"In the next few years we are going to have to face some less pleasant choices based on hard truths rather than comfy illusions."

Walter Russell Mead writes,

The past 25 years of world politics have rested on a series of polite fictions, agreed-upon conventions and hypocritical pretenses: That we had a policy to end the North Korean nuclear drive (ditto for Iran); That Europe was becoming a great posthistorical power based on the mighty engine of the euro; That the two-state solution was just a settlement freeze away; That international institutions and civil society were replacing national governments at the center of world politics; That immigration was a no-brainer; That the progress toward free trade was inexorable; That democracy was irresistibly on the march; and so on. Americans and Europeans believed that the world would look more and more like we wanted it to without us doing any heavy lifting.

Those are all very comforting ideas, but sadly none of them are true. In the next few years we are going to have to face some less pleasant choices based on hard truths rather than comfy illusions. Having the kind of world we really want—safe, prosperous, democratic—is not fully achievable no matter what we do. And having a tolerable world involves working harder, spending more, and putting more skin in the game than we want. A different kind of statesmanship, harder-edged and less sentimental, is going to be needed. Pretending to have a Russia policy will no longer be enough; we will have to choose between the unpalatable alternatives of effectively blocking Russian moves or acquiescing in Russian wins. Brutal clarity rather than liberal pink cloud thinking is the rising force in international affairs.

In the meantime, expect the old world and the old certainties to continue to crumble and fade.

Read more here.

Iran: the central issue is political/military

Michael Ledeen reminds us that

there’s no terrorism to speak of in North Korea or Cuba, where misery abounds.

Indeed, I can make a strong case for the opposite hypothesis: that resistance to tyranny grows as economic conditions improve. Revolution is not an act of desperation, it’s an act of hope.

All of which is to encourage policy makers to concentrate on the political/military dimension, not the economy of our various enemies.

Finally, if you understand what’s going on inside the failed regime of Ali Khamenei, you’ll see why the various entreaties from the White House are totally dissonant. Such a regime doesn’t want to make a deal with the Great Satan; it is pushing hard for victories on the ground throughout the region, and elsewhere as well. Khamenei and Putin are in total agreement about the desired shape of the world they are trying to create: a marginalized America, a hegemonic control over Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, some miracle for Venezuela and Cuba (the Iranians read the Cuban deal as further proof that intransigence works with Obama) and, needless to say, the downfall of the royal family in Saudi Arabia.

If we had a foreign policy team worthy of us, we’d be supporting the Iranian opposition, but Obama has proven that he prefers Khamenei to Mousavi.

Which disgusts the Iranian people, and should disgust us. Maybe something worthwhile will come from the new Congress? And not just sanctions. The central issue is political/military.

Read more here.