"I and Thou"

Nighttime

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:19:31 -0500

It is late now. And it seems a new order is about to settle. As the day dampens down, the clanging of life becomes but the spring shower ending. The staccato notes of our existence slurr into one melodious tone. The blanket is about to engulf us all in its mystery, but in these moments… that blanket is ever soft.

"If we take people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat them as if they were what they ought..."

Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:39:00 -0500

““If we take people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat them as if they were what they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming.””

- An aphorism of Goethe

Lost Words

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:03:08 -0500

It is sad to return to this blog and discover an inbox full of requests for your url because the website has been quiet for so long. Medical school, USMLE step 1, and PhD life have all made their way in between myself and this blog. And this blog, as I have come to realize, really stands as an important waypoint in my growth as an individual, as a thinker, and as a physician. How easy it is to become swept away in the currents of one’s career without the least of sustained self reflection. Ideas, emotions, and facts become molded into one amorphous mass - uninterpretable even by its own creator. In these two years, despite the accumulation of fact and maybe even some skill, the mind has become less flexible, less critical, and less aware of its own workings. For certainly, it becomes imprisoned by its old conclusions without any more justification. I hope that with this new post, many more will come. Be they on the scientific ideas I am developing, or the pangs of existence we all must sometimes subsist.These words were inspired by Frankl’s comment in his Introduction to the Doctor and the Soul.

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, hereditary, and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.”

The crystallization of religion

Mon, 30 May 2011 00:16:51 -0400

“Life’s rhythm of pure relation, the alteration of actuality and a latency in which only our strength to relate and hence also the presence, but not the primal presence, wanes, does not suffice man’s thirst for continuity. He thirsts for something spread out in time, for duration. Thus God becomes an object of faith. Originally, faith fills the temporal gaps between the acts of relation; gradually, it becomes a substitute for these acts. The ever new movement of being through concentration and going forth is supplanted by coming to rest in an It which one has faith. The trust-in-spite-of-all of the fighter who knows the remoteness and nearness of God is transformed ever more completely into the profiteer’s assurance that nothing can happen to him because he has the faith that there is One who would not permit anything to happen to him.”

-How true. The objectification of God not only takes away from one’s appreciation of the absurdity and beauty of the world, but it also removes a common place where each individual can come together in relationship, in true community.

Its been a while...

Mon, 16 May 2011 09:01:23 -0400

About two years ago, I decided to start this blog on international affairs. It was a quiet time. I had taken a year off from school, and was living in Los Angeles to be next to my beautiful girlfriend. She had moved out there to pursue her own education, and I was just this sidekick with time on my hands. It was a wonderful opportunity to pursue my own forays into philosophy and thought. But not only that, I had the chance to climb and bike everyday. I was able to experience California and its culture and, in that time, develop a deep desire to return. It was really a moment of self-discovery or self-definition, depending on your worldview. I could spend hours delving into my own thoughts, and understanding my own perspective.This blog was, in part, a reflection of all this internal work going on.

Suffice it to say, however, the busyness of life came roaring back and my moments of reflection / creation dwindled. I was accepted into an MD-PhD program at Boston University. I had to move to a new city with new people. I had to redefine my priorities in the context of what medical school demanded. I had to feel the distancing of my love, and eventually witness the end to that relationship. Overall, these life events stopped this blog (or journal, more accurately) from evolving and, concurrently, my thoughts from developing. In this whole process, I also had lost a deep sense of my own self and my own value.

My hopes for this blog have changed. I no longer desire to be an expert on the Afpak region, although it remains and continues to be a fascinating and volatile region with Osama Bin Laden’s death and Pakistan’s resentment of American power. (because in my mind the US has never resolved the most pressing issue - the Pakistani-Indian relationship). Instead, this blog will take on a more diffuse purpose. I hope to regularly reflect on the books that I read, the brain that I study, and the world that I experience. I do not profess to be an expert in whatever I write and, in the end, it is entirely meant for my own edification. However, if anybody has any comments or ideas they desire to expound upon, I invite them to do so. There is nothing better than human dialogue.

Guantanamo Prisoner Back in Action

Fri, 07 May 2010 16:40:58 -0400

“But Mullah Omar has replaced Mullah Baradar, his top deputy, with Mullah Abdul Qayyum Zakir, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who is believed to be in his mid-30s and has a reputation as a tough fighter with few political skills,” reports the NY Times.

