The description given of Iran could well be applied to the U.S. A vast majority of the people really don't care about fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, but to the executive branch they are center of the universe. The U.S. often likes to speak of its own charity, morality, and humility --- but is often the first to strike militarily, unless it is easier to strike stealthily via actions designed to "undermine" other nations. For every US official who wants 'peace' with Iran there seems to be another who hopes the Iranians will "provoke" us into kicking them in the teeth --- because it needs to be done, regardless of what all those pacifist pinkos think. etc. etc. etc.

I would suggest that Iran poses a dilemma for the U.S. precisely because it raises very real issues about the role of "sovereignty" in our international relations. For a long time the U.S. believed that what other nations did, within their borders and/or to their own people, was their business -- not ours. There were always counterexamples, but the general rule was that we 'recognized' the right of foreign nations to run themselves as they saw fit -- and expected them to treat us the same. We didn't "interfere" in their internal matters, they didn't interfere in ours. On example that comes to mind, Teddy Roosevelt refusing to publicly chide Russia over anti-Jewish pogroms, on the grounds that "internal foibles" were not matters of interstate relations.

As we became a "superpower", however, we began to believe that "sovereignty" was a one-way street. We were free to interfere with other nations -- with speeches, mass media, sanctions, covert actions, etc. but they had dare not interfere with us. We feel absolutely no compuncture about publicly budgeting millions of dollars to "destabilize" Iran, but if Iran took out just one television ad in a major U.S. market criticizing U.S. foreign policy --- actually, we won't let it happen.

The U.S. justified this "one way street" method during the Cold War by simply declaring that communist nations were 'different' and that our intervention in them was for the good, their intervention in ours was for the bad. But Iran is a stickier issue -- it is a democracy. Far from a perfect democracy, perhaps hedging towards totalitarian rule at the moment, but nonetheless with fiercely contested elections (we didn't bother to riot over Bush in Florida -- is that a sign of how 'cowed' Americans are?) and with diverse views held across large populations. Even if we *could* intervene in their political process, *should* we? Well, on one hand we've intervened in the elections of even our 'friends' (money illegally funneled to Australia in the 70s, for example, to swing unions), so why not of our not-so-friends the Iranians?

Let's face it, Obama holding up a picture of 'Neda' is probably going to sell about as well as an Ayatollah holding up a picture of an American without healthcare, or one who has been wrongly executed, etc. etc. Do we really believe that "we" can run Iran better than the Iranians? It is one thing to try and set up some way to deal with whomever their eventual leadership is -- It is quite another to try and intervene to get to pick that leadership in the first place. In the current U.S. system "destabilization" is popular with two very diverse camps of 'interventionists' --- those who are military/realpolitic minded, who see it as an extension of war, and the 'soft/liberal' types who see it as a way to help the downtrodden. As you might expect, when two such diverse camps agree on a general policy (intervention) the end result is usually foreign policy disaster (though the fact that two usually opposed domestic camps agree makes their view very palatable to a U.S. president).

Besides, according to most available polling data and most Iran watchers I've heard, Iran's nuclear power program is extremely popular with the large majority of Iranians. They may love Ayatollahs, they may hate Ayatollahs, but they identify nuclear technology (certainly power, probably weapons) as being a key to being a modern/powerful state. Suppose we elect a true "democratic" Iranian president who does what the people want...... and accelerates their nuclear program? What then?

A little turgid but good analysis.

Especially sound in this context was the appreciation that the Iranian people generally support the nuclear program.

A little note on TR. Especially in his later years, he was a fairly rabid anti-Semite himself. Of course, there were no Dutch conclaves in Russia for us to test his even-handedness.

Now for part two of my response.

You have ably represented that strain of American diplomacy which devolves back to Thomas Jefferson--"the United States recognizes de facto governments"--and its maladjusted brother, isolationism.

It was not long thereafter that this changed dramatically with the advent of the Monroe Doctrine. Since 1821 there have been as many as 150 interventions in foreign nations, depending on who is doing the counting and what their standards are. Most have been in Latin America and Asia, and in this last region we could include the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh, duly elected President of Iran, in 1953. Of course, this would fall under the rubric of anti-Communism. No matter what it is called, the Iranians have never forgotten it.

In any case, long before the end of so-called American isolationism in WWI, our history of intervention is long and detailed. After the Monroe Doctrine established the notion of American hegemony in the Americas (excepting Canada) American troops and gunboats embarked on numerous missions in the Americas, a foreign policy aspect which expanded with the institution of the Open Door Policy.

When the Great Depression of 1893-96 proved to American industrialists that Western expansion could no longer be relied on as an outlet for excess marginal production, the basis for commercial profits, they looked elsewhere to sell their goods. The Open Door policy was intended to force governments in Latin America and Asia to "open their doors" to American production or face the consequences. To assure the success of this policy, no kind of intervention was ruled out, including the installation of proxy governments. Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy was an integral part of the Open Door.

American adventures in Asia and various types of economic warfare were one of the reasons the Japanese turned against the U.S. between World Wars I and II.

In addition, while we can say that all our efforts in and against the Soviet Union, from the civil war 1919-22 up through aid to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980's, were to combat Communism, it has not always been the case. We failed to rein in the merchant bank Kuhn, Loeb & Co., who were bankrolling the Bolsheviks through the Rothschilds.

It's not so simple as "two nations" nor anything new.