Obama U.S.-Russia Nuke Partnership Belies 'Realist' Foreign Policy Creds

We've heard much applause of late for "Obama's Realism on Iran."

Stephen Walt, perhaps our most important contemporary realist scholar, recently praised President Obama's "measured tone" on Iran as "sensible."

Daniel Larison, whose foreign policy I recently critiqued, adds this:

Obama does seem to understand that foreign policy is a matter of state interests, and that Iran and America have some shared interests regardless of the shape of the government in Tehran. His foremost responsibility is to secure American interests, and reasonably enough this involves rapprochement with Iran, so you’d better believe that he is not going to put the cause of Mousavi ahead of that of the United States.

It's unfortunate, but from my perspective the current rage for a realist orientation to foreign affairs is simply a cover for those inclined to pacifist isolationism (with sprinklings of Israel-bashing for good measure). This new realism is adopted to "provide academic cover to a postmodern epistemology of appeasement and weakness."

I'm a student of realism as well. I've always loved the theory's parsimonious rationalism. We've seen the paradigm expand in the last couple of decades to include all kinds of emendations and offshoots, but the fundamentals of practical realism endure.

I'm thinking about this in reading Henry Kissinger's interview at Der Spiegel, "Obama Is Like a Chess Player." To Kissenger, one of the 20th century's greatest realist policymakers, President Obama is less the realist than a potential Wilsonian idealist. And hence, his foreign policy could promote the same crises and disasters that the country saw in earlier decades of international politics. Here's Kissinger on Obama's current moves in world politics:

SPIEGEL: Do you think it was helpful for Obama to deliver a speech to the Islamic world in Cairo? Or has he created a lot of illusions about what politics can deliver?

Kissinger: Obama is like a chess player who is playing simultaneous chess and has opened his game with an unusual opening. Now he's got to play his hand as he plays his various counterparts. We haven't gotten beyond the opening game move yet. I have no quarrel with the opening move.

SPIEGEL: But is what we have seen so far from him truly realpolitik?

Kissinger: It is also too early to say that. If what he wants to do is convey to the Islamic world that America has an open attitude to dialogue and is not determined on physical confrontation as its only strategy, then it can play a very useful role. If it were to be continued on the belief that every crisis can be managed by a philosophical speech, then he will run into Wilsonian problems.

Well, if Cairo was Obama's "first move," it's not in Iran where we can measure the administration's foreign policy acumen. It's in Russia. And it's there where we're seeing Obama running into those "Wilsonian problems" of which Kissinger warns.

President Obama is now wrapping up this week's U.S.-Russia summit. He signed yesterday, with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a rough draft of a new nuclear arms-control treaty. In a speech today, the President said:

America wants a strong, peaceful, and prosperous Russia. This belief is rooted in our respect for the Russian people, and a shared history between our nations that goes beyond competition ....

So as we honor this past, we also recognize the future benefit that will come from a strong and vibrant Russia. Think of the issues that will define your lives: security from nuclear weapons and extremism; access to markets and opportunity; health and the environment; an international system that protects sovereignty and human rights, while promoting stability and prosperity. These challenges demand global partnership, and that partnership will be stronger if Russia occupies its rightful place as a great power.

Yet unfortunately, there is sometimes a sense that old assumptions must prevail, old ways of thinking; a conception of power that is rooted in the past rather than in the future. There is the 20th century view that the United States and Russia are destined to be antagonists, and that a strong Russia or a strong America can only assert themselves in opposition to one another. And there is a 19th century view that we are destined to vie for spheres of influence, and that great powers must forge competing blocs to balance one another.

These assumptions are wrong. In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonizing other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chess board are over. As I said in Cairo, given our independence, any world order that -- given our interdependence, any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game -- progress must be shared.

That's why I have called for a "reset" in relations between the United States and Russia. This must be more than a fresh start between the Kremlin and the White House -- though that is important and I've had excellent discussions with both your President and your Prime Minister. It must be a sustained effort among the American and Russian people to identify mutual interests, and expand dialogue and cooperation that can pave the way to progress.

In both words and tone, the president's speech evinces the same Wilsonianism that led to the disastrous institutional paralysis of the interwar era. It is the same kind of happy talk that we might find in the text of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. And for President Obama, this is not the talk of a president seeking to increase a momentary burst of bilateral comity and opportunity. It's not a Reykjavik moment marking a great thaw in decades of Cold War hostility, paving the way for a epochal change in the international system. We're at no crossroads to the end of great power competition. No, with this administration's strategic moves in Moscow, we're seeing the beginning implementation of Barack Obama's plan for a nuclear-free world.

Recall the New York Times article published over the weekend, "Obama’s Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision." According to the piece, President Obama ...

... has begun pushing for new global rules, treaties and alliances that he insists can establish a nuclear-free world ....

.... no previous American president has set out a step-by-step agenda for the eventual elimination of nuclear arms. Mr. Obama is starting relatively small, using a visit to Russia that starts Monday to advance an intense negotiation, with a treaty deadline of the year’s end, to reduce the arsenals of the nuclear superpowers to roughly 1,500 warheads each, from about 2,200 ....

But reducing arsenals, he insisted, would be the first step toward giving the United States and a growing body of allies the power to remake the nuclear world.

It's extremely difficult for me to fathom how anyone can praise the adminstration's quest for universal disarmament as "realist." As any student of international politics will tell you, there are no permanent friends or enemies in foreign policy, only permanent interests. In one of the seminal pieces of literature from last three decades, Joseph Grieco hammered neo-institutional idealism in world politics. He noted that "the fundamental goal of states in any relationship is to prevent others from achieving advances in their relative capabilities." Indeed, states cannot be indifferent to changes in the relative material position of their potential adversaries. Even if mutual understandings toward armament reductions produce absolute gains, who actually gains more? As long as internatioanal anarchy holds, one actor may take advantage of a gap in relative capabilities to seek advantage and ultimately enslave those states now newly disadvantaged.