-I was/am for the indefinite closure of Guantanamo Bay and the swift transfer of prisoners back to a United States high-security prison in Illinois. Nonetheless, the difficulties of making cases against such combatants will always be difficult, and will inevitably produce the results that we see today (i.e. some prisoners reaching leadership levels in the Taliban movement). But this is the price of freedom. It is best to err in favor of liberty rather than edge into a 1984 regime. Over time, staying true to these values will vanquish the immorality and dangerous hegemony terrorist groups ascribe to nations such as the United States. One can only wage an effective propaganda war if the doubts of state repression are already present; let us continue to remove these doubts.

-Fivethirtyeight.com, Are we on the cusp of lower...

Mon, 03 May 2010 15:36:05 -0400

-Fivethirtyeight.com, Are we on the cusp of lower unemployment?

"Postmodernism announces (loudly and often) that a supposedly neutral, objective rationality is..."

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:38:20 -0400

“Postmodernism announces (loudly and often) that a supposedly neutral, objective rationality is always a construct informed by interests it neither acknowledges nor knows nor can know. Meanwhile science goes its merry way endlessly inventing and proliferating technological marvels without having the slightest idea of why. The “naive faith” Habermas criticizes is not a faith in what science can do — it can do anything — but a faith in science’s ability to provide reasons, aside from the reason of its own keeping on going, for doing it and for declining to do it in a particular direction because to do so would be wrong.”

- Stanley Fish, NY Times

My Ignorance about US Intelligence Protocol

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:32:06 -0500

The media in the last week has been harping on the failure of the United States’ intelligence agencies to prevent the “Underwear” bomber plot. Obama’s forthright admission of failure was good, but of only temporary importance. We need to improve and fast. From all of this coverage, I still do not understand why better computer-based systems were and are not put into place. Yes, there were bureaucratic issues. Yes, there were individual failures. But why could we not, according to the cliche, still “connect the dots”?

There were two elements I have found most disturbing in the post-attempt analysis.

1. That our security systems depends on individuals to synthesize vast amounts of discrete facts into coherent patterns. Has the the United States government failed to modernize and implement computers into its intelligence protocols? Why are we not relying upon good software and search algorithms which categorize and classify information according to individual terrorist names and the risks they pose? Maybe the United States should hire Google or Visa (which handles billions of financial transactions) to do a better job at handling massive amounts of information. Either way, it is not hard to imagine a computer program capable of handling these tasks and even prioritizing certain cases over others, based on the imminence of particular threats.

2. That there is no common computer base to store and review all terrorist-related information. Of course, the above program would be only good as the information you feed into it. If you do not have all the information, then it is impossible to make connections. But enough already, it is not hard to agree to put everything onto one area of cyberspace!

The Stigma Attached To Pakistani Aid

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:59:14 -0500

Both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal reported today that the American Embassy in Islamabad issued a rare public complaint that “its staff were being harassed and detained as they traveled around the country.” Apparently, American government convoys are being stopped at checkpoints and visas and visa extensions are not being granted. As a consequence, the Embassy is running at 60% capacity and the civilian aid promised by the Kerry-Lugar bill will certainly not be distributed effectively.

Pakistani obstructionism from a Western perspective is one of the most frustrating aspects of this entire Afpak conflict because it seems so counterproductive. The United States is spending valuable resources on the development of a foreign country. Of course, there is a self-interest motive. It is to the United States’ advantage that Pakistan remain a viable state that does not support radical extremists and provide a safe-haven for terrorism. Moreover, in the current war in Afghanistan, Pakistan is the Vietnam-era North Korea. Militants can retreat to areas along the Pakistani border for repose, re-groupment, and training. Removing this critical region for Afghan Taliban would constitute a distinct tactical victory.

However, although the American interest is correlated to Pakistani stability and military cooperation, the American money need not be so tainted. The United States seeks to provide invaluable healthcare and infrastructure developments that could improve the lives of millions of Pakistanis. It is, in a sense, the Marshall Plan of the Middle East. And yet, suspicion and animosity are the primary products of the American investment in Pakistan. Blaming Pakistan is a useless strategy. The American Embassy’s public complaint will likely produce nothing. And the United States should move on with new strategies on how to engage itself more significantly with Pakistan.

