I, too, found Meacham's analysis bizarre.  Let me add one additional reason.  Meacham notes that McCain's view of the Vietnam war is that the problem was that we weren't willing to "do what it takes to win."  Niebuhr's version of realism, though, made much of the proportionality of means and ends; while drastic measures are sometimes necessary [if, say, national survival is at stake], they are not appropriate simply to "win."  And, indeed, McCain seems to be far more about "winning" than he is about figuring out what "winning" would even mean--see Iraq.  I just can't see Niebuhr's moral introspection anywhere in McCain.

Shunning Iran vs. boycotting Israel. Interesting that the same progressive worldview can abhor the first but, in more extreme cases, tilt toward the second.

Ostracism works on the personal level -- the Quakers, Themistocles, etc. -- and on an international level. With large states, as even with individuals, the ban is porous. But a partial ban on interaction also can be influential.

Recalling the ambassador is a traditional means of punishing another state. So is refusing recognition.

Iran's rhetoric is unapologetically expansionist and aggressive. Not only are Saudi Arabia and Israel worried about Iran, but Iraq and most of the Sunni gulf states are too, and the Iranian nuclear threat to Europe isn't implausible. With Iran's ties to Venezuela, there's even a possibility of Cuban Missile Crisis II.

Conversations with Iran are comparable to Iran running out the clock in a football game. The boycott on formal diplomacy with Iran is part of the pressure to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In nuclear weapons control, "fairness" -- since Pakistan and probably Israel have nuclear weapons, why not Iran? -- isn't the primary concern. The main concern is limiting proliferation.

The hard face the West must show Iran may make war against Iran unnecessary. The softness Obama wants to show Iran is ill-considered. McCain's willingness to be stern isn't necessarily Manicheanism, it's containment.

"Cooperation" in this instance is naivete.

The English had a nasty saying about the Germans, "The German is either at your throat or at your feet." Regrettably scholars of Islam say similar things about political Islam. Even Sufis must justify refraining from war on the non-Islamic world by saying that the non-Muslims are too strong to take on safely. Osama bin Laden said it's "natural" that any person would favor the "stronger horse."

This attitude also might be attributed to today's Russian leadership.

Letting Iran stall is a mistake. McCain's perspective is pragmatic and realistic, not Manichean. Obama's  is thoughtless and ultimately far more dangerous.

What an odd use of "moral realism." The phrase already has a meaning.

The Right is about to be handed to defeat of historic proportions on Nov 4. It will be a repudiation of them, their politics, and their ideology on a massive scale. It seems that they  - and I do put Meacham on the right of the spectrum - are so desperate to deny this, that they make up a little fictions to make themselves feel better. And if they repeat them often enough and loudly enough and mockingly enough then they will be true. Fictions like, this is only a repudiation of Bush and it's because he wasn't conservative enough. Fictions like, regardless of the election results we are still a center right country. Fictions like, Obama may beat McCain because he's the Messiah but they essentially have the same policies and philosophies anyway.

Poll after poll finds that Americans are identifying with Democrats and progressives, and AS Democrats and progressives in far larger percentages that Republicans/right wing. And that the ideology and policies are vastly different and people know the difference.

Denial can get you through the dark times but it won't stop the downward spiral against you.

Jeez FBC, McCain has zero solutions to Iran, if he thinks the Eurpoeans, much less the Chinese or the Russians, are going to fall lockstep behind him then he is even more senile than I thought. The Chinese just inked a multibillion dollar natural gas deal with the Iranians (you know, they also have huge reserves of natural gas, don't you?)

What hard face are you blathering on about, getting red faced? Since you obviously have not been studying or actually know really anything about Iran might I suggest you do a little research first about the country, its demographics, its economy, etc. and then maybe you could begin to understand what needs to be done there.

The leadership in Iran is faced with going towards the third way, similar to how the chinese economy is run, since their brand of socialism has been a disaster. They have been making tentative steps towards opening up their economy. McCain's constant boycotting only justifies the hard liners, try reading what some of them are saying sometimes, they prefer McCain.

And that quote about Germans is truly repugnant, serving no purposes but to justify your own prejudice against all Muslims.

Certainly McCains approach to Foreign policy is even worse than Bush. At least Bush recognized the error in his ways, in North Korea he failed utterly with his approach, until he recognized the value of talking with the Koreans, and, more importantly, getting China involved constructively. The Chinese hold all the cards there, they are the ones who have stopped NK's program cold, but the Chinese had to have a reason to do so. Bush's policy of ostracism succeeded only in ostracizing the US's leverage in the area.

