Rahm Immanuel, Israel, Iran

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710862759&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In summary, Rahm Immanuel tells Jewish donors that they must expect Israel to accept more peace with the Palestinians if they hope to deal with the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. Why is this significant?

He knows that between the decades-long conflict with Palestinian terrorists, and the threat of nuclear annihilation, the pro-Israel lobby would choose the latter as more significant. Playing on these fears, it would be natural for him to use them as leverage against the pro-Israel group. It's not easy to know if Rahm Immanuel is being realistic himself, or whether he is playing politics: retaining support of one (pro-Israel jews) lobby, while holding policies meant to gratify another (extreme anti-Israel left).

That's the significance. Is this an issue of the Palestinian and Iranian issues being intrinsically linked, and the White House's foreign policy reflecting this - or is it an issue of plain politics? The answer affects our foreign policy, and speaks to what solutions are best for the situation.

If this is about politics, that is unfortunate. Our foreign policy, if based on politics, must be unabashedly so. That way the public can connect its preferences to foreign actions. To ascribe some intellectually nuanced justification to what is in reality a political calculation is very harmful. Policies based on true intellectual assessments are at least consistent, and then can be rejected if consistently unsuccessful. Likewise, if policies are based on pure politics, a people can hold themselves accountable for unpopular or unsuccessful actions. Rahm's way has no accountability, and is therefore nihilistic.

But let's assume the nuanced position is the real justification for his comments. Let's assume the Obama administration believes that the Iranian nuke issue is intrinsically linked to the Palestine issue. Is this a sound position, requiring advances in the latter for advances in the former?

First, let's consider the 'realist' position. It could be that despite reality (as to the actual helpfulness of putting pressure on Israel visavis Iran), foreign nations will perceive enough 'good intentions' from an aggressive stance against Israel to support pressure against Iran. But this assumes a sort of diplomacy would work.

The fact is that all means of diplomacy short of blockade and other military responses were used against Iran during the past few years. It was only a fraudulent, deceptive national intelligence estimate (NIE) constructed by leftist anti-Bush bureaucrats in the state department in 2007 that halted this effort. The effort hadn't been working. Iran just kept dodging.

And here's the problem, let's state it clearly: Iran is currently building the materials for nuclear weapons and claiming it is for peaceful energy production - they can keep this up until they weaponize the materials - they can make enough materials for many many weapons before they need to take that step. So, by the time it's over, they might have lots and lots of weapon materials and thus weapons.

The problem is weapons development. Some claim they aren't intending to do this. If so, moot issue

- So will they make weapons? Good question, but considering belligerent rhetoric, belligerent history, and a record of inhumane terrible acts and a continued support to all kinds of terrorist groups and activities I'd say it is very possible they want to make weapons.

Assuming they want weapons, the goal is to stop them - because weapons will allow them to have their way in the Middle East, and they have stated goals of dominating the region, are a brutal theocratic intolerant totalitarian regime, have engaged in brutal wars in the past, and have stated the desire to 'wipe Israel off the map'.

So, assuming we want to stop them, any solution is valued as good if it can... stop them. Diplomacy hasn't stopped them. So why would we need the support of other nations? Maybe for military support, or approval of the use of military action.

True!

What about placating Iran by engaging in the peace process? The Arab nations could have alleviated the humanitarian crisis in Palestine long ago, and the Palestinians could help peace by rejecting the brutal, deceptive, hypocritical Hamas. Hamas has the stated goal of wiping Israel off of the map. This is similar to Hezbollah (Iran's terrorist group) and the stated goal of the rulers in Iran.

-So forcing Israel to make concessions will not help Iran make any concessions, and will only weaken Israel and America in the eyes of Iran. The only benefit is to convince other nations to be more 'okay' if America wanted to be more militarily aggressive against Iran.

Obama and the left-wing has rejected this approach. They want to talk, or they have said as much. So I think this is just politics to support the Democratic party.

IN FACT, I THINK THE ONLY ROLE OF FOREIGN POLICY IN THE DEMOCRATIC PLAYBOOK IS TO MAKE THE PARTY LOOK GOOD TO AMERICAN VOTERS SO A PERMANENT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY CAN TAKE OVER DOMESTIC ISSUES IN AMERICA.

So don't be surprised if Obama's foreign policy seems conservative and aggressive at times, and surreptitiously liberal at others. The goal is to appease voting interests and donors.

As for the Iran issue, I don't think America will ever get support for military action in Iran. Iraq proved that, the world has no stomach for any show of American power. Only if it is dressed up as purely non-American can they stomach it. Those instances involve countries with no effective militaries to speak of.

So peace must come from America and Israel, and only an aggressive but consistent foreign policy will be successful. We have a right, by virtue of our right to protect ourselves and with a clear moral sanction (by being compared to Iran), to demand that Iran prove decisively that they will not make weaponized nukes. Only by being unapologetically aggressive can we succeed in this policy.

-We cannot allow them to come anywhere near having weapons (to be used by the state or state terrorists)
-We must and have the right to be aggressive in pursuing that goal
-Our aggressiveness must be nuanced according to the above stated principles.

If an inspections regime is corrupt or ineffective, we must state why, and immediately pursue the next step. This should be our m.o.:

-Clarity in giving reasons for action, and in stating goals and expectations.
-Consistency in the above
-The willingness to be aggressive in that consistency
-The willingness to adopt more peaceful compromises if they will be reasonably successful in place of war
-The willingness to reject said compromises quickly if they fail to achieve goals.

That's it! We need to tell Iran our expectations, and what we'll do to achieve them. Then we must do it. If they are not open, and don't shut down certain facilities, we bomb

THE NEW FORMAT

From now on, the Sorenson Speaks blog will return to its roots and intended purpose!

Every day there will be two posts.

Each post will take one of the day's top issues, and discuss a solution to it.  Presumably, an issue is newsworthy because it represents a problem in society.  I, Sorenson, will address the problem and identify a solution.  In addition to, or in place of, a solution, I will identify what knowledge is necessary to solve the problem, and frame the moral essence of the problem.

Today, I will post once more with the first example of this.

Read on!