The United States cannot ignore the security dilemmas facing the Pakistani state and the extremely negative opinion population has of the United States. The military is suspicious that its nuclear weapons are under intense observation by US intelligence agencies and that India is positioning itself for future assaults on Pakistan. The population has long-held biases that need to be confronted with grass roots efforts, sophisticated information campaigns, and education. Of course, the Kerry-Lugar bill itself was supposed to deal with some of these perception problems, but we cannot expect that the aid would magically create a new environment for American discourse to have legitimacy. Lets be patient. Lets accept that the inevitable concerns Pakistanis may have. If we have confidence in the aid program, then lets give it time to work. Arguing about it will just make the situation worse. Seed projects first need to grow, before development can be accelerated.

Old Article for the McGill Tribune

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:54:00 -0500

I just wanted to post an old article on Iraq that I wrote for McGill so that I have it safely copied onto my own web space. At the time, I was afraid that people would misperceive the Iraqi conflict and believed that because there were relatively successful elections the country was on the right track. Although, in retrospect, I may have overemphasized American oil interests, the rests seems most right:

GUEST SOAP: A take on Iraq

By: Roman Loonis

Posted: 1/31/06

Every day in Iraq, as American soldiers and civilians perish at the hands of “improvised explosive devices,” evidence of a relentless insurgency dedicated to the proliferation of terror mounts. At one time there was a slim hope that a new election would mark the arrival of peace and freedom. Yet following last month’s elections, claims of widespread fraud, voter intimidation and delayed vote counting marred the early optimism.

Degrading security has pushed the precarious social equilibrium out of balance. Terrified Shiites are now migrating into safer, more religiously uniform neighborhoods, as suspicious Sunnis are fighting for their lives and places in society. As tensions mount, the central conundrum of Iraq remains: Can Iraq become a democracy?

In a country composed of three distinct social groups and possessing enormous oil reserves, Iraq has been the target of foreign domination and civil strife for over a century. To become independent and democratic, Iraq must grasp its own history, establish complete sovereignty by rejecting foreign interference and understand its own ethnic and religious plurality.

With the world’s second-largest oil reserves, Iraq is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for oil-driven nations and profit-driven companies. As early as 1914, the British government deployed troops in Basra to control the Persian oil fields. Following the First World War, the United States, France and Britain negotiated complex agreements on the division of the oil-rich lands. Until 1972 and the rise of Saddam, the Iraq Petroleum Company, a consortium of American, French and British interests, maintained a monopoly of Iraq’s oil resources.

There is no doubt that America’s new involvement in Iraq is simply a continuation of ancient practices. Spurred by economic weakness and growing energy dependence, US foreign policy dictates nothing less than resource control in Iraq. Companies close to the Bush administration have won lucrative oil deals worth billions of dollars. Moreover, according to the Global Policy Forum, “the new Iraqi constitution, greatly influenced by US advisors, guarantees a major role for foreign companies.” What happened to President Bush’s remarks in March 2003 that the “oil wells belong to the Iraqi people?”

Recent polls in Iraq reveal that Iraqis and the major oil-workers union oppose the de-nationalization of the oil reserves. The Iraqi will clearly contradicts the American agenda. Thus, can a country truly become democratic when it is not independent?

As oil corrupts the political landscape in Iraq, so do religious and ethnic differences perturb the social landscape. The Sunnis, a minority Muslim group, ruled Iraq since Saddam Hussein came to power. Resentment fermented and religious zeal grew within Shiite circles during the Saddam regime. So with the rapid shift of power to the Shiites following the war, disputes between the two religious groups have fostered violence, assassinations and bombings. Sunni-Shiites marriages are in perilous decline, a symbol of this deepening gap between communities.

In addition to this existing religious instability, the Kurds, a people of Indo-European descent, have a culture and language different from those of the Iraqis. With a total population of 30 million dispersed in Southwest Asia, the Kurds represent one of the largest ethnic groups without a homeland. Under Saddam, the Kurds sought autonomy and received death by the thousands. Today, the Kurds will continue to work for autonomy and the first Kurdish state. With feuding Sunnis and Shiites and autonomy-seeking Kurds, a simplistic, western-imposed democratization of Iraq is futile.