Moreover, the goal of a nuclear-free international system is sheer fantasy. As Kenneth Adelman remarked recently, "If they’re dreaming of a world with no nukes, why not one of no war? Peace on earth, everywhere, forevermore."

And here's Ralph Peters on Obama's new preliminary arms control agreement:

PRESIDENT Obama went to Moscow desperate for the appearance of a foreign-policy success. He got that illusion -- at a substantial cost to America's security.

The series of signing ceremonies in a grand Kremlin hall and the litany of agreements, accords and frameworks implied that the United States benefited from all the fuss. We didn't.

We got nothing of real importance ....

President Obama even expressed an interest in further nuclear-weapons cuts. Peace in our time, ladies and gentlemen, peace in our time . . .

We just agreed to the disarmament position of the American Communist Party of the 1950s.

This discussion puts the lie to all of the fawning accolades for Barack Obama's careful restraint and keen discernment of American national interests.

The fact is that this president is selling out U.S. national security. This is not surprising, of course: "For the first time in US history, we have a president who hates his own country. A president who is on the side of America's enemies, not on the side of America."

See also, Atlas Shrugs, "Media Laps Up Obama's Weak and Hopelessly Naive Capitulation to Russia." See also, Memeorandum.

The Coming Second American Revolution?

From Mark Di Ionno, "Growing Numbers at Anti-Tax 'Tea Parties' Shows a Fed Up Public":

When historians track the beginnings of the second American Revolution, their search will take them to Morristown, N.J., just like the first time.

And like the first, it will have started with a tax revolt, and anger at an unresponsive government.

Something is happening in this country. And it would be not only arrogant, but unwise, for our elected officials to ignore it.

In the past, movements like the July 4 national Tea Parties were usually sparsely populated by libertarians, radicals and reactionaries. This movement has them too, but with a whole lot more regular folks. The crowd Saturday at Morristown Green was sizable and made up of the put-upon American middle class. Instead of pitchforks and muskets, they were armed with signs, that if nothing else, show many still believe in the visions of the Founding Fathers ....

The Tea Party movement is becoming a national phenomenon. They started locally, in a few cities in a few states, just this year. But the idea is spreading as fast as the internet can take it. On April 15, tax day, there were 750 across the country. For July 4, there were 1,505. Now, a Sept. 12 taxpayer march on Washington is being planned. The number of local organizers running Tea Party groups has swelled to well over 2,000 throughout the 50 states. These could soon be the grassroots seeds of a third political party, one designed to reform government, and bring it back to basics.

Also, from Dr. Jack Wheeler at Atlas Shrugs, "The Coming Second American Revolution":

Clearly, we are no longer living in a world of normal reality. For the first time in US history, we have a president who hates his own country. A president who is on the side of America's enemies, not on the side of America ...

We have a media who reveres and worships as a demi-god a president who hates his, and their, country.

We have a government spending trillions of dollars it does not have in a seemingly determined effort to destroy everyone's life savings via inflation.

We have a Congress that passes the largest tax increase in the history of the world (literally) via a 1,300 page Climate Bill that no one has read and based on utterly fraudulent science.

We have a governor who goes so around the bend that he trashes his wife, four children, his career and life for some broad in Argentina.

We have a people who go completely bananas with grief over the suicide of a washed-up pedophilic fruitcake ex-rock star.

This is societal quantum weirdness, a dissociation from normal reality, of which additional examples could be endlessly provided. Yet extreme, unhinged, over-the-top weirdness is normally what you get when you get close to a tipping point, close to the bursting of a bubble.

Madnesses of crowds are most often economic, such as the dotcom craze or the housing bubble. A lot of folks lose a lot of money, and that's it. But when such a madness pervades an entire society, the consequences can be far more dramatic. Such a madness is often the runup to a revolution.

Revolutions are chaotic, dangerous things. We were blessed-by-Providence lucky in our first one in 1776. We got freedom and George Washington, while the French with theirs in 1789 got the guillotine and Napoleon. Which will we get in the coming Second American Revolution?

More at the link.

Added: From Heidi at Big Girl Pants, "Power Is Not a Means, It is an End. A Parable For Today."

Los Angeles Braces for Jackson Rioting: House Resolution Honors 'King of Pop'; Irony as Staples Welcomes Ringling Bros. Circus!

You heard it here first, in any case, but here's this: "Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Jim MCDonnell insists Jackson fans will get no sympathy from officers, who fear the crowds could turn violent." Also, from the Los Angeles Times, "Staples Center at Core of Wide Security Cordon in Downtown L.A."

Plus, from KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Fans to Say Goodbye to Michael Jackson":

There's some congressional action as well: The Hill has the "Full text of Michael Jackson resolution." But Representative Peter King picked the wrong time to ask, "Would you leave your children alone with Michael Jackson?" And Jackson fans are a ready political constituency: "Michael Jackson Fans Raise Money To Defeat Peter King."

And if that's not enough:

Los Angeles city officials, burdened with a budget gap of half a billion dollars, said on Monday they were worried about the public cost of controlling the big crowd expected at the memorial for pop star Michael Jackson.

City Councilman Dennis Zine estimates the city could face $2.5 million in police and other expenses for the event on Tuesday at a downtown sports arena.

"Michael was a phenomenal entertainer, but why should the taxpayers of Los Angeles pick up this extremely high tab for security?" Zine told Reuters.

See also, "Tab on memorial running high in Los Angeles: City officials looks to Jackson's corporate connections to help foot bill."

An interesting side note, "Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey starts a run at Staples Center on Wednesday. In the predawn hours before Jackson's memorial, the elephants will walk from the train station to the arena."