As with North Korea, the nations that will have the highest influence with Iran are likely to be countries such as Russia and China, neither of whom wants Iran to have nukes, yet neither of whom will want to be seen as being McCain's lackey.

McCain is a dangerous relic of the cold war, he acts as though it were 1972 and Obama is some kind of hippy.

Wow, FBC, what a load of silly that was. They are a nation, not a recalcitrant 5 year old that can be sent to their room. The irony is that your entire piece is EXACTLY how McSame thinks. That somehow buy not talking, by taking a hard stance ("we're not going to talk to you, so there, na na na na" ) somehow equates to "pressure". What, because we are the sole super power, everyone should be dying to talk to us? That is the height of naivity.  As long as we are NOT engaged, they are free to do as they see fit. We have no leverage at all, except to start rattling sabers.

They are closer to China and Russia, both up and coming economies who are loving that we arent engaged. Their, China's and Russia's, merchant class is ecstatic that they get to sell to Iran and we dont. They get a closed market all to themselves without the worlds largest economic engine, us, thwarting them.

So we boycott them, so what? Cuba is still around, North Korea is still around, and Iran is still around. All long after we started the boycotts. If we truly wanted to change those countries, we would encourage, nay ENSURE, that a vibrant enlightented middle class took root and flourished in those countries.  The greatest force for change, has to be internally. As long as their leaders can point to us as the Great Satan, which our current policies make far to easy, they can beat their drums of nationalism and make it sell. But as soon as we are seen as magnaminus, thoughtful, and GOOD, its a hard sell to those people enjoying their conspicuous consumption.

Its about economic and social change, not this whole, Us vs Them, BS. Show the people they can come along for the ride, and the change wont be stopped.

I thought "moral realism" referred to the idea that morality is objectively real, as opposed to a mere subjective feeling or preference.  I thought moral realists situated themselves in opposition to relativism, and that the "realism" part didn't mean "realistic," as it does in the foreign policy realm.

Maybe I'm totally wrong.  I'm not a philosophy major and I don't know much about Niebuhr.

moldndecay, you know, I was going to say how naive he was but did not want to get too personal, but yeah, you hit it right on the head. Best to call out such silliness as it is.

As I listened this morning, I thought what a steamer.

Got to remember that his job is to sell the toilet paper - and to everybody

Very good post. Thank you.

blackton accuses me of "prejudice against all Muslims." That's the sort of trope that usually stuns the intellect, and ends rational conversation.

To paraphrase Goering, some of my best friends are Muslims.

But to assume that every society arranges its priorities the same, and that every culture is the same, is a kind of Western, liberal cultural imperialism.

It's arrogant, and it's false. It's something China regularly points out when it gets called on transgressing Western values.

Iran has launched well-publicized, and well-founded, campaigns against things like Barbie dolls.

moldndecay says Iran isn't a "5 year old that can be sent to their room." In reality, international diplomacy is usually played on the level of the schoolyard.

It's not just how the West has to treat Iran. It's how diplomacy usually operates. Because of the vast differences between cultures, diplomatic interaction typically has to be on primal levels that are common to all people.

Nor am I opposing back-door communication with Iran, of course. No doubt it goes on already and has for decades. Israel and the PLO had regular back-door negotiations long before their diplomacy came out of the closet.

But formal diplomacy is itself a gift to be bestowed on a political entity. Formal diplomacy being contact with accredited ambassadors, even public contact with heads of state. It's that gift that has to be withheld as a stick to goad Iran with.

The likely alternative to these non-violent goads is actual war.

And that war (heaven forfend)  may not be initiated by the US or Israel, but by Iran if they gain the weapons they desire. Certainly there's nothing in Iran's public rhetoric to cast doubt on this..

John McCain has always been scary and the media has not gone after this guy the way they should but if he becomes the next President may God help us all.

A few months back they ask McCain what do you do with evil at that religous group thing and McCain says destroy it. When someone gives such a simple basic answer to something so complex we are in DEEP TROUBLE. If you believe that evil should be destroyed guess what we are going to be here a long time destroying evil. What he should have said if he is going to destroy it is: If it poses a threat we will destroy it. Furthermore what exactly is evil: Is it evil to send 4000 AMerican troops to die for a war based on lies and deception. Is it evil to watch Genocide in a place like Darfour and do nothing. Who gets to define what evil is: John McCain? thanks but no thanks I would rather someone else who doesnt see the world in simple basic childish terms.