Let there be no mistake. The road to democracy does not end with a quick trip to the ballot box. It is instead a long and winding path through a treacherous mountain pass.

Just in, Dodd out! Crazy turn of events… only two years...

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:41:29 -0500

Just in, Dodd out! Crazy turn of events… only two years ago was Dodd in the race for the President. Interesting race for 2012. (Picture from NY Times).

Complexities of Culture and Counter Insurgency Operations

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:39:36 -0500

The following is an example of how local culture must be integrated into any civilian development. Developing relationships, understanding local power dynamics, and recognizing the weakness of any external approach are necessary to producing tangible, long-term success in Afghanistan. Only by mimicking projects like those of Greg Mortensen and others can we hope for improving the situation there. Objective criteria and metrics are useless in measuring success in any counter insurgency mission. Anyways, here is a good story from Michael Flynn in his report on “Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan”:

“An NGO wanting to build a water well in a village may learn, as we recently did, about some of the surprising risks encountered by others who have attempted the same project. For instance, a foreign-funded well constructed in the center of a village in southern Afghanistan was destroyed — not by the Taliban — but by the village’s women. Before, the women had to walk a long distance to draw water from a river, but this was exactly what they wanted. The establishment of a village well deprived them of their only opportunity to gather socially with other women.”

Reconciliation Gone Missing

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:15:37 -0500

On December 14, I blogged on how the Washington Post was reporting that the reconciliation program, dedicated to bringing Taliban soldiers back into the folds of the Islamic Government of the Republic of Afghanistan, was underfunded and, thus, unsuccessful. I claimed this was part of a larger problem of a lack of responsiveness by the US government. What was most remarkable about the article was that it was published after the Obama Administration continued to claim that the Taliban who had abandoned their violent ways would be welcomed in Afghanistan.

The problem continues:

“This is my obligation, to go back and start fighting,” said Mr. Gul, whose name has been changed. “The government said it would give me land and a job if I left the Taliban. They have broken those promises. Now I will break them.”

Mr. Gul’s situation reveals the challenges facing Afghanistan’s underfunded and often counterproductive efforts to persuade Taliban insurgents to defect. In 2007, several thousand fighters surrendered throughout the country. Now, defections are reduced to a trickle…

The destitution of Taliban turncoats is common, according to Gen. Mohammed.

In all of 2008, 48 insurgents joined the program in Kandahar. In the three months since the presidential election, just five have made their way to Gen. Mohammed’s office.

“There are big problems,” he said. “At first, so many came in saying they no longer wanted to destroy Afghanistan, saying that the fighting life was too hard, saying that they wanted an ordinary life. But they now realize we have nothing to offer.”

-from The Globe and Mail

The United States has now recognized the problem and, it seems, that things may soon change. According to the Globe and Mail, “The United States is reportedly preparing a well-funded amnesty program along the lines of the Sons of Iraq program that persuaded thousands of Sunni Muslims to give up the Iraq insurgency. And Canadian officials are said to be overhauling the existing PTS program with Mr. Karzai’s blessing.” My worries are that perceptions are difficult to change and time is something the United States has very little to waste. The US needs to rush before perceptions of broken promises and misleading rhetoric further become ingrained into the psyche of moderate Afghani Taliban. Moreover, the US must resolve its systematic lack of responsiveness to the development of civilian projects. The military may have the required structure to respond to security threats on a timely basis. I am not so sure the same could be said with the civilian development agencies.

Canadian Border Crossing and Obama's Inauguration...

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:16:00 -0500

‘“As the motorcade moved out, they updated Obama on gathering evidence of a major terrorist plot to attack his inauguration. After a weekend of round-the-clock analysis, the nation’s intelligence agencies were concerned that the threat was real, the men told him. A group of Somali extremists was reported to be coming across the border from Canada to detonate explosives as the new president took the oath of office. With more than a million onlookers viewing the ceremony from the National Mall and hundreds of millions more watching on television around the world, what could be a more devastating target? …” - From “Inside Obama’s War on Terrorism” in the NY Times.