Here's the television listings:

PRE-MEMORIAL SERVICE

6 a.m. "American Morning" (CNN) kicks off with Kiran Chetry in Los Angeles.

7 a.m. "The Early Show" (CBS) with Maggie Rodriguez and Harry Smith joins in from the Staples Center, and so does Meredith Vieira on "Today" (NBC).

11 a.m. MSNBC has Chris Jansing reporting live.

12 p.m. MTV and VH1 air a collection of Jackson's greatest hits and interviews; Shepard Smith starts coverage on Fox News Channel; BET begins "Forever the King: Memorial to Michael Jackson" with celebrity guest interviews; Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Don Lemon and Soledad O'Brien are on CNN; "The Bachelor" host Chris Harris anchors on TV Guide.

MEMORIAL SERVICE

1 p.m. The service at the Staples Center has no end time, but some are projecting 2:30 p.m.; networks and channels airing the service include ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News Channel, E!, TV Guide, TV One, MTV, VH1, VH1 Classic, VH1 Soul, Telemundo and Univision.

POST-MEMORIAL SERVICE

6:30 p.m. "CBS Evening News With Katie Couric" has coverage, as does "Nightly News With Brian Williams" (NBC).

9 p.m. "20/20" (ABC) has a special edition hosted by Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters.

10 p.m. "Primetime: Family Secrets" (ABC) focuses on the custody battle over Jackson's children with Debbie Rowe; "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" (Fox News Channel) reports from Los Angeles; Lester Holt reports on "Dateline" with reaction from fans.

Check back here for potential riot coverage.

Political Science at LBCC: Training the Next Generation of Leaders

"I love it - slouching behind his keyboard in his junior college office, hurling threats like some 1930's tough guy in a bar fight. Well, I guess that's all it takes to be a conservative intellectual."

**********

Readers might recall my post from a couple of months back: "You're a Professor, Really?"

In addition to the "I can't believe you're a professor" slur, I also get put down as "he's only a junior college professor." TBogg at Firedoglake perfected it into snark, with "JuCo Toynbee." The comment at top is from radical leftist Green Eagle, who joined the attackers during my recent go-'round at Brain Rage.

But as I've noted many times, when the leftists slam community college professors, it's a particularly good indicator of their indifference to students of lower socio-economic status. Actually, leftists are all about radical power (and not about not caring, citizenship, and community-building). You'd think leftists would be the first to respect those who work with the disadvantaged. But it's generally not the case. The "junior college" repudiation is a dime-a-dozen during the online debates.

It's funny too. There's really no better place for someone to truly experience our incredible diversity than on the average community college campus: In almost ten years, I've had battered women come to me seeking help and personal counseling. I've mentored women making the transition from welfare to work, as part of my college's workforce development programs. As the Long Beach Press-Telegram reported, "The college serves about 530 such students per semester and has the capacity to serve 1,500 per year." A couple of summers ago, I had a rebellious classroom. It was a difficult situation. A lot of students were unruly, and management was an issue. A student came to my office to share her thoughts. She felt for me. She was a black woman who had lost her daughter to violence. Her baby was strangled at five years old. She was coming back to college after years of alcohol and drug abuse. Our lectures and discussions on civil rights were thrilling. She felt empowered. She was happy to be clean and getting back on track. I almost cried after hearing her story. And she was only unusual in that she openly shared her experiences with me. Lord knows how many of the other stories of hardship and trauma that I've never heard about.

Our demographics are as diverse as anywhere in the country. A 2001 study found Long Beach to be the nation's most diverse city "in a ranking of the 65 biggest cities in the United States." And a U.S. Census report in 2004 found "that a roughly 13-square-mile area of southern Los Angeles County from North Long Beach to Bellflower to Artesia is among the most linguistically varied swaths of territory in the nation." It's not unusual, during classroom discussions on immigration reform, for students to regale first-hand stories on the entrenched poverty and socio-economic islolation found in the region's unassimilated ethnic enclaves.

I'm getting more and more veterans from our recent wars as well. I couple of semesters ago I had a student who did two tours in Iraq. He went back for his second tour after recoving from a grenade attack that blew off his left calf. THESE GUYS LOVE MY TEACHING. One of my former students is a regular commenter at my blog. I mentioned him previously, in my post on Glenn Beck's recent "survival scenarios" (see, "Worst Case Scenario? Preparing for Anarchy in America").

Sadly, many students come to my classes unable to read. My second year teaching I had a young woman - she looked like she could have been a sorority hottie - who could not write a single paragraph on a page. I asked her what happened. Was she getting help? She said her parents were longshoremen. She came from a Long Beach white working-class background. I sat her down in all seriousness and indicated that she was nowhere near college reading and writing ability. I made sure she was in touch with the appropriate staff on campus, so she'd have the remedial resources to help her succeed. Every now and then I get term papers from students who have obviously never written a formal report. They can't perform basic word processing functions, such as formatting double-spacing. I've had some students - of all racial backgrounds - turn in papers handwritten - and these are formal writing assignments. Not only did they not have access to a PC at home, they simply hadn't used one before.

Faculty who work with student populations like this are more than teachers. For many students, community college professors are the most highly trained people they've met. Most students don't address me as "Dr. Douglas," because they have no idea what that professional title really means; nor do they understand the kind of educational training required for the doctoral degree. It's meaningless for most entering community college students. They call me "Mr. Douglas," and that's perfectly fine, respectful even.

It's really an honor to work with such a population, and often in the daily grind of teaching I forget that. I get tired of discipline and classroom management issues, and that's not to mention the same kind of apathy and entitlement that we find in classrooms across the country, irrespective of income or race.