Carol

Well, Carol, is it?  Is it evil to watch genocide and do nothing?  if so, how would combat the evil except by destroying it?  Talk to it?  Convince it to mend its ways?  Does evil have to stop killing and raping first, or will you seek to reason with it mid rape?

No, the world isn't always, even usually, seen in terms of black and white, but sometimes it is.  What then?

FBC,  to state "the German is either at your throat or at your feet" implies the analogy "the Moslem is either at your throat or at your feet." if not, then why use that statement? Of course it is bigotry. If it stuns your intellect, than perhaps it is because your intellect is easily stunned. Try to develop a little more mental fortitude, and pay attention to what you write.

"to assume that every society arranges its priorities the same, and that every culture is the same, is a kind of Western, liberal cultural imperialism."

Nice strawman, but who the hell is stating that?

"But formal diplomacy is itself a gift to be bestowed on a political entity."  How idiotic. What the hell are you afraid of, a photo op? The United States "bestowed" the gift of diplomacy on both Stalin and Mao, two of the worlds greatest mass murderers, we did so because it was perceived to be in our best interest, not because we viewed it as a chance to have a tea party.

"Because of the vast differences between cultures, diplomatic interaction typically has to be on primal levels that are common to all people." Primal levels? What, are we going to grunt at each other? Have you ever been out of the country FBC? I have lived half of my adult life abroad, from a remote island in Micronesia (Pohnpei), to China, Mexico, Austria, and the US. This might come as a complete shocker to you, but I have never had to rely on "primal levels" to communicate with anyone.

Iranians are not apes, no need to get "primal" Good lord, do you even understand the meaning of the word? You know, Primal, Primate? Terrible choice of words. Just terrible.

I am not advocating we have full diplomatic relations with Iran, I don't know anyone who is, but we talk with North Korea all the time and we are still technically at war with them. What I am suggesting is a multipronged effort, similar to that which was done with North Korea (six party talks) be initiated with Iran. Also, we can work back door with China and Russia on issues we agree with, during the height of the Cultural Revolution in China, when we had zero official diplomatic relations with China, the CIA and the Chinese set up listening posts in Xinjiang in Western China, spying on Russia. Carrot and Stick approach, ever hear of it? Your idea is to, what? Turn your back and get huffy publicly (but have backdoor talks just the same? to what end?) You have this bizarre notion that the Iranians will get all sad and lonely unless they can have a meeting with McCain. They won't. Bestowing formal diplomatic relations is not some wondrous gift that you strangely imagine it to be, which is why I am not even for it with Iran.

But as I said, carrot and stick. The Iranians very likely (if they haven't already) offered North Korea millions of dollars for nuclear technology. The US has no way to prevent this from happening, but the Chinese do. Right now, the only things the Iranians are likely missing are processing and manufacturing ability, not theory or technical know how. This is far more complicated a situation than you realize.

If it satisfies blackton to paint me a bigot, that's blackton's privilege. blackton can also stick his fingers in his ears and hum, if he prefers.

What I am doing, though, is simply attributing a particular assertive philosophy to the Iranian regime. And to political Islam generally. Much the same attitude found in Bismarck, Nietzsche, and Macchiavelli. None of whom were Muslim.

This is commonly perceived in political Islam, and commonly expressed by leaders like bin Laden and Ahmedinejad.

I'm pleased blackton is well-traveled. But not persuaded that tourism, or even a work assignment for a few months overseas, has much relevance.

"Nations have no friends. Only interests." Attributed variously to George Washington and to Lord Palmerston. A social interaction between individuals -- when there is nothing very important at stake -- is quite different from international diplomacy.

The US has achieved a great deal with North Korea by a combination of carrots and calculated bullying.

Glad to hear blackton does not favor formal diplomatic relations with Iran.

This seems the gist of the article. McCain favors continued bullying of Iran, as a way of avoiding actual nuclear war. Obama, on the other hand, proclaims himself willing to converse with Iran's leaders.

