re: #165 Stanley Sea

Good read

[Embedded content]

Quite. Except that Sargent skips over one factor which (IMHO) lies in back of all the stuff he notes as lying at the back of this (Mal)Administration’s “inchoate” Iran policy.

Which is wasn’t just “hatred of Obama” or simpleminded notions of “strength” that led Trump to junk the Iran nuclear deal (though those were certainly factors), but that there was (still is) an influential faction of foreign-policy “experts” (think John Bolton) who firmly believe that there is positive political gain to be made in keeping Iran as the Axis-Of-Evil Designated Devil of world politics; that simplistic/cartoonish as that approach may be, it is still a good sell at home.

1. It provides all of those “low-information” citizens with a convenient villain (Islamist, terrorist, expansionist, “Death-To-America”-chanting, stonings-and-beheadings dictatorship, etc.) to blame for almost anything.

2. It lets the US look “right” by lining up with Israel (who view Iran as their principle threat) , and our “allies” in Saudi Arabia (who also view Iran as their major regional rival, ergo threat).

3. Maintaining the official position of Iran As International Boogeyman provides a convenient deflection for a whole range of foreign-policy criticism: as we’ve already seen, GOP assholes are already trotting out the old wheeze of “pro-Iran?” as a poke at any critics of Trump’s irresponsible warmongering.

BTW, I’m not trying to whitewash the Iranian regime: “good guys” they’re not: but it’s a good bet that more “control”/influence over their actions would be achieved (as the Obama Admin tried) by a policy of engagement, rather than knee-jerk hostility. Which seemed to be working, so it’s no wonder Trump was against it…