I don't think that the United States has, you know, actually done anything different that would represent pushing its chips into the middle of the table in the past six months. Certainly Barack Obama likes to talk the talk, but American policy to date has made no prominent U turns.

So Obama's speech amounts to more of the same in international affais. Every country expecting every other country to solve their problems and give them money.

As I say, the overall significance of the speech is President Obama's determination to keep critiques of US policy from being "as an excuse for collective inaction."

The only way to keep that critique from being an excuse is to listen to that critique and change US policy where it is wrong, which is most of the time. So far we've seen mostly a lot of new rhetorical lipstick applied to the same old pig. Guantanamo "closed" and renditions and other secret prisons taking its place being kind of the symbol of what Obama means by change that can fool people for about, say, six months.

Did you listen to Ahamdinejad? The man is vile, but if you get off the Western-centric hobby horse, most of what he said is taken pretty much for granted by the vast majority of the people on the planet. That is not due to "reflexive anti-Americanism." It is because it is plain common sense.

The only significance of this speech is that it makes US liberals feel good. It's a great domestic show. The Cairo speech was effective because it was coming on a blank slate and people started to have doubts: maybe this time it is for real? But as Bush said, "fool me once..."

Can't say I loved the speech. Very early on, Obama said this:

"And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction."

I understand Obama doesn't want to throw too much grist into the right-wing mill, but that line above gets dangerously close to denial over the reasons for the decline of America's standing in the Bush years. (Glenn Greenwald writes in detail about it here.)

The term, the accusation of anti-Americanism directed at other nations, does not go down well. It is a disingenuous and ugly generalization, and an excuse in itself for refusing to understand why America lost friends and failed to influence nations in recent years. Again, I understand why for domestic reasons Obama may have wanted to make this argument, but it still does not wash abroad.

Also, and perhaps this is more sensibly directed at Obama's speechwriters than the President, not once did Obama say he would listen to other nations. I don't understand this oversight, American-go-it-aloneism obviously isn't popular, but go-it-aloneism-because-we-don't-give-a-shit-what-you-think is what brings about the deepest resentment.

"No More Excuses - Now Who's In?"

"you're with us or against us,"

Different words, same meaning. What can you expect from such a cowboy that would unilaterally and without consultations rip the missle defense agreements with the Poles and the Czechs?

I could never stand to listen to Bush speeching, or even speaking.
Turns out I can't stand listening to Obama either, but for different reasons. Does the man ever say anything that isn't wrapped in ambiguously inspiring psuedo moralism?
When Obama does something to repudiate the basic policies of Bush which still rule our government, I'll be impressed. Until then, he is just covering the backs of every person who will stick a knife into his at the first opportunity. And stick him they will.

But then again, Obama's challenge to the rest of the world to withdraw from Iraq and Agfhanistan is very inspiring. Maybe he can even stop the rest of the world from claiming they have the right to detain and render anyone, anywhere.

Not to sound pessimistic here, but if the many countries that make up the United Nations cannot even agree on environmental reforms or standards, why should we believe that those same nations will suddenly find the motivation to get tough on rogue nations like Iran who continue to break international law?

To put it another way, the United Nations is nothing more than a school teacher trying in vain to reform an insubordinate child. They can admonish the child verbally, they can send the child to the corner or to the principal's office, or they can give the child detention, but at the end of the day, they wouldn't dare lay a finger on the child.

So it is with the UN. The annual song and dance in New York has become old and tiresome. Every year the leaders of the U.S., France, and England vow solemnly that it's "time to get serious," yet the minute the convention ends and everyone goes their separate ways, the status quo remains.

This happens every single year without fail, so pardon me if I think the United Nations is a sham; at least insofar as its current agenda is comprised. The UN Security Council, for one thing, should be abjectly abolished because it lacks the resources and willingness to enforce its own decrees and mandates. This lack of enforcement means that the only result of the Security Council's endeavors are verbal tongue-lashings and moderate sanctions that only work to further isolate the rogue nations in question. Until a body can exist that is able to walk the walk, let a natural alliance system deal with troubled nations instead of a mythical security council which is akin to a mall rent-a-cop that carries not a real weapon but a merely a can of mace.

"But Obama is telling the rest of the world "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"--a standard to which the US will also hold itself. "

A funny line in a post full of unintentionally funny lines. Not surprising it comes from someone at "Democracy Arsenal". Yes, the world is really going to snap to it now that Obama shows he can give pretty speeches. And yes, Obama has really shown the US will hold itself to the standards it holds other nations--look at how we hold our own high ranking officials accountable in courts of law when they support torture or launch unprovoked wars. Or look at how we focus with laserlike intensity on nations in the Middle East with unacknowledged nuclear arsenals--oh,wait.

And sanctions on Iran--sanctions that will probably hurt most the ordinary people. You know, the folks we were cheering a few months ago.
What's not to love? (I wouldn't oppose tightly targeted sanctions aimed at the leadership alone, if that could be done, though given our extreme hypocrisy on who constitutes a rogue state and who does not, maybe I would oppose it after all.)

I generally consider myself closer to the left than right and am not one of those silly people who try to make false equivalences between the extremes on both sides. Nonetheless when I look at so many of the comments from the left apropos of this one: "American policy to date has made no prominent U turns" I can't help having the same "what planet are you living on anyhow?" reaction I have to the neo-cons or Glenn Beck lunatics.

Of course words like "prominent" or "significant" are weasel words anyhow because they provide no facts and rely on assumed ideological criteria. Nothing is measurably different for some people unless it is in 100% agreement with every nuance. But we have in fact had dramatic u-turns on foreign policy in the middle east alone that has resulted in right wingers from Tehran to Israel and their respective backers from Moscow to Jerusalem being caught off guard and reduced to babbling incoherency.