A meeting with a head of state would be even more of a carrot than formal diplomatic relations. It's something obviously that should be withheld till the Iranians make concessions similar to those made by North Korea.

blackton's nasty insinuation that "primal" is associated with "primate" is a sort of typical obamaphile slander, imputing racism where none exists. And thus evading the serious discussion. Khalidi, interestingly, does the same. And the tactic was used in the Democratic primary often enough. ...Or is "primary" also associated with "primate"? And now blackton is dragging religion into it -- since "primate" clearly refers to the chief Catholic bishop of a country.

All these words simply derive from a very common Latin root, meaning "first." ...Or will blackton now declare I'm disparaging Latinos?

If you lack the law and the facts on your side, as the famous saying goes, attack the other person. What blackton's doing here. Indicates the poverty of his argument.

We might hope that Obama is merely pandering to the blacktons and the other naifs, and isn't serious about disrupting the effort to contain Iran. After all, Obama's flip-flopped on other serious matters like keeping troops in Iraq and accepting federal money for his campaign. Some of Obama's admirers, like Hendryk Herzberg, seem to cheerily acknowledge these flip-flops. Others may be less overt, or less conscious.

Even more than drawing in the blacktons, Obama's tactic may simply be to proclaim himself so different from the hated Bush, and to paint McCain as the continuation of Bush's policies. I didn't vote for Bush, but that doesn't mean that certain policies aren't self-evidently appropriate.

Regrettably, some damage already has been done to the containment effort even by the leading candidate's rhetoric during the campaign.

And it's more unnerving to count on a candidate's dishonesty in hopes he'd do the correct thing once in office.

But the portrait of McCain as a sort of Manichean is the main topic here. Being unrelenting with Iran isn't Manicheanism. It reduces proliferation, reduces the possibility of actual war, and makes the US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq safer. This is not Manicheanism, it's realpolitik.

FBC obviously can't read, I have lived, LIVED half of my adult life overseas, more than 10 years, and he calls it tourism. yeesh.

McCain favors continued bullying of Iran, as a way of avoiding actual nuclear war.

The whole point is that doesn't work. It didn't work with North Korea. It makes the leaders more recalcitrant.

I also said your choice of the word primal is ridiculous. It is just bad writing, man up and confess it is so instead of whining about it.

"has to be on primal levels that are common to all people." Honestly, what the hell does that mean?

I am very well aware that the word has its origins in Latin, primus meaning first, but even then think it is ridiculous. Presumably we have diplomats who are conversant in Farsi, so they can quickly get beyond "first" levels.

Again, you have absolutely no understanding of Iranian culture or of diplomacy.Your naivete is truly astounding. Might I ask the basis of your wisdom on foreign affairs, besides talking out of your ass?

You have not rebutted any of my arguments, because you simply can't.

What I am suggesting is a multipronged effort, similar to that which was done with North Korea (six party talks) be initiated with Iran. That includes both a carrot and a stick approach, and works with the self interests of both Russia and China to see to it that Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Being unrelenting with Iran is just idiocy, it is not a policy, it has no engagement, does not draw in other nations to help us achieve our goals.

Bush was unrelenting with North Korea, until North Korea has a nuclear test, and then you better believe it they got unrelenting in a goddamn hurry.

Rebut this if you can. Sorry, but you know you can't.

This is fun to school the ignorant. You simply can't win this argument.

I will even stipulate one thing, Bush's policy with North Korea has been lately a success. They have begun to dismantle a lot of their facilities. The historical record is absolutely clear, when Bush was unrelenting he failed, when he negotiated, he succeeded. I give Bush credit for doing the right thing, he got Russia and China involved in the process and they are the ones who applied pressure. Obama seeks to replicate that success (if it is possible). Iran presents us with many challenges but also opportunities. They have demographic issues, without growing and opening the economy they will collapse. Carrot and stick approach will work. Stick approach not at all.

Rebut this FBC instead of blathering on about drawing in the blacktons. Rebut what I have just written, no need to mention anything else. If you don't, then you are admitting utter defeat, and you cup is filled with bitter ash. You shall lament the darkness of night and curse the light of day

Seriously, just rebut what I just wrote.

Blackton: Certainly McCains approach to Foreign policy is even worse than Bush. At least Bush recognized the error in his ways, in North Korea he failed utterly with his approach, until he recognized the value of talking with the Koreans, and, more importantly, getting China involved constructively.

Blackton, pardon my french but what the FUCK are you talking about? The Democrats were screaming for Bush to engage them unilaterally.  Bush is the one that stuck to the multilateral talks with China.

Did "talking with "Nikita Kruschev" get Kennedy anywhere except owned?

