Ummm, Steve: Arabs are true Semites. Israel is not a democracy it's a theocracy run for the most part by Jewish converts, the Ashkenazi, and Iran is no threat to the United States.

But -- guaranteed --if the US or her pseudo-ally Israel (the *ally* that sells our military technology and intelligence secrets to the highest bidder, the *ally* that has made us hated throughout the ENTIRE world, not just the Muslim world for our support of her state-terrorist tactics, and the *ally* who is bankrupting our economy to fight her wars) attacks Iran....

The entire world is toast.

And again, I must ask, why exactly should the Arabs and the Persians pay for THE Holocaust (the only one that has ever happened, wouldn't ya know...?)

I'm with the President of Iran -- move Israel to Germany and get our troops and our tax dollars out of the genocide in the Middle East and let's try talking to the Arabs for a change as opposed to letting pro-Israel fanatics dictate our foreign policy.

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" should be required reading for every American student, and should be posted on lamp posts and passed out as flyers much like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" -- it's that important for Americans to realize what their children are dying and will die for in the blood bath that will be the third World War -- another country called Israel.

One that has never been an ally but will be our downfall.

Also see...

Madeleine Albright DESTROYS Bush

Oh, please -- this is the same Madeleine Albright when asked if the sanctions against Iraq, which killed between 500,000-1.5 million people, were worth it said "yes."

An article in the American Conservative successfully eviscerates Hillary Clinton and her war-mongering as well.

It's time we take back America from the Israel-firsters (which would include the entire U.S. Congress -- throw all the bums out) then we can tackle our domestic problems, and there are a few million of those, with the money we save from not fighting Israel's wars.

I am not an economist though I did play one in school ;-) It would be cheaper to buy off the Arabs, Persians, Afghans, etc., than to fight them, so let's do exactly that.

We'll be hugging our grandchildren rather than standing by their gravesites clutching a UsRael flag before we dig around the cemetery for wild mushrooms, edible roots or just plain old grass to eat because we spent all our money on the war that killed them.

Steve,

First, I missed the specific recommendations for "action" in this so-called "action plan". There are some warnings about certain bad ideas, but little guidance about ultimate ends, worthwhile present goals and the means to achieve them.

Second, there is no indication of any important philosophical change in the direction of foreign policy realism among people like Albright and her allies. Realism is not the same thing as a mere pragmatic course correction in full-blown Wilsonianism brought on by a chastened understanding of limits and realistic options. All strategists seek to be "pragmatic" in the sense of selceting means that are conducive to their ends. Their sense of what the most efficient and practical means are may change, but that doesn't herald a change in philosophy.

What is it about the psychology of foreign policy thinkers that accounts for their tendency to elevate the various ebbs and flows of tactical calculations to portentous differences in ideology or philosophy?

Further to Dan's point. Albright was the anti-realist when she not prevented Milosevic from cleansing Kosovo of its Albanian Muslims (without approval from the UN Security Council). She also helped orchestrate American support for Otpor against the Serbs, not all that different from what the Bushies are proposing with Iran's democrats.

And the resurgence of realism just suffered a self inflicted wound in the form of the Walt paper you described as a zinger.

I'm sure there are specific observations that lead you, Steve, to assert there are far mroe realists in among Republicans than among Democrats.

Albright's second and third points sound pretty much like what the Democratic base has been saying for years. In fact, what Albright's saying in point two (and in point three, and in the conclusion) has long been pushed by progressives -- but has always been anathema to Bush.

But you may be right. Perhaps Bush won't listen to the many, many Republican realists who counsel wisely in foreign policy matters -- just as the DLC won't listen to the many, many Democratic realist progressives who counsel equally wisely in foreign policy matters, advocating for years essentially the same position.

It's not exactly rocket science to say that "nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism." That principle has many variations -- one of which is that nothing generates strong, anti-American political movements and sentiments that feed and support radical governments more than Washington's foreign policies that deviate from, wholly invert, or fail to adhere to America's core principles.

Progressive Democrats (i.e. -- the "base" or the so-called "left") have been saying the same thing for years and years. Now, Steve, you may not know that. And the DLC may ignore that. The DLC may not know how to articulate these, um, principles.

