American Realism

Realism Defined
Realism has a number of meanings, the one I am referring to is the political theory of realism. It has a couple key principles. First, Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. Second, all interest is defined in terms of power. Interest can mean variety of things as well, there is no fixed thing such as money, guns, etc. Third, moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in abstract or relativistic form. Finally, the political sphere is different from all other spheres, any attempt to apply concepts from other areas to politics is a waste of time. So trying to apply sociological theories is pointless.

Machiavelli was a realist along with famous people like Julius Caesar, Augustus, and more recently Alexander Hamilton. Even FDR was part-realist. Moral principles are irrelevant in judging the wisdom of particular policies in politics. Just because you mean well does not guarantee a good result. When you take moral judgment out, you become objective and dispassionate, the traits of a knuckle-dragging, greedy and racist republican. Unfortunately for the left, history strongly supports the effectiveness of realism and the problematic record of liberal theories. Liberalism tends to envision the world as it ought to be then begins to act as if that world already exists. The problem is that it does not and may never come to be. Realists act based on what "is" now.

American Style
American realism is very distinct. American statesmen have usually judged economic interests and international trade as top interests for the country. The U.S. military and its diplomacy were fairly isolationist and weak until World War 1. We have never desired the largest military, established colonies, or the brutal use of force to subjugate our enemies. The American populace do not value these things as in their interest. Commerce is king.

What is in our commercial interest?
Free trade has certainly been very beneficial. For partisan reasons Obama and others stand in the way of free trade with South Korea, Columbia, and other countries - all negotiated and approved by Bush. The current international regime built around the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank have successfully promoted open trade in most of the world. It has also given the U.S. dollar supremacy. That is rapidly coming to an end and our big credit card might soon be maxed out. There is also serious concerns that the WTO may fall.

Many states have reason to doubt that having close economic ties with us will pay off. Many countries that export to the United States are harmed severely by the economic recession here. No one there buys their goods. A small group of rogue states are arguing that doing business with the U.S. is against national interests and that we are just like any other empire, securing our propserity at the expense of others.

China and India are steadily moving themselves toward economic independence and trying to slowly move away from dependence on trade with us or on our political influence. Russia has been doing this for a long time anyway but now has more incentive to do business in areas that we do not (Venezuela, Iran, North Korea). In short, everyone is trying to find new business opportunities because they are not so sure the United States, Japan, and the EU will come out of this.

We are losing power and influence in the world. This provides opportunity for ambitious powers to move in. China and India are already trying. It doesn't matter that the U.S. is now more popular with the people of the world (Obama-mania), it won't make them do things that will hurt their bottom line. They will do what is in their interest in the end. It doesn't matter how charismatic, eloquent and smooth Obama is. He has changed course so that it is now a more attractive option for countries to seek their own means of prosperity and security.

Iran
Iran is only the beginning. Even now Russia, China, and other countries are doing plenty of business with Iran and allowing them to work around U.S. sanctions. They believe that they are far better equipped to persuade Iran to not actually build nuclear weapons but won't interefere with their efforts to enrich uranium and have the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

How do we convince other countries to NOT do business with Iran? That is a big question. Also, will economic sanctions alone get Iran to stop? How can we make it in the interest of Iran to not build nuclear weapons?

Here are some of my crackpot ideas

• Military Option for precision strikes must be on the table.
• Give an ultimatum regarding negotiations. If no deal is reached, all negotiations cease and aggressively pursue new sanctions. No extensions, no more stalling.
• Openly support anti-government forces in Iran under the guise of political freedom and liberty.
• Negotiate directly with Russia and China on sanctions, appeal to their self-interest. No more arguments about international security and proliferation. Clearly they don't care enough about that.
• Drop hints that the U.S. would not condemn Israel should it decide to strike Iran, try to gather support for it in the Arab World, allow them to publicly condemn the attack but privately applaud it.
• Extend missile shield and nuclear deterrent to Israel. Openly announce that any missile attack on Israel will be met with retaliation from the United States, without specifying whether it would be conventional or nuclear.
• Begin large scale military exercises in the Gulf and Indian Ocean, keep moving resources in and out to make them nervous. Start air exercises. Move stealth bombers if they are not already there.