So I simply rejoice when I get heartwarming e-mails from students who have been accepted to university political science or graduate programs. I received an e-mail today from a student a few years back who was planning on transferring to Cal State Long Beach. But after her experience in my class, and in the classes of a number of other outstanding faculty mentors, she raised her sights on transfer to USC. She took a double major there, in political science and social policy. She contacted me in June for a letter of recommendation, and I got this in my inbox this afternoon (shared by permission):

Good Afternoon Dr. Douglas,

I hope you had a wonderful weekend. I found out last Friday that I was accepted to the Master's Program at Cal State Dominguez Hills : ) Thank you very much for writing a letter of recommendation for me. I will start the program this fall.

I am super excited and grateful to have your continued support!

These notes provide the single most rewarding moments as a community college instructor. This student worked extremely hard. When she was admitted to USC, her parents wrote a personal letter to the college adminstration and faculty mentors to thank them for helping their daughter "make it." These probably aren't the kind of stories you'd get from parents of Harvard-bound students (or Berkeley-bound super-achieving suburban high-school students, etc.).

Another student of mine is currently featured on the front of my college's webpage, at http://www.lbcc.edu/. I've uploaded the picture and copied the story below for posterity. Ashlee Redden was mentored by my colleague Paul Savoie, who is current the faculty director of the campus Honors Program. I was fortunate to have Ashlee take my American Government survey course in 2007. Ashlee also took my Introduction to World Politics course in Fall 2008. Now she's headed to UCLA for her upper division studies in political science. Ashlee wants to attend law school. She's putting herself though college, working as a waitress while attending classes in the daytime.

Ashlee's full story is below. I'm saving the entire original story from the college's website for good keeping. I'm proud of her.

I'm also proud to be teaching at Long Beach City College. I'm proud of the work that I do. And I'm proud of my dedicated colleagues.

My political science department webpage is here. I hope readers will keep this story in mind next time you hear the left's Democratic-elitists attack those "faux intellectuals" teaching at "junior college"!

**********

Long Beach City College Professor Paul Savoie considers the
LBCC Honors Program to be the ultimate lifetime warranty. "As the coordinator of the honors program, I tell my graduating students to think back to their Long Beach City College experience," said Savoie. "Throughout their time at LBCC it's an exciting dimension of their personal and educational lives, and while they all face bumps in the road, they learn how to overcome the obstacles here, so that is something they will use the rest of their lives."

Recent honors program graduate Ashlee Redden readily agrees with Savoie. "The honors program helps all of their students," she said. "The program gave us so many opportunities, and the staff and faculty were always there to help with a smile." Redden is now heading to UCLA this Fall.

More about the LBCC Honors Program If you plan to transfer to any competitive university, your first step should be to apply to the LBCC Honors Program. For over a quarter of a century, high-achieving LBCC students have flocked to the college's Honors Program for the intellectual challenge it offers. Students who complete the program earn priority consideration for admission to select public and private universities. Generous financial aid packages are available to those students who qualify based on outstanding scholastic performance and financial need. Participating private schools have set up scholarships available only to Honors transfer students who meet the selection criteria.
HONORS CLASSES
Honors courses are specifically designed to build critical and creative thinking skills through an intimate, interactive classroom experience. Students receive training in reading, writing, analysis and synthesis, boosting their readiness for success in upper division courses.
APPLICATION PROCESS
In order to enroll in Honors classes, the student is required to complete the application process. For the Spring semester, applications must be received by November 30, 2008 (before November 1, 2008, for admission decision before beginning of registration). To qualify, all students must place in English 1 (through the LBCC Assessment test), and need to meet one of the following criteria:

1. For new students, a sliding scale of grades (overall GPA) and test scores (SAT or ACT or equivalency):
   GPA SAT TOTAL* OR ACT COMPOSITE*
   4.0 800 20
   3.9 850 21
   3.8 900 22
   3.7 950 23
   3.6 1000 24
   3.5 1050 25
   3.4 1100 26
   3.3 1150 27
   3.25 1175 27
   Students who believe they are eligible for the Program based on other criteria may make an appointment to see the Honors Coordinator after filling out the application. However, students must be close to the minimum requirements based on the SAT/ACT and GPA, have excellent letters of recommendation, and offer academic evidence showing why they believe they should be allowed to enroll in the Honors Program.
2. For continuing students, 3.00 overall GPA in 12 or more Long Beach City College units (courses numbered 1- 99) or by petition through the Honors Program Office (L203A).
3. Classes are also open to honors students who are members of the Lakewood, Millikan, and Wilson High Schools' Distinguished Scholars Program, and/or are high school seniors, and have met the qualifications for the Honors Program.

To receive an application, call (562) 938-4354 or visit http://honorsprogram.lbcc.edu/application.html

Visit the Honors website at http://honorsprogram.lbcc.edu/application.html

Miliband Calls Detentions 'Unacceptable and Unjustified': Protests Will Not End in Iran, Says Mousavi; White House Caves on Israel Green Light!

The British government is speaking firmly against the actions of the Tehran regime. From the BBC, "Iran Frees Eighth Embassy Worker." Neoconservative Foreign Secretary David Miliband warns, "There is no place for this sort of intimidation or harassment":

Also, from May this year, "David Miliband 'Queries' Barack Obama's Iran Policy."

Plus, this just in from the Washington Post, "Mousavi: Iran Protests 'Will Not End'":

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, appearing in public for the first time in nearly three weeks, vowed Monday that protests against the disputed reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "will not end" and predicted that the new government would face problems in the future because it lacks legitimacy.

And here's this from Laura Rosen at The Cable, "No Change in Iran Policy, White House Insists":

As White House and Office of the Vice President aides formed a united front against widespread media speculation about a change in policy signaled by Vice President Joseph Biden's statement on a Sunday news show that Israel is a "sovereign nation" that could "determine for itself" how to deal with threats from Iran, analysts said that Israel may be wary of any such green light in any case.