The line about Iran's new leader merely echoes, after a lag of some-to-many years, what many have been saying on the progressive end of the spectrum. Attack a hard-liner, and you reinforce/prop up the reasons his supporters put him there in the first place. They need a hard-liner all the more in those circumstances.

The sooner you can make sure your bipartisan approach is inclusive of those realists derided as being out of the mainstream just because they actually beieve in what this country stands for, the better.

We talk a lot about how the Democrats need to embrace a plan of action and offer an alternative to what the GOP proposes, and Albright’s plan of taking on a different position in Iraq and a more effective approach in Iraq is something any Democrat with serious White House intentions in 2008 will consider. In the mean time, the major Democratic politicians, the Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s, need to convert plans like Albright’s into a platform Democrats can use in Congressional races this coming November.

I don't believe long term realism has ever won out over short term economic goals in the Middle East.

When you have a history of thousands of years, a 4 or 8 year policy is an eye blink. The US doesn't have the political institutions to establish Middle East policy that they'll respect.

And no matter what the political policy is, businesses and the military have often taken actions that completely contradict those policies through buying off governments and providing private armies.

Even with Secretary Albright's suggestions Democrats are incapable of coming together to create a unified message anyway.

So while Republican and Democraticic leaders still think US economic and military might allows it to do anything it wants, the rest of the world is pretty comfortable in the knowledge that the US can be isolated and its monetary policy is causing it to self destruct. Hence the Iran oil bourse, Chinese yuan policy, and Saudi investment changes.

I think nations like seeing the US pinned down in Iraq, Iran would move towards Democracy naturally if we'd stop attacking them, and China is playing the 100 year game and killing us with the death of 1,000 cuts. So no matter what the US does, the rest of the world is caring less every year.

In foreign policy as in politics in general nothing is ever called by its name.
Under the pretext of "spreading democracy" the real idea is to have governments favorable to us even though we no longer want them to be like the dictators we imposed and upheld in South America
Our own elections have become such a farce--money, negative ads, slander--that they are hardly an example for the world.
This "spread of democracy" is being paid a high price: our civil liberties, our currency, our credibility, our human reputation (see torture, rendition, internment) a corrupt government vaunting irresponsibility and greed.
Do those in Washington truly still believe they are leading anyone? Can they possibly imagine the world does not see the giant is wounded, a failed foreign agenda, an army exhausting itself in Iraq and if debtors prison existed we would be behind bars.
Mrs. Albright is right, before it is too late-- already there are fewer and fewer in the world listening.

The internal logic of your last line would suggest that Albright is more Republican than Democrat.

As for what is really "realistic", well, I suppose time will tell. Whether we will be told in time...that we can't tell.

As for your comment about there being "far, far more realists who are Republican than Democrat" there are two problems: (1) this administration won't listen to them and (2) they don't have the courage to speak up in the first place.

It might be wise for Washington to give up the aggressive regime change rhetorics towards Tehran. But only if it get's something in exchange. For the moment, regime change is useful as a subject for negotiations that might take place, openly or covertly.

OK Steve, this needs to be answered:

Why would you believe that our propping up of Ahmadinejad is "unwitting?" Why would Albright believe that? What's the evidence for that?

Might it not be possible that we are quite well aware of the consequences on internal Iranian politics of our external policies?

If it's only that the assumption raises too many indelicate questions, that's not sufficient grounds to dismiss it.

It simply beggars belief to suggest that we are "unwittingly" supporting the strenghtening of fundamentalist Muslim regimes. It's witting, alright. Let's talk about why it's being done.

That's Democratic to you, sir. Only Republican operatives and semi-literates use 'Democrat' as an adjective, and you're neither.

Give us all a break....please....this is the same Madeleine Albright when asked if the sanctions against Iraq, which killed between 500,000-1.5 million people, were worth it said "YES"

WHO REALLY GIVES A MONKEY SHIT WHAT SHE SAYS!!

Larry -- I guess the simple answer to your question is "I do." She has influence and if she is proposing a sensible solution, I think it deserves to be considered. Best, Steve Clemons

Sunset Prayer

Sure seems like we could have saved a lot of deaths by telling Hussein we were against Iraq invading Kuwait in the first place. Or not selling Iraq precursors to make weapons to attack Iran with. Or not putting the baathists in power.

In fact, have we ever had a Middle East policy that worked? Every time we meddle, it seems to make matters worse. What was that about being doomed to repeat history?