Reading about Canada, a border crossing, and Obama’s inauguration, I was reminded of my own inauguration experience: On the night of January 19, 2009, I was with a housemate discussing the possibilities of a snow-mobiling trip we wanted to organize in the later part of February of that year. Was he up for it, did he think others would come, and so forth. With time, the conversation drifted to the economy, our stock picks, and eventually Obama’s inauguration. I regretted, I told him, that I would not be there for the inauguration. This was a unique moment of history and, after the spontaneous, widespread gathering of US citizens on election day, the inauguration was supposed to attract millions. Here we were stuck in Canada, with math assignments due in the later part of the week, and no place to stay in DC.

By the morning of the 20th of January, my housemate had convinced me that school, distance, and sleep were all insigificant obstacles in reaching Washington DC. After all, finishing a math assignment and getting a normal sleep would not make a dent in the annals of world history. Obama’s inauguration might. So on that fateful morning, my housemate and I resolved to make it to Obama’s inauguration the following day. By about 5 pm that day, the car was packed and our driving strategy established. We would both take alternating 2 to 3 hour driving shifts, before transitioning to the back of the car for a rest. The back of the car was replete with pillows and a comforter so that in a matter of minutes the drone of the car and the softness of the sheets would lure us into a refreshing sleep. The drive was tiring but, on the whole, successful.

In retrospect, we were a bit lucky. After crossing the Canadian border, we stopped at a gas station to add oil to our 1993 Subaru Legacy’s engine. Unbeknowst to me, instead of buying engine oil, I had bought ATF Transmission Fluid. Pouring about half the bottle in, I could have seriously compromised our car’s ability to complete the journey to DC. History was with us. We would make it to the outskirts of the city.

By 3 am, my roommate and I had managed to travel through New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. We decided to park the car at Glenmont, a metro station on the red line outside of the city. What was amazing when we first arrived near the Washington DC metropolitan area was the security forces present on the road encircling the capital. I saw what seemed to be anti-missile and radar installations ever 500 meters on the road. For the next hour, we dozed in the car and, when it came time, we boarded the train. Very quickly, the metro was packed and off we went into a city neither one of us really knew. If we had been smarter, we probably would have foreseen this issue…

In DC, the atmosphere was electric. Even at 4:30 in the morning with a bone-chilling wind and temperatures below freezing, there was a buzz. America was proud again and millions from around the country poured into the city. We ended up waiting for three hours to get access to the mall, but it cost me: I had to throw away my backpack. Nonetheless, we were finally in. Later that day we witnessed Obama’s poised, articulate, and inspiring speech to the nation, and we rejoiced as Bush’s helicopter whizzed away into the horizon!

Family is Complicated...

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:09:00 -0500

Since the Christmas day bomb plot, the United States has more than doubled its support of the Yemeni regime. Today, the United States provides about $150 million in aid to buttress its security and anti-terrorist forces. From a traditional security perspective, the investment makes sense. Yemen has long been a fertile breading group for al-Qaeda like terrorist groups to meet and plan terrorist attacks. About 1 in 8 of the Guantanamo detainees are from Yemen, and even before the attack the United States had up its aid to $67 million. Besides, supporting proxy forces to the tune of $150 million is cost-effective. For comparison, every week in Afghanistan costs the United States government about $2 billion, an order of magnitudes different from the Yemeni investment. Moreover, this strategy is not a new one. For time immemorial the United States has support pro-American regimes in critical regions. Still, I ask, is this a good policy?

One of my principal concerns is that the US is falling precisely into the terrorist strategy of overextension. Of course, I am not talking about resource and troop overextension. Like I said, the affair is really security on the cheap and does not the risk the lives of additional US soldiers. However, the United States must be careful in overextending its welcome or, in other words, its legitimacy. Supporting dubious regimes frames a conversation that the terrorists want to have: Does the United States have the right to go around coercing repressive, anti-Muslim regimes to fight for its interests? Is this an enviable status quo? American legitimacy has been in doubt for quite some time. Confirmation of abuse in Iraq, the illegality of Guantanamo, and the rising deaths in Afghanistan have all eroded the notion of American exceptionalism and undermine the international community’s acceptance of the US as the dominant policing state. Causing civil war to break out in Yemen could only further undermine its international position and provoke fears in countries around the world of the future breach of their own sovereignties.

The situation in Yemen is by no means simple. According to the NY Times,

“Much of Yemen is in turmoil. Government forces on Monday killed two militants suspected of being with Al Qaeda. There is another round of rebellion in the north and a growing secessionist movement in the south. In important provinces where key oil resources are and where Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is strong, government troops and the police largely remain in their barracks or in the central cities. Order outside the cities is kept by tribal chiefs, with their own complicated loyalties.”