In e-mails and phone calls today, administration officials insisted that Biden's comments were neither a signal of any change in policy, nor any sort of freelancing. Asked if Biden's remarks might have been part of an intentional messaging campaign to step up pressure on Iran to negotiate over its nuclear program, officials gave an emphatic "no." But for all that, the remarks were widely seen both in Washington and abroad as a message intended less for Jerusalem than for Tehran.

Israel's "biggest nightmare" is that one day the U.S. government "‘would call it and say 'OK guys, take care of it,'" said Tel Aviv University Iran expert David Menashri in a call Monday arranged by the Israeli Policy Forum, a U.S. nonprofit organization that supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right to give Obama until the end of the year to see if engagement with Iran was succeeding before taking matters into his own hands, Biden said, "Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." Repeated follow-up questions from Stephanopoulos elicited similar responses.

Some in the [Israeli] media are portraying [Biden's comments] as a 180-degree switch and as an indication that the administration is beginning to realize that 'engagement' may not work," said former Israeli Consul General to the United Nations Alon Pinkas. "That it is absolutely NOT a change, and if anything, it should be interpreted as a bad sign rather than a positive encouragement."

Biden's message "is the absolute worst-case scenario from Israel's policy-planning perspective," Pinkas elaborated. "'We will not prevent' means the U.S. will neither support nor encourage [Israeli attacks on Iran] or in other words, 'Do what you think is appropriate, but bear the consequences.'"

Although Israeli officials have expressed unending skepticism about the Obama administration's intentions to try to engage with Iran, and are often seen as chafing against Washington, Israel has conducted an intensive campaign over the past several years to make Iran's nuclear program an international rather than just an Israeli problem.
The reason, explains Georgetown University's Daniel Byman, is that Israel doesn't want to take on Iran by itself. "Militarily, this is a difficult operation," Byman said Monday, noting that Iran's nuclear program is widely dispersed, compared with Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israel struck in 1981. "This is much farther geographically, and that means planes can't loiter as long. They would [presumably] be flying over air space [in Iraq] controlled by the United States. You have to put together a strike package that's much more difficult. It also requires superb intelligence that may be lacking."

"There was no intention to change the position, and nothing the vice president said in any way indicates a change in U.S. position," said a White House official of Biden's remarks Sunday. "What he said and what [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael] Mullen said taken together reflect our position: Israel is a sovereign nation, Israel is an ally and Israel has a right to defend itself and other countries cannot dictate how it defends itself. That being said, it would not be helpful if Israel were to act against Iran." Any interpretation that Biden's remarks signaled a change in U.S. policy is "spin," he added.

Biden did, however, strike a different tone when answering a similar question back on April 7. Asked if he were concerned that Netanyahu might strike Iranian nuclear facilities, Biden told CNN: "I don't believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that. I think he would be ill advised to do that."

How to account for the seeming discrepancy? "Any tonal difference is not intentional at all," the White House official said.

Did Biden coordinate with the White House to pressure Iran to respond to the still-outstanding offer of talks with Washington? Again, the answer from the White House was no.

Washington foreign-policy hands, however, were skeptical that the message was not quite deliberate ...

More at the link.

Also, Christopher Hitchens, "Did the Toppling of Saddam Hussein Lead to Recent Events in Iran?" (via Memeorandum).

See my earlier report, "Update Iran: Executions Accelerate as General Srike Looms; Protesters Plead to West, Washington Sends Conflicting Signals!"

Leftist Haters Sink to Depths as Tea Party Movement Shines

Michelle Malkin received this "hate-tweet" from Jessi Ballard:

But the big news is that the tea parties keep getting bigger and bigger. Some of Saturday's rallies were the largest this year by far.

Recall my first-hand reporting on the April 15th tea parties. The enthusiasm then was phenomenal, but we didn't see a 15,000 turnout for any one event, much less 37,000.

The July 4th events were quite a success. The leftist media and the radical netroots wish otherwise, of course. Check out the spin at the Dallas Morning News: Tea Party Protest at Southfork Ranch Falls Short of Estimated 50,000 Attendees."

Right. Harebrained leftists can only pray for a conservative implosion.

See also Michelle's post, "Video: Sen. Cornyn Gets an Earful," via Memeorandum.

Update Iran: Executions Accelerate as General Srike Looms; Protesters Plead to West, Washington Sends Conflicting Signals!

Atlas Shrugs has the latest report on the "new phase of the revolution" in Iran, "Crushing the Revolution Day 24 Iranian Revolutionary Guard Takes Control."

Also, Nice Deb's got the latest in the Tehran regime's executions, "34 More People Hanged In Iran, Many of Them Dissidents."

And we're seeing the regime adopt an increasingly belligerent line, "Iran Warns West Against Interference." Hardliners continue their propaganda efforts on the death of Neda Soltan, "Iran Police Chief Says Interpol Remarks Distorted." See also this breaking report: Reza Fiyouzat, "Consolidating the Electoral Coup in Iran."

But the opposition remains defiant. See, "Iranians Find New Ways to Keep Protests Alive." And it looks like a general strike will try to bring the country to a halt. Also, from the Times of London, "Iran Clerics Declare Election Invalid and Condemn Crackdown" (via Memeorandum).

Check Lara Setrakian's Twitter page for updates, and #IranElection. Many tweets plead for attention from the West. Also, "A Nobel Peace Prize for Twitter?"

Michael Ledeen provides some analysis, "The Storm Ahead":

The Iranian tyrant, Ali Khamenei, told his cluster of top advisers two days ago that it was time to totally shut down the protests, and he ordered that any and all demonstrators, regardless of their status, be arrested (although there is no longer room for new prisoners in Tehran’s jails; they are now using sports arenas as holding areas). He further ordered that all satellite dishes be taken down (good luck with that one; there are probably millions of them in Tehran alone). He ordered that the crackdown be done at night, to avoid all those annoying videos. By Sunday night, hundreds of new arrests had been made, including the regime’s favorite targets: students, intellectuals, and journalists.

