that before president-elect Cruz is inaugurated it would be OK if Obama decided we needed to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. That is, if Graham's favorite chief executive, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now running the Republican Party, offers his approval. And of course his bromantic pal John McCain gets out his bomb, bomb, bomb Iran dancing shoes.

Netanyahu, also, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to attack the agreement, revealing that he as well hasn't read it since everything specific he mentioned was either not true or, in true demagogue fashion, totally made up by Bibi.

Republicans led by Graham are foaming at the mouth that Obama may very well have pulled off something historic. First the historic Obamacare, then a substantially restored economy, and now this. Something no one thought possible. What if half-African Barack Hussein Obama were to go down in history as a near-great president. Not just the first President of color. What will Lindsay and all the over-50-year old white boys think about that? Nothing good.

We used to be closely allied with Iran. It was one of Jackie Kennedy's favorite places to visit and all Republicans until Ronald Reagan couldn't say enough nice things about the Shah and his dictatorial leadership--just what was needed to keep those Wahhabi extremists in line. And recall, Reagan almost got himself impeached when his administration got caught playing footsie with the Ayatollahs in order to get arms sent illegally to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Whatever one thinks of the Shah and the current leadership, Iran is a real country (not created by colonial powers after the Second World War) with a proud history as Persia. Persia which back in the day dominated much of what we now refer to as the Middle East or the Islamic world. And, not so between the lines in the agreement just negotiated are allusions to that remarkable history and the unexpressed hope that if Iran behaves itself in regard to ratcheting back its nuclear program, and thereby is once again welcomed back into the community of nations, maybe, just maybe they will begin to step back from funding al Qaeda, ISIS, and Hezbollah.

Hidden in the details of the proposed agreement between Iran and the group of nations that negotiated it is a note about what is to become of the centrifuges in Fordo, Iran's most secret, best protected nuclear fuel concentration facility. Most of the centrifuges will be deactivated (and inspected regularly to avoid cheating) but some 1,000 will continue to spin.

Here's what's revealing--though they will remain on line they will not contain any fissile material. They will continue to spin and spin impotently but, for the sake of Iranian pride will not produce anything but continue to fuel Iran's image of itself as a great and powerful nation. Which it was and is.

Hopefully over the decade, in other ways, Persia will act more and more that way.

So it's time for the big boys, the few adults in Congress to step up, swallow their hatred of President Obama and grab a bit of history for themselves. Our security and future may depend on it.

Fordo

April 3, 2015--Best of Behind: Good Cop, Bad Cop

First posted November 25, 2013, would it be nice if this fantasy were true?

Thinking about the deal just struck with Iran to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for some loosening of sanctions, wouldn't it have been brilliant if Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu had had this conversation three month ago--

Obama: Bibi?

Netanyahu: Barry?

Obama: Can you talk?

Netanyahu: As long as your NSA isn't tapping my phone. (He chuckles.)

Obama: Or your Mossad. (He chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I told them to take the afternoon off. I'm all ears, Barry.

Obama: So here's what I'm thinking, Bibi.

Netanyahu: Shoot.

Obama: That's why I called.

Netanyahu: I'm not following you.

Obama: About shooting. Actually bombing.

Netanyahu: Go on.

Obama: Look, we both know we don't want to bomb Iran.

Netanyahu: True. Though we have to keep the heat on them and the best way to do that--we both agreed--is to convince them we're prepared to do so. Israel especially.

Obama: That's what we agreed to. You'd be the bad cop and we'd be, sort of, the good cop. You'd publicly put pressure on me to draw red lines. To state that though we want diplomacy to work every option is on the table. Including military action. But we'd emphasize negotiations while you'd press for bombing.

Netanyahu: And I'd keep prodding, critiquing your Iran policy, and playing your Israel Lobby both in Congress and the Jewish community in the states. To convince the Iranians that though you might be rational and reasonable we're out of control. Particularly your control. That we're prepared to go it alone, go rogue--to quote one of your favorite politicians. (Obama chuckles.)

Obama: So, here's my new plan.

Netanyahu: I'm listening.

Obama: We get Kerry to start talking with the new Iranian regime, telling them that our Congress, including all sorts of Democrats, are chomping at the bit to increase the sanctions--they're so serious that they're even willing to override my veto--and that you guys are getting ready to arm your nukes. He tells the Iranians that if we don't get some sort of deal done in the next few months who knows what the Israelis will do. That I can't keep you on hold.

Netanyahu: Great plan! So as soon as we hang up I'll give the order here to move to a higher state of readiness as evidence of our seriousness or, if you prefer, our craziness.

Obama: Exactly, Bibi. The more we ramp up the diplomacy the more crazier you behave. We have to scare the you-know-what out of them.

Netanyahu: I love it. You'll work out some kind of deal that's good for us--at least the beginning of a long-term deal--which will also be good for you. It will get the Republicans off your back--talk about crazies--at least for awhile.

Obama: Maybe for half an hour. (Netanyahu chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I hear clicking on the line. Are you sure the NSA doesn't have this phone bugged?

