Israel pretty much does whatever we tell it to do I believe. Without our intervention I think Israel would've gone postal on the Mideast long ago.

Well actually Tom, that's a very reasoned response from you. I pretty much expected you'd be talking about a military campaign right off the bat. I would hope that's the quandary our administration is in right now, drooling to figure out a way to nation build in Iran but faced with the knowledge that we simply don't know how to pull it off. When that dilemna hits, countries generally go into a stalling pattern of bullying diplomacy mixed with measured military hits and stirring up local opposition.

Of course all of those things rarely work in the long run because of the unwanted side effects. The diplomacy you talk of generally includes pushy rhetoric and either threats or actual action involving economic sanctions. Countries don't like to be pushed. Ours wouldn't. So there's a push back and a black market develops around any economic sanctions. As we saw in Iraq, those sanctions hurt the weakest in the country and barely made a dent in the prosperity of the powerful. Black markets create crime and abuse.

The measured military hits always sound like a great solution. We don't want nukes in a country? Hit a processing plant or reactor. Of course the Soviets gave the country the materials and support personnel for the nuclear program and you always manage to kill one or two of their citizens and you generally set back whatever progress you've made in making our countries get along. (note: I am not saying it's a good thing the Soviets provide nuclear technology to the world. I'm just saying it's a consideration). Most times you make a military hit on a facility, workers and possibly homes around the area get flattened. Civilians die. It's easy to rationalize that as a cost of conflict but the families of those dead never see it that way. People that were once neutral in their view of the US now hate us. Propagandists for the radical element get material for their recruitment. "The Great Satan US, the only nation to drop nuclear bombs on innocent civilians, is bullying a sovereign nation in a cowardly fashion, sending in missiles from afar from their comfortable and safe chairs, seeking an end to Islam."

Stirring up the local opposition is a mixed blessing because, in any group, you get good and bad. Yeah, their organizational goal supports your policy but individually you get the abusers and sadists that, when empowered, do heinous acts against anyone working for or supporting the present government including those people that just get caught up in trying to keep their family going in whatever job they can find. Often these rebel groups make a strong case initially for freedom and democracy but once they take power, care only about power and radical causes themselves.

I'm not sure I know the answer but our recent history shows we aren't very good at this game. Maybe the solution lies in at least publicly stating the dilemna I've just laid out. When's the last time our leaders addressed the world and showed that we actually wrestle with these problems? Instead, all the world hears and sees in our actions is the tough guy thing. If Bush has got all the answers for how the world needs to work, why can't he arrange a public debate with Mideast leaders and confront them on their idiotic pronouncements? Instead any dealings are in secret, behind closed doors. When's the last time Bush directly addressed the Iraqi public or even visited the country? If the Iranian president is making outrageous speeches, make logical ones to the same audience showing the folly of the pronouncements. The guy is handing you a huge gift by being over the edge and you take the bait and try and use it to further military strategy instead of just going for the higher ground. I simply don't understand the lack of understanding our government seems to have about human nature. People are extremely predictable. The basic reactions to events haven't changed since we began.

Art