Foreign Policy

Third of three essays describing the roots of the Iranian crisis, with links to the first two parts. From part 2:

"The entire regime change operation we are seeing unfold in the Middle East is a veritable laundry list of neoconservative goals as outlined in the “Clean Break” document, as well as in the agenda of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), Bill Kristol’s vehicle for injecting a strong dose of interventionism into the incoming Bush administration. Aside from calling for regime change in practically every Middle Eastern state — all this prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks — PNAC’s proposal for tripling the military budget was prefaced by a yearning for “a new Pearl Harbor,” which would wake the American people up to the imperative of American military supremacy at any cost. "

No wonder so many people are skeptical of the 9/11 story.

"The “Clean Break” scenario envisioned the overthrow of Iraq’s Ba’athist regime as a prerequisite for Israel’s success, and the Israel lobby, in concert with the neoconservatives, played a key role in dragging us into that disastrous war of aggression. Yet that was just the beginning of the road they wanted to take us on, and we are halfway down it already. As Ariel Sharon told a delegation of American congressmen in 2003, after Iraq must come Iran, Libya, and Syria: "

Obama is following the Israeli/neo-con playbook just like Bush. From the third part:

"During the cold war, Israel was a mixed case: a reliable ally whose friendship cost us support in the Arab world and gave the Soviets a wedge to extend their influence. Now that we are fighting an apparently eternal "war on terrorism," Israel has become an unmitigated liability. If we must fight a war against over a billion Muslims, then we will surely lose: the only hope is to somehow split the Muslim world, and rally the moderates against the radical Islamists of bin Laden’s sort."

I think a position of neutrality would do that. If the US became neutral, Arab countries would go back their internal squabbles.

"The Obama administration has taken this Muslim-centric strategy one step further, however, and is openly allying with what can only be described as radical Islamists one step removed from al-Qaeda. The idea is to co-opt and defuse Islamist movements which Washington sees as the inevitable inheritors of the decaying Sunni monarchies that are bound to fall sooner rather than later. "

This is just as bad, if not worse. We should stay neutral.

"According to my theory of international relations, which I call "libertarian realism," this is the origin of all foreign policy decisions by the leaders of nations: these decisions, like all other political decisions, are made in order to preserve and extend the power, wealth, and prestige of these leaders and their supporters. Therefore such questions as whether or not Iran really is intent on building nuclear weapons and deploying them against Israel are irrelevant. Objective facts don’t enter into the equation: it’s all about creating a narrative suitable for domestic consumption. "

It's always about looting. Remember the whole point of government is for a small group of people to advance their personal economic interests through coercion so they have to do the hard work of producing wealth and exchanging it with others in a system of voluntary exchange. I'm skeptical about the prediction that oil prices will skyrocket. We heard the same predictions before the first Gulf war and before the invasion of Iraq, but the prices never skyrocketed. Saudi Arabia and other allies didn't let that happen. I think the same will be true if the US attacks Iran.

The US inherited the British empire.

"America can’t be blamed for many of these social and political problems, but it is not doing enough to alleviate them. Instead, Washington clings to its overseas empire with the same tenacity as Britain’s imperialists at a time when the United Kingdom’s postwar economy lay shattered and drowning in debt. Britain could no longer afford its globe-girding empire then, and America can no longer afford its global imperium today. Both Raj’s had feet of clay."

The government should not do anything to alleviate them. The government is not a benevolent institution. But free trade, as opposed to trade managed by government, would benefit the Middle East and America both.