Losing the battle, losing the war
Has anyone else noticed that the increased rhetoric and hostility towards Iran is beginning to undermine the diplomatic efforts aimed at the Iranian nuclear program?
Is the international community looking at the Bush policy as a bigger threat than letting Iran proceed for a couple more years?
Is that part of the administration plan?
Is the international community looking at the Bush policy as a bigger threat than letting Iran proceed for a couple more years?
Is that part of the administration plan?
posted by mikevotes at
9:11 AM
8 Comments:
Is the international community looking at the Bush policy as a bigger threat than letting Iran proceed for a couple more years?
And/or, is the international community looking at the Bush administration as more ideologically entrenched -- more intransigent -- than the Iranians?
By
-epm, at 9:45 AM
The growing resistance comes from those that consider us rivals, Russia, Europe, and quietly China.
They're more than happy to see us tied wasting energy on Iran, so maybe this is just them pulling the rope.
I don't know. I've just noticed that the pressure has been slackening.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:28 AM
I'm not sure I follow, Mike. While Russia and China are obviously our rivals in nearly all thing in foreign affairs (as evident in the UN Security Council), when did Europe become our rival? Can you expand on your comments?
And as I write this, a thought pops into my mind: Is the US only a true super power when it stands on the shoulders of European support? Do we merely become a rogue nation when we stand apart from Europe?
By
-epm, at 12:00 PM
Maybe I was overly simplistic. I think you're right that Europe is not a direct rival, perhaps more of a competitor/partner.
Their interests are solely in the economic and diplomatic spheres. At this point they're not trying to be a superpower, BUT, by wearing the US out, their relative influence in world affairs grows.
The French and Germans want to be influential. They don't necessarily want the fight, but they do want to shape US approach.
They agree with the anti-nuke part of the US policy, but they don't want the US to further inflame the region threatening their oil.
And, I find your last paragraph pretty intriguing. I never really thought about the possibility of the Europeans removing that key leg of influence. Without them, even if they're neutral, the US becomes so much weaker in the international sphere. (You just phrased it so well.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 2:02 PM
Interesting. I'd have to agree with the competitor/partner description of Europe. Before the fall of the Soviet Union you could have added protectorate to the list of European attributes.
Perhaps the world is a better place with no super powers than with a lone super power. And perhaps the Europeans see the US as an un-anchored super power -- morally/ethically adrift in our execution of that power. This is what I'm talking about when I say it's not an issue of emboldening our enemies, it's alienating our allies.
I don't mind the US being taken down a notch or two with regard to our global adventures, but I'd be more comfortable if the Europeans would step up to the plate with a little more. What's the expression? "They're all sizzle and no steak." If that happens -- if the Europeans become more disciplined and effective in steering international affairs -- I think it would be a good thing for the US.
Good topic...
By
-epm, at 3:18 PM
With their current hybrid structure of EU and nations, the EU will never likely be a massive unified foreign policy military force.
(That, after all, is the US's entire point in cultivating "special relationships" with Britain and "new europe" Poland, the baltic states, etc.)
And, as for what holds back American adventurism, I don't know. The US has now entered into three unpopular wars since world war two, and each has not limited the next. We got out of Vietnam and within less than a decade, we were in Lebanon.
Given enough time, the underlying factors which drive these military adventures slowly outweigh the public's distaste for the last bad war.
The only real way that I forsee the US pulling in would be through a recognized internal collapse of some degree and sort.
Or a significant rise of another military power, but it would have to nearly dwarf the US military and I don't see that happening for a century.
(Empires die because of some combination of overextension, economic collapse and the rise of a superior rival.)
So, bottom line, as long as the US holds the number one economy and has it's strong position in technology, I don't see an end to adventurism.
(And specifically, the Euros will never coordinate enough to outstrip the US militarily.)
Just off the cuff opinion.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 5:51 PM
Yeah, that's the problem (maybe that's not exactly the right word) with EU their pretty weak on the U part. Maybe because they expended too fast, bringing in the Eastern European countries too quickly and ending up more ideologically fragmented... not that France and Britain are exactly the model of synergy.
By
-epm, at 9:10 PM
They want the economic advantages and that's why they rushed in, but the incentives on diplomacy and military....?
Not facing any real direct threat, there's no real incentive to give up the national status the majors have.
It's an ecomic union first and foremost. The Euro was really their first major activity, and it's necessity is what drove the early process.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:49 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home