His deadline: July 11th. He told his minions that if that were accomplished, the rest of the world would come crawling to him.

He may be right about most of the rest of the world, which has distinguished itself by its fecklessness, but he is certainly not right about his own people, who have sabotaged a major petroleum pipeline in Lurestan, and who are planning to go on strike in the next few days. I don’t know the provenance of the people who hit the pipeline (perhaps the fact that the political desk of the Tehran Times reported it is significant), but calls for strikes, building towards a big demonstration on July 9th, come from Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami.

Mousavi got a big boost over the weekend from an important group of senior clerics in the holy city of Qom. They branded the “elections” and the new government that will shortly be sworn in, as illegitimate. This is a serious matter, leading Stanford’s Professor Abbas Milani to say “This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic.” They are also explicitly siding with Mousavi, who released a detailed critique/expose of the fraud that confirmed Ahmadinezhad in office.
So Khamenei is under pressure, and he is not well equipped to deal with it. He has a serious cancer, and takes opiates to mitigate the pain. People around him are whispering that his decisions are poorly reasoned and often impulsive, and some of those close to him, including his son, are apparently issuing orders in his name. This sort of rumor is devastating for the sort of personal rule upon which the Islamic Republic rests. We’ll see in the coming days if the Mousavi forces are able to maintain and increase the pressure, and how Khamenei and his henchmen respond.

At the moment, there is evidence of some panic, as Iranian leaders are exporting their wealth.

Meanwhile, the American Government was sending conflicting signals to Tehran ....

More at the link.

Also, The Hashmonean, Obama vs The World: UK, France, Germany, Israel, Gulf States & Blogger Question Hope & Change."

Rolling updates throughout the day. Check Atlas Shrugs as well.

Where is the U.S. Ideologically?

One of the biggest netroots memes we saw after last year's election was the pushback against the idea of America as a "center-right nation." Radicals beat back against that line as if their life depended on it.

Here's this from Firedoglake, for example:

The Republicans are a hard-right party in a center-left country, which leaves them with two options: They can move left (not happening), or they can have their media friends bray about how America is a center-right nation until Obama and the Democrats move right to join them. I have a sinking feeling that that might actually work...

Here's Chris Bowers just after President Obama took office:

We have spent so long living under a government that was dominated by the right-wing of the Republican Party, that we are still having a difficult time coping with the new political reality. The right-wing is no longer the problem. The so-called "moderates" in Congress are.

Hubris, I guess?

President Obama obviously doesn't think the country's so center left (which explains his wimpiness on DADT, for example). Obama hammered the netroots hordes last week for eating their own, and Jane Hamsher responded with characteristic defiance, "Will MoveOn Cave To Obama’s Pressure?"

It's kind of funny, really. My sense is that once hardline radicals found a sympathetic Democrat in power, they thought they'd captured their own administration.

In any case, new polling data out today should help put things in perspective. Sean Trende has a full analysis at "What Emerging Progressive Majority?"

He builds on Gallup's new survey analysis out today, "Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving?"

I'll just quote the introduction. My real interest is to see the reaction on the left now that their balloon's popped:

Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

More on the 'Mystery of Sarah Palin'

The New York Times reports, "Legal Bills Swayed Palin, Official Says" (via Memeorandum).

That makes sense. There is no comparable episode of political demonization in recent American history.

Recall yesterday, Violet at The Reclusive Left went a long way toward capturing the left's partisan hatred of Sarah Palin (see, "Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin"). Her case was objectively clear. But that didn't stop Barbara O'Brien from attempting a decidedly whacked Buddhist pop-psychology denial of Palin derangement syndrome, "Projections, Hallucinations, and Sarah Palin":

Many on the Right took offense at the assumption that she left the governorship because she was about to be hit with criminal charges. Frankly, that assumption gave her credit. It ascribed a solid, grown-up (if not pretty) reason for bailing out on the governorship. If she is not leaving for any reason other than what she gave in her speech — good luck finding a reason in that incoherent mess of a speech — then she’s a ditz. With sprinkles, whipped cream and a cherry on top.

Whether she’s “dumb” I cannot say. She probably does have considerable native intelligence or she wouldn’t have gotten as far as she got. However, she shares with our recent president George W. Bush a pathological incuriousity about the world. During the 2008 presidential campaign she revealed more than once that her knowledge of how the federal government works, including what a vice president does, barely rose to the level of “superficial” ....

As for the real Sarah Palin, she may be neither stupid nor corrupt. My suspicions are that the adulation of the extremist Right has unhinged her, and brought out the worst in her, and had she not come to the nation’s attention she would simply have been a reasonably average governor of Alaska. If I’m right, the best thing she could do for herself is to drop out of public life and try to remember who she is.

There's really not much new in that, but interesting to see the comparison to G.W. Bush. Charles Krauthammer might have some real psychiatric insight in to that.

But we do see a bit of a novel attack on Sarah Palin in Freddie deBoer's pleading economic resentment this morning. Freddie is responding to Ross Douthat's argument that "Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard." Freddie screams in exasperation, "are you kidding me?":

So why does Ross say it? I imagine it has to do with this strange notion that we have floating in our national consciousness, that there are cultural cues which can somehow trump the financial realities of class. Yes, there are codes that we use to vaguely stratify people that aren’t based entirely on net worth or income. But they only work alongside good old fashioned monetary elitism. Ask anyone from a fallen house of aristocracy or some previously wealthy entrepreneur laid low. The right clothes, an accent and swagger can’t actually make up for not having the coin. It’s a consistent failure of American insight, or an artifact of the hyperactive American imagination, that we suppose that values can outmuscle value. In the actual day to day work of their lives, in what they actually do and the problems they experience and what they do and don’t have to worry about, I’d wager the Palins have much more to do with some affluent liberal black family from Bedford Stuyvesent than they do an impoverished white conservative Appalachian family. Not being able to afford medicine when the baby is sick can’t be duplicated with cultural cues. Being short when property taxes come due can’t be shared due to overlapping ideology. Having to choose between the phone bill and the food bill is the kind of shared experience that creates a fraternity religious affinity can’t begin to approach. We like to pretend that it’s not true, but in this country the bottom line is the bottom line.