Following its nuclear test on October 9, North Korea, at the behest of China, agreed to resume the six-party talks in Beijing that had become the Bush administration's preferred way of addressing the Kim regime. In fact, despite its disavowal of direct negotiations, the Bush administration has permitted its chief negotiator, Christopher Hill, to engage in one-on-one talks with North Korean representatives in Beijing, and such talks took place shortly before the six-party conference reconvened there in December.

jwl, there were two tracks going on the entire time, one with one on one meetings, the other within the six party framework. Jeez, I didn't know I had to lay out the entire f-ing history. The point is Bush recalcitrance and heated rhetoric led to a suspension of the six party talks, it was only after Hill did the one on on that it started up again. Sorry, but no dice dude. Now you can check the history, or be a Republican and make up your own.

Again though I have to give Bush credit for doing what was necessary and recognizing that many tacks had to be done, and of course North Korea overplayed its own hand when they detonated the device, which pissed China off immensely. The problem is that it should never have gotten to that stage where they did detonate that device. I don't want to see the same happen with Iran. Bullying didn't work with North Korea, and won't work with Iran. Fucking diplomacy will.

And JWL, you think Kennedy should have bombed Cuba instead of offering a face saving out for Kruschev? (ie the hidden agreement to withdraw outdated Tritans from Turkey) Dude, you are one scary guy.

Glad to see blackton is backing down on the insinuations of racism this time. It's an evasion used a lot to avoid valid criticism of Obama.

Regrettable he's now trying literary criticism as an evasion:

"I also said your choice of the word primal is ridiculous. It is just bad writing, man up and confess it is so instead of whining about it."

I guess blackton's assumption is that people have very short attention spans nowadays, and aren't going to read further back on the thread. This is what blackton posted before:

"Iranians are not apes, no need to get "primal" Good lord, do you even understand the meaning of the word? You know, Primal, Primate? Terrible choice of words. Just terrible."

Yup, here's blackton falsely accusing me of racism against Iranians. And then he's denying he said it. Phony spin seems what he turns to first. But trying it in the same thread?

Nice that blackton claims he's lived ten years outside the US. It still has limited relevance. To iterate, relations with the nice exotic individuals down the street, when little is at stake, is very different from relations between states. Realpolitik is much nearer the politics of the schoolyard than the socializing of adults.

Generally pressure's been put on North Korea by refusing to give them the honor of one-on-one negotiation, but keeping to a six-party mode. Playing hardball with Libya also has had success.

blackton seems most at sea when discussing the Cuban Missile Crisis. He writes:

"And JWL, you think Kennedy should have bombed Cuba instead of offering a face saving out for Kruschev? (ie the hidden agreement to withdraw outdated Tritans from Turkey) Dude, you are one scary guy."

With Google, isn't it easy enough to get details right? You don't actually need to read Graham Allison cover to cover, though it helps. The missiles in Turkey were PGM-19 Jupiters, and they were brand-new, state of the art. What is a "Tritan"?

More substantively, how is a "hidden agreement" supposed to be "face saving"? Is blackton even reading what he writes?

Anyone who knows anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis knows that Kennedy broke Krushchev's face thoroughly. That was the whole point. Kennedy maintained the image of American strength and resolve, and maintained the Monroe Doctrine. Krushchev settled for a practical resolution, and a practical gain.

In fact, Krushchev lost face so thoroughly the Politburo tossed him out just two years later.

Because the Jupiter MRBMs could be launched, and arrive on target, before the Russians could respond with a second strike, mutual deterrence was vitiated. The Russian missiles in Cuba were a counterweight, but they reduced mutual deterrence even further. It was in the interest of both parties that both sets of MRBMs be withdrawn. Why Kennedy had tried to pull the Jupiters out of Turkey even before.

But Kennedy won the day precisely because he appeared unrelenting.

He blockaded Cuba (called it a "quarantine" since "blockade" often is understood as an act of war), and prepared seriously for an amphibious invasion.

He didn't offer to to meet formally as head of state.

That's what Neville Chamberlain did.

Bush Sr. emulated Kennedy in Gulf War I.

So far, I haven't heard either Kennedy or Bush Sr. called "Manichean." They were practicing realpolitik, and effectively. The "Manichean" tag is a slander used against McCain.

In fact, Obama's offers to the Iranian regime are at best cynical deception of the blackton crowd, and at worst genuine bad judgment.