Yet even Kaplan isn't completely oblivious to one small fact:
More serious still, it's not clear the Iranians will accept any deal that requires them to halt enriching uranium. It may be that, for any number of reasons, they just want some nukes. My guess is that the Bush administration's hawks (possibly including the president) hold this view, and they're going along with the Europeans on the assumption that the talks won't go anywhere and that, at least, they'll have France and Britain—permanent members of the Security Council—committed to pushing for sanctions.
The hawks may be right on this score. But if they are, and if some kind of action (sanctions or otherwise) is needed to keep Iran from going nuclear, it would be a good thing for the world—and it would put more potent pressure on Iran—if the United States had the full support of powerful allies. Sen. John Kerry made exactly this point during last fall's presidential campaign.
Yes, George W. Bush is flip-flopping. And everyone should be glad of it. If it works out well in Iran, maybe he'll flip-flop on North Korea next.
Wow. Iran "just wants some nukes." Yeah, Fred, and bears just defecate in the woods.
Why do I think that when the talks fail and forceful action is required, Kaplan (like his prefered president would not have) will not support it. He'll prefer more talks and more incentives and more understanding. Now that would be a flip-flop for the President. But no, this is not a flip flop. It is letting the Euros play while they can do not harm. It is letting the Iranians prove they will not cooperate and rubbing the Euros' collective face in that fact.
And even then, I have serious doubts that Europe will help us in any meaningful way. Just why would European help put more potent pressure on Iran? And just how powerful are they in practice? Would Europe really send their new expeditionary force to Iran? I mean, would we move it to the region? Let's not pretend that Europe has the means to send more than a training mission as far as Jordan! So let's not inflate what Europe can contribute. But heck, any Euro support would be a real flip flop!
As an aside, why is European help so important to the world? Iranian nukes are either a good idea or a bad idea. Why is a Euro decision on this matter the factor that makes it a bad idea? Even if the US was absolutely alone, wouldn't that just mean that the rest of the world should hang its collective head in shame at standing aside as we corrected the wrong? And we'd have help just as we had help in Iraq. The absence of France and Germany does not mean a coalition isn't there.
As for North Korea, would flip flopping mean abandoning multi-lateral talks and being unilateral or would it mean going back to the bribery of the 1990s that brought us to today's unsettling situation?
Our tactics may change, but the goal of thumping the Axis of Evil has not changed. Kaplan can whine or gloat about flip flopping as he wishes, but the end result will not change. We will win and we will be safer.
Let me stop here. Kaplan's article is just one that basically screams, "I'm going to piss and moan about whatever the US is doing" and if I go on much longer I am in danger of just pissing and moaning about this article.