Actually, I really do think Ross Douthat's making primarily a cultural argument.

I mean, who can forget how many times Sarah Palin was excoriated for her working-class eduational credentials? For example, "Sarah Palin Revels in Being Unqualified," and "Sarah Palin’s College Daze." But see also, a little more broadly, "The Scariest Thing About Sarah Palin Isn't How Unqualified She Is - It's What Her Candidacy Says About America."

But, natually, Freddie deBoer represents the best in hard-left economic class warfare. Recall his comments after last month's Ricci decision on affirmative action:

I am afraid for my country. This country has a permanent black underclass; Hispanic economic mobility is not much better. Decades of affirmative action have done little to fix that. Now, we appear ready to abandon those attempts to level the playing field entirely. Of course, principles and ideals are important. But my question is open, and I apply it to the most thoughtful opponents of affirmative action and the most rabid and unthinking alike: what are the effects, for our country, of a permanent racial achievement divide? And can we reasonably expect to maintain a peaceful and just society with such a gap between the races?

It's hard to respond to that kind of utter wailing (seen in both of Freddie's essays, actually). His writing is a good indication of how enraged leftists become at a traditional woman like Sarah Palin. That resentment stems from a hatred of the rugged individualism and self-sufficiency she represents, and how she reflects the best in American conservatism.

Will Jackson Fans Riot Tuesday? Just 17,500 Tickets for 1.6 Million Fans; City Will Pick Up Security Tab! (UPDATE: Tickets on eBay)

The Los Angeles Times had this report yesterday, "L.A. Aims to Limit Jackson Crowd."

Here's this story from KABC-TV Los Angeles, "1.6M Jackson Fans Await Word on Tickets." Police are concerned. I won't be surprised if there's unrest. More at Los Angeles Times, "1.6 Million Seek Michael Jackson Memorial Tickets."

Interest is phenomenal. The event website is said to have received 500 million hits. Tickets are free. Officials are taking strict measures to prevent scalping. Along with a ticket, guests must also be wearing the red wristbands issued for registrants.

The City of Los Angeles will cover the costs for security, Los Angeles Times, "Councilwoman Says City Will Pick Up Police Costs for Michael Jackson Memorial

See also, Los Angeles Times, "Police: Michael Jackson's Family Planning Private Ceremony at Los Angeles Cemetery."

Added: "Jackson Vouchers Already Appearing on eBay: One Seller Requesting $20,000 for Passes to Tuesday’s Memorial Service."

Listings for tickets to the Michael Jackson memorial service at Los Angeles’ Staples Center on Tuesday appeared on eBay and Craigslist as soon as winners were notified on Sunday.

One eBay listing asked for a Buy It Now price of $20,000, while other prices varied. Buyers and sellers must act fast, as winners must pick up their tickets Monday at an off-site distribution center. At that time, the wristband will be placed on their wrists ...

Sarah Palin Drives Left Insane (And Even Feminists Can't Figure It Out)

Via Mememorandum, here's another Wonkette screed, "Insane Sarah Palin, Late At Night On July 4, Threatens To Sue Entire Internet, Via Twitter":

It is unwise to dwell on the past or be obsessed with an unknown future, but we should all appreciate the wonderful present — a present in which Sarah Palin is nothing more than a punchline. Because, had things gone very differently in November, this dangerous delusional numbskull would’ve been just an Ambien overdose away from the presidency.

William Jacobson gave a pretty good account of Palin derangement earlier, "It Always Has Been About Trig." But check out the Reclusive Leftist's post, "Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin":

Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party’s presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post. That amazes me. Aren’t you even interested in who she really is? I want to ask. She’s only the second woman on a presidential ticket in our whole fricking history!

But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)

Here's more:

I know for a fact that the feminists spreading the lies about Palin knew they were spreading lies. Not to tell tales out of school, but: they knew. They were supplied with the correct information, and they chose to lie anyway. Why?

Was it just about electing Obama? Were feminists simply willing to commit any slander necessary to elect the Chosen One? That’s a likely explanation, but here again: we’re talking about feminists. Feminists doing this — slandering a woman, and doing so in unmistakably sexist terms. After all, caricaturing Palin as a purity queen (Bible Spice, Sexy Puritan) is just the flip side of caricaturing her as a porn queen. As I’ve said before, it’s like the NAACP sponsoring a lynching. The mind boggles.

Even more mind-boggling are the attacks that don’t even bother with false claims about policy or beliefs, but just go straight for free-floating misogynistic rage. Ridiculing her hair, clothes, makeup, voice, body, womb. “Sarah Palin is a cunt” — good one! Calling her a bimbo — good one! Calling her a fucking whore — good one! Fantasizing about her being gang-raped — good one! And all this from feminists. Forget the NAACP sponsoring a lynching; this is like the NAACP ripping off their masks to reveal that they’ve been replaced by white supremacist pod people.

Yes, but why the hatred, really?

Check the link to find out!

Also, YidWithLid, "Palin Derangement Syndrome On Sunday's Talk Shows."

Neda Was Christian!

Pamela Geller is hot on this story, "IRANIAN REVOLUTION DAY 23: Neda Soltani, The Symbol of Iranian Resistance, was a Christian":

In the media's ongoing campaign to institute the agenda of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and advance Islam, it has been previously withheld from the public that Neda Soltani was a Christian ... That Neda was a Christian is ample proof that everyone in Iran who took to the streets was marching for liberty and one man one vote. How vile to imply that millions marched for the inside politicking of Islamic cleric rule. Her religion flies in the face of every cold blooded pundit who has attempted to dismiss this historic movement as simply more sharia in shades of green.