March 13, 2105--GOP Clown Car Update

I'm so excited. It is reported that South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham is running for the GOP presidential nomination. That's the only explanation why he is spending so much time up in frozen New Hampshire.

If he actually enters the race, stay tuned for lots of laughs.

He is best known as John McCain's butt boy. Graham is rarely spotted except when half hidden behind or nestled near his idol, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

Like McCain he is prone to making bad jokes that reveal more truth about him--as Freud would suggest--than laughs.

Recall McCain's "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" during his race against Barack Obama. He of course felt he was being pretty cool knocking off the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." Many of the rest of us, though, thought he was semiconsciously tipping voters off about what he would do if elected.

In fact, McCain seems still to embrace this point of view. Incredibly, he was one of 47 GOP senators this week to sign an open letter to Iran's leadership, suggesting that unless they suspend their uranium enrichment program entirely these hawkish senators would ratchet up sanctions even more than at present or, if that failed, that they would press the military to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Graham went even further in his lame joke. He suggested that he endorsed a military coup d'etat. He really did.

In Concord, NH on Sunday he said--

Here is the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States: I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. [Sequestration budget cuts for the Pentagon] I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore those defense cuts. We're not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.

It elicited a few self-conscious chuckles but unleashed a bit of a tempest in the press. So much so that a Graham spokesperson had to walk his comments back, assuring us that he was joking.

If he wants to be president, he should try harder to discover a sense of humor or hire some better joke writers.

In the meantime, the clown car is set to take off. Thankfully it already contains Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, and, yes, The Donald. Now if we could only get Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann back on the stump, the next 12 months, with Lindsey in the mix, could be quite a riot.

February 23, 2015--Lines In the Sand

At the end of the First World War, a territorial plan devised by Sir Mark Sykes of Great Britain and Francois Georges-Picot of France established spheres of influence in the Middle East for the victorious European powers. Some compared this to drawing lines in the sand.

Prior to the War, most parts of the region were under the control of the Ottoman Empire. This included all of present-day Turkey, much of North Africa, and virtually all of the Middle East with the notable exceptions of Arabia, today's Saudi Arabia, and Persia, today's Iran.

The Syke's-Picot secret agreement became the blueprint for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in the War-to-End-All-Wars. The Great Powers, particularly France and Britain, with the assent of Russia, carved up the former Ottoman territory, creating modern Turkey and the countries that make up the contemporary Middle East, and assigned to themselves mandates and colonial oversight for what became Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Palestine among other newly established countries.

(The U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was more interested in the establishment of the League of Nations and so effectively kept hands off as the region was carved up and parceled out.)

Based on Sykes-Picot, the Treaty of Paris assigned the blue regions to French authority, the red to British, and the green to Russian.

The more delineated map of the Middle East which was derived from the Sykes-Picot accord is the one we live with today. Take special note of those countries that were assigned straight-line borders. It is particularly revealing that some of the countries that are most in turmoil and include restive populations,  jihadists, and other groups of terrorists, are those with these kind of linear borders that do not take geography, culture, or religion into consideration--Syria, Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and of course Israel.

Thus, "Iraq" should probably be deconstructed into at least three countries with cultural borders, including Kurdistan, and "Libya" into at least that many. The region, and the world would be much more peaceful if those who met in Paris in 1919 would have established borders that took history, religion, and tribal identity into consideration.

One might counter that there are straight line borders in the United States. Many. In fact, two of our states are virtual rectangles (Colorado and Wyoming), and four meet at the Four Corners (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico), but with the exception of the genocidal  example of what we did to our Native populations, territories that became states were not that culturally diverse and applied for statehood, staking out and suggesting their own borders. These borders for the most part were as viable as others that used rivers and mountain ranges as natural ways to divide and assign territory.

February 13, 2015--Best of Behind: The Middle East? Hands Off

This seemed pertinent in June 2014 when it originally appeared and feels even more so today as President Obama is asking Congress to retrospectively authorize military strikes against ISIS Islamists and many in the House and Senate are pushing back against what some feel is the next step to our getting more directly involved in Syria and northern Iraq where ISIS poses an existential threat--

As President Obama feels the pressure to provide military assistance to the collapsing regime in Iraq, he and we should step back and review the last 2,500 years of history. Just a few pertinent highlights!

The major lesson is that no outside power, from Alexander the Great of Macedonia to the French and British imperialists, from the Soviet Union and now the United States, no one has been able to impose their will on the region.

All interventions, all attempts to subjugate proud and defiant peoples have failed. And worse--have reverberated back disastrously on the invaders, colonizers, and occupiers.

After 330 BC Alexander never recovered; the British and French colonial powers after the First World War never recovered; the Soviet Union collapsed and never recovered; and the United States lost treasure, power, and influence in the region and I suspect will also not recover.

So what to do now?

The right answer is nothing.

We should get out of the way and allow the people living there figure out their own futures, very much including their own borders.

If we could impose a sane and just plan of our own that would endure, I would consider supporting it. But the long reach of history teaches that any attempt to do so is doomed to fail and, worse, will only make things worse.

