The global economic crisis has revealed the folly of large U.S. budget and trade deficits, as well as of the strong dollar that makes them possible. If it is serious about recovery, the United States must balance the budget, stimulate private saving, and embrace a declining dollar.
Comments
Can Washington learn to live with an Iranian nuclear program?
Dear Mr. Procida,
Is there not an abyss between our rhetoric and the facts as they stand? Recent North Korea tests might well have been an [brazen admittedly] attempt to narrow that gap. Obviously, Iran is behind the curve in comparison to North Korea but it strikes me that it is simply impossible to really think we can roll this back.
I think you might be underestimating the lesson that Iran and others drew from the Iraq war. These Countries probably and properly feel that had Saddam had the weapon, he would not have been hung until he was dead.
Aly-Khan Satchu
www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
Yes we can.
This is the unrelenting drumbeat of the new administration. Can Washington live with a nuclear program in Iran? I think President Obama's comments on the matter in recent days echo his campaign...yes we can.
Yet, one has to wonder what information he's getting that makes him believe this statement. An article written by Barry Posen (Security Studies, Volume 6, Issue 3 Spring 1997) highlights the uncertainty in dealing with a nuclear thorn vice a non-nuclear thorn. He uses Iraq, but lessons can be drawn in dealing with Iran as well. The US is set on a course to limit it's freedom of action in ways never seen in the Arabian Gulf if "yes we can" live with it.
Nonsense
Israel is a rational actor and a democracy, and bares no resemblance to even it's most "moderate" neighbors.
Ahmadinejad is a true believer, a 12th Imam worshipper. He calls for wiping Israel off the map, preemptively I might add. Israel, as one might expect, doesn't share this desire.
You don't seem to take seriously the fanatics fanaticism. More fool you, I suppose.
This article makes me laugh
I am not even a staunch hawk over the issue of iran and our global security and yet reading this article makes me laugh.
Basically your argument is a nuclear iran will be ok bc people with nukes rarely use them if at all, other "bad" regimes have had them e.g. Russia and China and it wasn't that bad for us and the nature of iran's regime won't make it likely that they will be more provocative with the weapon than they already are today...
What does it take to be a "Fellow" at the council for foreign relations?
The arguments made here are simplistic and incomplete beyond belief. How did we get to a point where the thinking elite are not embarrassed to make the argument that state sponsors of terrorism should have the nuclear bomb? And that we should take a resigned approach to this eventuality that they will have the bomb but that everything will be essentially the same. Do you all believe that things are ok right now in Iran?
Whether people like it or not this issue like many others comes down to what values we consider more important and more worthy. Isn't that still consistent with realpolitik? Sponsors of terrorism and those who suppress by violence and imprison their political opponents are not regimes that uphold or share our values. States who promote even for propaganda reasons hatred for israel or any other ethinic group must be very carefully watched as this hatred can be fomented powerfully to lead to other morally wrong aims. These regimes are dangerous and their values are anethma to ours. Yes national soverignty is important and so is the very important issue of hypocrisy in this issue (we have the bomb but you can't have it). But they are secondary.
When you complain about an over-exaggerated hysteria on the right over Iran's nuclear capability you are missing the central point: that this oppressive and terrorism supporting regime must not be given any more leverage over this region or our security. No we should not invade Iran over this issue nor should we provoke military confrontation and yes some of the rally cries are probably exaggerated but rally around this issue we must and the sooner the better. The above artilce and this type of sophomoric analysis does nothing to help clarify the important issues.
Same Comments for Syria
Gosh, couldn't you make all the same arguments for living with a nuke bomb developed by Syria?? Well, what did Israel do to the Syrian nuke reactor (the North Korean copy)? Looks like they didn't buy the argument.
Will Mr. Procida issue a retraction?
I agree with Sang and Gabriel above. Mr. Procida's comparison of a nuclear Iran to a nuclear Israel is far fetched, unsupported by the nations' track records, and, quite frankly, pathetic.
Further, I would ask Mr. Procida if Iran's treatment of its citizens since the election makes him change his views at all?
Does Mr. Procida really think that a regime so brutal that it ruthlessly murders its own citizens in the streets, would not use nuclear weapons on its enemies?
The brutality in the streets of Iran has allowed the regime to show its true colors. If anything, it underscores the urgency of preventing a nuclear Iran. I would imagine that, having seen the slaughter on the streets of Iran, Mr. Procida will do the responsible thing and issue a retraction of his essay, "Overblown."
For more information, see United Against a Nuclear Iran: www.uani.org.
Iranian nukes
Thank God for the occasional rational and dispassionate look at a potential threat that has been blown up to its current proportions in function basically of Israel's domestic politics.
Sure, something can always go wrong, but the odds of a miscalculation on that scale when Iran has the option of achieving more damaging results beyond the region just by throttling back oil exports and disrupting world energy markets and economies are surely de minimis.
Blackballing a prospective club member is one thing: paranoid saber-rattling another entirely. And even Ahmedinejad is heir to the failures of the flesh, such as not getting reelected or better yet, dropping dead.
Missiles in Venezuela? Cuba?
The phrase that made me laugh, and pretty much undermined my belief in the credibility of the article, is: "Unlike Hezbollah's Katyusha rockets, nuclear weapons are not malfunctioning devices that travel less than ten miles and rarely kill anyone."
Unlike home-made Kassam rockets, Katyushas are produced in Russia or China and supplied to Hezbollah and Hamas by Iran. These rockets easily hit at distances of about 40 kilometers and more - I had a chance to witness them in Beer Sheva last winter. During the last Israel-Lebanon war they also proved to be quite deadly.
Given the author's (deliberate?) ignorance of such basic facts of life in the ME, one can judge for himself/herself whether to take seriously the rest of the article.
Nevertheless, I have a question: if Iran put some missile in friendly Venezuela (or even Cuba), will it present any danger for the US? Did Kennedy overreact?