Updates at Atlas Shrugs.

More on Iran at CNN and Sundries Shack. Also, has Ahmadinejad found a sucker for negotiation in President Obama? (Hat Tip: Memeorandum.)

**********

Added: Pamela gets attacked for her Neda post. From Bruce Bartlett to Pamela in an e-mail exchange, "You are a total fucking asshole."

See, "Don't Buy His Book!"

Speculation on Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin's surprise resignation is still leading the news cycle this weekend. Check Lucianne, Memeorandum, and RealClearPolitics for news and analysis. Also, the Washington Post, "Weary Palin Sought to Regain Control."

Plus, C. Edmund Wright, "Palin v. Pundits," and Conservatives for Sarah Palin, "Reactions Round-up." Rush Limbaugh's comments on Palin are at Radio Equalizer, "EXCLUSIVE: Rush Limbaugh Breaks Silence Over Palin Resignation" (via Memeorandum). Also, Governor Palin hits back against her attackers, "It's On!... Palin's Legal Counsel Threatens to Sue Liberal Blogs & State-Run Media For Slander."

Recall yesterday at The Fix, "Palin's 2012 Two-Step." Chris Cillizza argued that it's virtually assured that Palin will make a run for the 2012 GOP nomination. Non-stop excitement, no doubt, and my sense is that she'll remain competitive despite predictions that her resignation was a career-killer. Indeed, see John Batchelor, "How Palin's Resignation Makes Her the True Frontrunner." And Dan Riehl says, "Here Comes Sarah!"

But check Adam Graham, at Pajamas Media, "2012: Myths and Misconceptions."

Personally, I'm happy no matter what Sarah Palin does, as long as she keeps her pledge to seek change from the outside (which is a pledge not to retire from politics altogether). Recall my initial theory, however, as the news broke: I suggested that 2016 was Palin's best shot, "today we might have seen Palin's 'you won't have Sarah Palin to kick around' moment. If she stays on the sidelines in '12 AND if Barack Obama is reelected to a second term, look for Sarah Palin to be the prohibitive frontrunner in 2016."

Compare that to Johanna Neuman's post, "Palin's Resignation Speech Has Shades of Nixon's 1962 Concession Address":

... Palin's hastily announced press conference also had all the earmarks of Richard Nixon's famous concession speech in 1962, after he lost the campaign for California governor to Democrat Pat Brown. Nixon's rant was also a last-minute affair. Reporters had been told that Nixon -- a former congressman and senator who served as Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice president from 1952 to 1960 and lost the 1960 presidential race to John F. Kennedy -- would not be making a public appearance.

Instead, Nixon surprised even his staff by taking the microphone and, at the end of a long, rambling, 16-minute discourse on national and state politics, he dramatically left the stage.

I leave you gentleman now and you will write it. You will interpret it. That's your right. But as I leave you I want you to know — just think how much you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference and it will be one in which I have welcomed the opportunity to test wits with you.

Like Nixon, Palin seemed fraught with emotion. Like Nixon, she seemed angry at her critics ....

Of course to the surprise of his detractors, Nixon recovered. He spent the next six years stumping the country, piling up chits from grateful politicians who benefited from his endorsements, chits he cashed in during his successful 1968 run for the presidency.

For electoral reasons, I like Palin in 2016 better than 2012; and as we can see, that scenario certainly has historical precedent.

**********

Added: And the Los Angeles Times might be reading my blog!

Los Angeles Times: Tea Parties are 'Un-American'

Glenn Reynolds has posted rolling updates with pictures and links to tea party blogging from around the country. His latest update is here. But see his post yesterday as well, "READERS ARE SENDING PHOTOS," and the reactions at Memeorandum.

Some of the demonstrations have been massive. Recall that 15,000 attended yesterday's rallin in Tulare. Dallas also threw a huge tea party, with an estimated 5,000 people in attendance. See Nice Deb as well, "Kansas City 4th Of July Tea Party Pictures," and "Kansas City 4th Of July Tea Party Pictures, Part 2." Plus, This Ain't Hell features a nice roundup as well, "July 4th Tea Party News."

Outside some of the local new stations, there's little coverage of the events in the mainstream national dailies. As David Weigel noted earlier, "Tea Party Movement Loses Steam."

The Los Angeles Times did get a chance to attack everyday citizens as "un-American." These are people who took time away from their July 4th community and family events to protest the oppressive Obama administration in Washington. Columnist Chris Erskine spends most of his essay ridiculing local speakers as circus clowns, but he can't resist the radical smear:

It's not like Americans don't have cause for concern. The day before, the state of California began issuing IOUs. Suddenly, California seems one rusty tank from becoming a banana republic.

Thing is, we're all slicing the ham a little thinner these days -- Republicans and Democrats. Many of us, the ones who are working, don't know how long the job is going to last.

Folks without work have it far worse. They look at the calendar and wonder when . . . when will the phone ring? . . . when can I sleep through the night again without being eaten alive by worry?

Have you looked at a dollar bill lately? George Washington is weeping.

In such a climate, it strikes me as . . . well, almost un-American to be griping so vehemently about helping those less fortunate. Were this a war, we'd all dig a little deeper to buy guns and battleships.

It's not quite Janeane Garafolo (who no-showed at yesterday's Dallas tea party). But it's pretty disgusting in any case.

Tea party rallies "were planned for nearly 1,500 cities." Calling regular folks and activists "un-American" on Independence day is just plain bad form.

Check Instapundit for more. Also, Atlas Shrugs, "Tea Parties Nationwide! GO AMERICA!," Urban Grounds, "Austin Independence Tea Party Ruined by Politicians."