The Official Neutralist Position on the Iran deal and Iran

Let us preface our announcement with the admission that the Neutralist has in no way focused laser like on the negotiations or the agreement.  If the Neutralist policy were in effect, the negotiations would have been irrelevant.  Why worry about Iran anyway as a rogue neighbor that does not effectively control all its own territory has deliverable nukes.

Our official position on the deal is that it is probably sort of okay.  All the People we respect endorse it.   No one we have some confidence in has opposed it.  Many people we do not have a good opinion of have opposed it.  It wins on points.

As we stated above, if a neutralist foreign policy were in place, there would have not have been any need to have negotiations.

What should a neutralist attitude toward Iran be.

As we have noted in prior posts, William S. Lind has spelled it out,

America's grand strategy should seek to connect our country with as many centers of order as possible while isolating us from as many centers and sources of disorder as possible.

So, if Iran is a center of order, we cooperate with them where we can or have to, and as they are on the opposite side of the world, that should not be too often.

Then again, as they are where they are, there should not be too much need to bug them unless they actively bug us.  We have a history with the Persians, but I don't want to get into who started it.  We should not try to continue it unless we have to.

Then again, If Palestinia can build an ordered state, we can cooperate with them, as we could with the Israelis and the Andorrans for that matter.

Notice, cooperate does not mean ally.

Now there is one state that is a bit rogue.  Granted, it made a good effort in the negotiations, but it feels it necessary to bother the Russkies for silly reasons.  We shall let our readers, few as they are, figure that one out.

America's von Ribbentrop-Samantha Power

Monty Python had a sketch of Hitler surviving and going to Britain to run in a by-election.  His entourage have only slightly changed names.  You can guess who Ron Ribbentrop was.

It was all very comic opera and so is our foreign policy if you are paying attention.  Samantha Power, our UN Ambassador is slick as was von R, but she is selling a dishonest policy to the world body.

Doing a great job dissecting it is a show on RT.  My Yankee chauvinism bubbles up and I confess to ambivalence about RT as a source, but as they say about the folks coming across the border, they are doing the jobs Americans don't want to do.

So, I watched the video and Salon's Patrick Smith was quick out of the box to distill Sam's role.  He called her an excellent rep for US policy.  Problem is the nature of that policy.  Hey Ron served Dolph well so that's what diplos do I guess.  Smith is right and most of the rest of the show was elaborating on that theme.

I had not been aware of Mr. Smith, but he batted it out of the park.  This is not to disparage the panelists, Daniel McAdams and Scott Rickard, they worked well also.

Anyway, watch the embedded video at this link.