One thought on “Latest IPS analysis on Middle East dynamics”
As I understand it, the argument is that mixed messages on Israel/Palestine are preferable to unmixed bad messages. Well, there are several problems with that theory. One is that Obama’s messages are barely mixed, and some of them have been worse (eg. on Jerusalem). Another is that Bush too sent out mixed messages. We seem to be conveniently forgetting that Bush too had his share of pious platitudes and bogus moments of seeming sensibleness. And then there is the strategy of ‘good cop, bad cop’. Don’t we get it that the “good cop” side of the “good cop, bad cop” dynamic does NOT constitute progress, and may constitute absolute regression if each “bad cop” phase swings the norm in the wrong direction, the midpoint of the pendulum swing?
And then there’s perhaps the most important point: even if by reading tealeaves and subtleties of pressers, etc., we can manage to discern some possibly significant and hopeful difference between Obama and Bush, this pales next to a larger fact: Obama faces no opposition, at least none that pulls him towards decent and positive policies. None whatsoever. Nearly the entire progressive movement has totally commited itself to partisan politics.
That’s important because Bush knew he might face massive opposition if he unleashed any more superviolence on the world. Obama knows that he likely faces only nominal opposition. Even if he is marginally less interested in attacking Iran (which I doubt – I think he’s quite determined to attack Iran), he has a much free-er hand to attack Iran.
As I understand it, the argument is that mixed messages on Israel/Palestine are preferable to unmixed bad messages. Well, there are several problems with that theory. One is that Obama’s messages are barely mixed, and some of them have been worse (eg. on Jerusalem). Another is that Bush too sent out mixed messages. We seem to be conveniently forgetting that Bush too had his share of pious platitudes and bogus moments of seeming sensibleness. And then there is the strategy of ‘good cop, bad cop’. Don’t we get it that the “good cop” side of the “good cop, bad cop” dynamic does NOT constitute progress, and may constitute absolute regression if each “bad cop” phase swings the norm in the wrong direction, the midpoint of the pendulum swing?
And then there’s perhaps the most important point: even if by reading tealeaves and subtleties of pressers, etc., we can manage to discern some possibly significant and hopeful difference between Obama and Bush, this pales next to a larger fact: Obama faces no opposition, at least none that pulls him towards decent and positive policies. None whatsoever. Nearly the entire progressive movement has totally commited itself to partisan politics.
That’s important because Bush knew he might face massive opposition if he unleashed any more superviolence on the world. Obama knows that he likely faces only nominal opposition. Even if he is marginally less interested in attacking Iran (which I doubt – I think he’s quite determined to attack Iran), he has a much free-er hand to attack Iran.