Look at the current situation in Iraq. The Sunni jihadists have already overrun a third of the country, a country that was arbitrarily constructed at the end of WW I. From the videos showing ISIS's triumphant advance, while the so-called Iraqi army discards its uniforms and attempts to blend in with the benighted civilian population, we see the invaders already in possession of American military equipment that also was abandoned by the Iraqi army.

This was reminiscent of the experience in Afghanistan where the U.S., still entangled in the Cold War, armed the Mujahideen who were fighting the invading Soviets and, after defeating them (which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union), morphed into the Taliban which proceeded to overthrow the Afghan government and then turned its weapons, the ones we supplied, on us when we invaded at the end of 2001. And does anyone doubt that as soon as we finish leaving Afghanistan the Taliban will once again take over?

Sounds like current-day Iraq to me.

Seven years ago, presidential candidate Joe Biden was ridiculed when he said that Iraq should be allowed to devolve into three countries--Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, and Turkistan in the north.

He was right.

In fact, he could have advocated similar things for the rest of the region, from at least Tunisia in the west to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east.

Few of the countries in that geographic span have cultural borders--Iran (formerly Persia) and Egypt are perhaps the exceptions--but rather ones drawn for them by various conquerers and occupiers.

For centuries, for their own strategic and economic purposes, dominant Western powers have attempted to contain and control the essentially tribal people who live in this vast region. Since the end of the Second World War, country-by-country this has been unraveling. And at an accelerated pace for the past four or five years. Recall the Arab Spring of 2010.

The emergence of jihadist and terrorist groups--ISIS is just the most recent example--feels especially threatening to our national interest. But it may be more dangerous to attempt to continue to contain these aspirations and energies than let to them play out.

The genie of various forms of liberation cannot be stuffed back in the bottle. It is much too late for that.

It may be less risky to step back and allow these contesting forces to work things out. We may not like this idea or the potential outcomes; but, in reality, do we realistically have the ability and resources to impose an alternative scenario?

Do we see ourselves intervening on the side of the Shia-dominated government in Iraq allied with Iran's Revolutionary Guard? As unlikely, even as preposterous as this may sound, it is being seriously discussed.

Frightening as that prospect is--very much including the blow to our national ego--it represents another reason to back off. If there is to be fighting, and of course there is and will be, at least it will be focused within the region, internecine, and less directed toward us. That could be truly in our national interest.

June 20, 2014--Persia

I am having second thoughts about our working in tandem with Iran to push back against the jihadist ISIS forces that are threatening to fully overrun Iraq and implement a holocaust against Shiite Iraqis and impose sharia law. They are already massacring thousands in parts of Iraq they have seized

These really are bad people. Even Al-Qaeda has renounced them as too violent. When you have Al-Qaeda pronouncing you to be too violent that qualifies as violent.

Already openly engaged in talks with Iran about its nuclear program, something that would have been difficult to imagine just a year ago when the drumbeat in Israel and among militarists in our own country were pressing the Obama administration to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran; as ISIS fighters stormed across northern and central Iraq, the US and Iran, again openly, began to talk about the possibility of coming to the assistance of the Iraqi government, as ineffective and exclusionary as it is, because the prospect of ISIS controlling most of the country, and the region that includes Syria, was too apocalyptic to contemplate.

There are at least three possible scenarios for the tormented Middle East--

Perhaps most likely is decades of interminable warfare ranging from small scale internecine civil wars between ethnic, tribal, and religious rivals to region-wide strife. Libya is an example of the former while what we are now seeing across Syria and Iraq is characteristic of the latter, with ISIS already proclaiming that what they are up to is not just the imposition of sharia law but the reestablishment of the Caliphate of the 7th through 15th centuries.

Second is the reemergence of a class of local tyrants who can, through force and terror, suppress the aspirations of the region's fractious peoples. Saddam Hussein in Iran, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the Shah and ayatollahs in Iran, the royal family in Saudi Arabia, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and currently Bashar al-Assad in Syria are all examples of leaders who were or have been for decades successful at keeping the lid on discontent and political rivals.

Third, though ultimately unlikely, is the scenario I have been reconsidering--the emergence with subtle U.S. support--of three or four regional powers that reassert their historic leadership roles across the region.

Egypt would need to see its revolution concluded to again play its dominant role among Arabs. Turkey would have to see it influence spread among moderate Muslims. Saudi Arabia would have to open its society further and come to play a greater regional role. And Iran would have to again become Persia.

Some have argued, for example, that Iran's nuclear aspirations have less to do with developing atomic weapons to use against Israel than an expression of national pride. For a people with an ancient and proud history to see itself overshadowed by the Saudis and Israelis is deeply humiliating. To again be able to play an influential role in the region might satisfy those national ambitions.

Of course the likelihood of any progressive scenario advancing is remote. The Sunnis and Shia have been murderous rivals since the death of the Prophet 1,400 years ago and Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran eye each other venomously.

But perhaps our trying to find a way to bring Iran into the family of moderate nations is worth a try. Everything else seems too depressing to think about 24 hours before the summer solstice.