But to get more specific on how far off this "nothing has changed" is I will take on a comment that DonaldJ made above.

"And sanctions on Iran--sanctions that will probably hurt most the ordinary people. You know, the folks we were cheering a few months ago. What's not to love?"

First I think it is necessary to point out that despite hysterical criticism Obama cheered nothing during the Iranian election fiasco. He in fact managed to piss off left, right, and even the Iranian opposition by going so far as to note that with regard to primary American interests in nuclear weapons there was not a significant enough difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. Despite all the caterwauling he was logically and strategically correct in this. Lets start with one simple reality based point: Iran is NOT like Iraq or any other authoritarian state in the region or otherwise. Despite the events over the last several months it is not authoritarian in the way that we understand it due to recent history and ancient Persian cultural norms. This point has become much more complicated due to events in the last six months but what Americans left and right have failed too quite understand is the why and how of the strong populist base in Iran for Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions. For most Iranians this was a simple question of their national rights that draws its definition from Persia's long cultural history and how those sensibilities shaped Shia Islam when Persia was conquered by Islam. Whatever side they were on of their own left/right divide a significant majority backed this and gave Ahmadinejad a lot of support. Even when the majority soured on him later he used this in the same sort of way Bush/Cheney used the war on terror to prop up a flagging presidency. Due to this and several other domestic factors the Iranian hard right had no reason to believe they would lose until several factors including the Chario speech caused the ground to suddenly shift in the weeks leading up to their election. And then we saw what appeared to be the sloppiest election fix ever.

Again, at this point we had a crucial moment. Classically they are able to clean this sort of mess up with a lot of help from pandering American presidents who can't help but say stupid shit that gives them a "Great Satan" excuse to crush the domestic opposition in a manner that the likes of Nixon or Rove could only ever dream about. Obama ,however, resisted all of that and eventually Iranian propagandists had to just start making shit up. No "axis of evil" assist at all. And now even the Russians have had to back up on their support. As far as I can tell Chavez is the only friend they have left. This is not just a dramitic u-turn compared to the last 8 years but, oh, everything since Truman left office and most of before. He is the first President I have seen have a fully rational policy here.

Again, Iran is not at all like Saddam Hussian's Iraq. They are not able to be violently authoritation in the same manner and the major political splits are ideological rather than clearly tribal and ethnic. Unlike most other countries in the region their sense of national identity stretches back into pre-history. This is a very unique country that needs to be judged entirely on its own and what to do about it decided facts and history rather than ideological assumptions in either direction.

So, lets start with the fact that what semblance of Democracy that had resulted in massive support for Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy and in fact it was very likely a policy crafted to meet the sort of populist ends that anybody studying American history from Jackson to Bush would understand implicitly. At the same time, however, the policy of isolation from the west is horribly unpopular and the reason that they used nukes in a Rovian manner to prop themselves up. The regime grew in strength significantly during the Bush years because they were able to successfully use him as a foil and increase the Iranian profile by running circles around American diplomatic (if that word can apply to anything about US foreign policy under Bush) and general PR strategy. Obama totally turned that around and the regimes subsequent ham fisted stumblings have taken them from a new international legitimacy to unprecedented international illegitimacy. There is no longer any way they cannot own their own actions in the eyes of the world and to the vast majority of Iranians. Said ham fisted stumbling has also demonstrated why they cannot at this juncture be allowed to get nuclear weapons. The most rational course of action for the hard assed mullahs who run things after the election would have been to let Mousavi win and proceed to fuck with him like they did with Khatami. They would have had to cutAhmadinejad loose but would have left themselves room to manuever. Instead the panicked and did more serious damage to themselves than anyone in the west could. They are a long way from losing power but legitimacy from pretty much everybody who does not directly benefit from their rule is gone. Iranians do blame the mullahs for the poor economy due to sanctions. Ahmadinejad came to power and was very popular for a while due to his very skilful use of the kind of classic right wing "common man" populism that usually brings theorcrats, fascists, and various other sorts of populist authoritarianism to power. He promised notional strength by every measure with economic progress and social justice for the working class being top on the list. He looked strong in comparison to Bush but lost popularity because he not only failed to improve economic conditions but continually made things worse for pretty much everyone who didn't work for the Revolutionary guard. The Revolutionary guard is in fact now in control of Iran. The ironic thing is that if you want to really understand what they are like imagine if one of those particularly patriarchal groups of Christian right "real Americans" managed to take over and give some militia group an official status while still being a quasi private group without the same limits and strictures that the police have. Its a crazy male religious fraternity that has extra constitutional powers and though a minority its has enormous populist power and appeal because of the number of "normal" people who benefit from it. They control all of the guns and increasingly have the most control of the means of production both private and public as well.

There are no clear policy paths to dealing with this problem for an American president. What we know from history is a whole lot of what doesn't work and short of total war or home brewed revolution there is no example of such a group being hauled out of power anywhere. War with Iran like neo-cons and Cheney want would be utterly insane. Diplomacy without a hard-line of some sort on nukes would hand Ahmadinejad a domestic victory that would result in the total and complete and permanent defeat of their domestic opposition. This would have far ranging consequences in all of the middle east including ,of course, a probable similar victory for Likuid and its more extreme fellow travellers in Israel.

More sanctions on the other hand are what is expected in Iran and has already made the mullahs even less popular in Iran that Republicans are here. The trick is insuring that they blame Ahmadinejad and Khemenie ,particularly the later, as entirely as is possible while figuring with Persian realism that the US president is just doing what he has to do. Obama has teed that up beautifully.

If there is any better option than sanctions or any way that this situation could realistically be addressed in another way I have yet to hear it.