Besides this nationwide tumult, the political environment smells of a coup-prone monarchy. The country is run by the Saleh family and few are enthralled with the prospects of Saleh’s son’s succession. An important military commander, Ali Mohsen who is stamping out the Houthi rebellion has openly disaproved of Saleh’s son on the grounds of his incompetence. In addition, Hamid al-Ahmar, member of the the powerful Ahmar family, has definite power ambitions. In August, on al Jazeera, Ahmar claimed that “If Saleh wants the people of Yemen to be on his side against monarchy and defend national unity, he himself must quit pursuing monarchy.”

Causing unnecessary anti-Americanism, fomenting civil war, and inducing the implosion of an ineffective monarchy, the United States’ increased help is risky. The ultimate of failure of the Yemen state could produce a tactical and strategic victory for al-Qaeda and extremist forces to take advantage of. To mitigate this threat, the US must proceed with extreme caution:

How the United States manages Mr. Saleh and his family ambitions will have much to do with success or failure against Al Qaeda. “Washington must work with and behind the regime, whatever its flaws, while trying to push Saleh toward reconciliation with his opponents,” a Western diplomat said. “I am afraid it will take more delicacy than the Pentagon can do.”

"We are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,”..."

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:14:44 -0500

““We are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,” Cheney, one of Obama’s strongest critics, said in a statement to Politico. “Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society.””

- from “Political attacks over Christmas Day airline incident heat up” the Washington Post. Cheney is just insane…

"An American trade panel gave final approval on Wednesday for duties of 10 to 16 percent on..."

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:59:47 -0500

“

An American trade panel gave final approval on Wednesday for duties of 10 to 16 percent on Chinese-made steel pipe in the biggest United States trade case to date against China.

The panel, the International Trade Commission, voted 6-0 in favor of the duties set by the Commerce Department to offset Chinese government subsidies.

”

- from “U.S. Duties on Pipes From China Approved” in the NY Times. Who ever actually believed that we had a free market. Seriously, China has been competing unfairly for years. It only makes sense the US respond in kind.

"The White House estimates government debt accounted for 90 percent of the economy’s total output in..."

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:47:50 -0500

“The White House estimates government debt accounted for 90 percent of the economy’s total output in 2009, up from 70 percent a year earlier.”

- from “Heart-Stopping Fall, Breathtaking Rally” of the NY Times.

There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran (NY Times)

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:30:00 -0500

Haven’t posted in a while. It is after all the holidays. But this was too good a article to not post. Here is an excerpt:

This raises a question: if the deal would have aided Iran’s bomb program, why did the United States propose it, and Iran reject it? The main explanation on both sides is domestic politics. President Obama wanted to blunt Republican criticism that his multilateral approach was failing to stem Iran’s nuclear program. The deal would have permitted him to claim, for a year or so, that he had defused the crisis by depriving Iran of sufficient enriched uranium to start a crash program to build one bomb.

But in reality no one ever expected Iran to do that, because such a headlong sprint is the one step most likely to provoke an international military response that could cripple the bomb program before it reaches fruition. Iran is far more likely to engage in “salami slicing” — a series of violations each too small to provoke retaliation, but that together will give it a nuclear arsenal. For example, while Iran permits international inspections at its declared enrichment plant at Natanz, it ignores United Nations demands that it close the plant, where it gains the expertise needed to produce weapons-grade uranium at other secret facilities like the nascent one recently uncovered near Qom.

In sum, the proposal would not have averted proliferation in the short run, because that risk always was low, but instead would have fostered it in the long run — a classic example of domestic politics undermining national security.

Tehran’s rejection of the deal was likewise propelled by domestic politics — including last June’s fraudulent elections and longstanding fears of Western manipulation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initially embraced the deal because he realized it aided Iran’s bomb program. But his domestic political opponents, whom he has tried to label as foreign agents, turned the tables by accusing him of surrendering Iran’s patrimony to the West.

Although I, at first, enjoyed the strategic discussion present in the editorial and claimed this to be a great article, I do have to hedge my initial response. I do not advocate nor believe the use of military force to be appropriate in the Iranian context. For better analysis of the article, I refer you to Marc Lynch’s blog.