Bolton: I wanna war, I wanna war, I wanna war with Iran!

[Shofercia]

There's plenty to discuss with John Bolton's book revelations about President Trump, but this thread's more about how the US conducts foreign policy. To no surprise of people who can think and neutrally analyze the policy prescribed by John Bolton, his book isn't so much against President Trump, as it is a plea to invade Iran.

Former Trump administration official John Bolton mentions the “United States” or “America” exactly 351 times in his new memoir, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.” “Iran” or “Iranian,” however, appears 755 times.

I know that there are plenty of Democrats who are giddy at anything anti-Trump, but I wonder if they actually want a war with Iran, especially if Biden wins the presidency. Wars are expensive, and if Biden fails to reconcile with the Democratic base via improving education and providing community development funds, he's sure to be a one termer. Nor do I see too many people complaining about the rest of America going "thanks for the anti-Trump revelations, now hit the road Johnny Boy" and boldly placing the Neocon-Neolib foreign policy on the ignore list.

So what's this thread about? US foreign policy in light Bolton's book. It's quote time:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/24/john-bolton-book-trump-nuclear-arms-race-russia-iran-north-korea/

Much like after his stint in the George W. Bush administration, where he was undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, Bolton leaves behind a wake of destruction that will undermine U.S. security for many years to come. Every nuclear challenge facing the United States today has gotten worse since Trump took office, and the failure to deal effectively with Iran, North Korea, and Russia is in large part the result of Bolton’s ideas. And, in fact, many of the risks Trump inherited stem from actions Bolton took or championed when he served under Bush...

In just a few years—between 2001 and 2005—Bolton pushed for and enabled three calamitous decisions: the withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow, the abandonment of the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, and the invasion of Iraq over imaginary weapons of mass destruction. From these three decisions, one can draw direct lines to the ongoing arms race with Russia, North Korea’s possession of perhaps 50 nuclear weapons or more, and the ascendency of Iran in the Middle East...

As soon as Bolton was back in the White House, he helped push Trump to take the final steps to violate the deal and reimpose sanctions despite Iran’s compliance. After the United States abandoned the agreement, Bolton and his like-minded allies in the administration tried to bury the deal once and for all to prevent a future administration from being able to rebuild the international consensus embodied in the Iran deal. Today, Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities are growing again, as is its defiance of the international community. For Bolton, this is actually a good thing, as it may force the United States once again to pursue regime change in Tehran—because for Bolton, you don’t negotiate with bad regimes, you change them...

https://www.startribune.com/good-thing- ... 571465722/

What’s amazing about this memoir is that most people with war jollies have enough sense — or at least an editor with enough sense — to include a token humanitarian pretext for their warmongering. Former President Barack Obama bombed at least seven countries — Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Afghanistan — but no one would chalk up these attacks to personal obsession. It’s impossible to say the same of Bolton when he makes his own best case against himself...

Bolton credits himself with convincing Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the multilateral nuclear deal with Iran. The decision, which has now left the U.S. sidelined, has pushed the other signatories — European nations keen to do business with Iran — economically closer to fellow signatories and longstanding Iranian allies, Russia and China. Instead of staying the course with the profitable long-term business approach that the deal afforded, Bolton says that he told Trump that an attack on Iran’s nuclear program was the only lasting solution...

Presumably without any irony — unless the whole book is next-level satire — Bolton rails against foreign interference in U.S. politics, all while making a career of it himself... Bolton proves that the talk of overthrowing Syrian President Bachar al-Assad for the Syrian people’s humanitarian interests was all just a convenient pretext to ensure that Iran didn’t nail down another regional ally.

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/24/21300291/ ... ign-policy

Bolton makes clear President Trump’s foreign policy is absolutely terrible — but Bolton’s is much, much worse... Anyone who reads the 500-plus-page book will find their suspicions were correct: Trump’s approach to the world truly is that shambolic and dangerous. But there’s a twist: The author inadvertently offers readers hope that there’s been a major improvement — because the author himself is no longer in the White House. By his own recounting, Bolton urged Trump to shy away from diplomacy and seek hardline positions against adversarial countries, namely in North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. In one particularly disturbing passage, Bolton says it was “irrational” for Trump not to conduct an attack on Iran that could have led to tens to hundreds of civilian casualties, after it downed an unmanned American surveillance drone. [As Bolton said] I explained why and how a preemptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs would work...

I can easily find more quotes - but you get the gist: nuclear arms race with Russia, sanctions against China, invasion of Iran, preempetive strike against North Korea, regime change via Juan Guaido in Venezuela, and that's just for starters. Never mind the fact that Russia's going to conduct asymmetric arms race, (meaning that Russians would be able to keep up while spending much less money by focusing on key areas,) that China might take an even more aggressive stance due to sanctions, that the Invasion of Iran ended in disaster during the Millennium Challenge in 2002, that a preemptive strike against North Korea might leave Seoul in ruins, and that, even if he comes to power, Juan Guaido is extremely unlikely to rally Venezuela, thus creating yet another Iraq, Bolton wants a war, and Neocons/Neolibs seem all too happy to do it.

Some have even posited that engaging on multiple fronts might bring Americans back together. So, where do you stand on Foreign Policy, NSG? Is John Bolton right? Or will sanity prevail? I follow the realist camp on Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/30/wh ... gn-policy/

Harvard Scholar Stephen Walt is one of the best Realists out there:

Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy has been largely run by a coalition of neoconservatives and liberal internationalists. Both groups favor a highly activist foreign policy intended to spread democracy, defend human rights, prevent proliferation, and maintain American dominance, by force if necessary. Both groups are intensely hostile to so-called "rogue states," comfortable using American power to coerce or overthrow weaker powers, and convinced that America’s power and political virtues entitle it to lead the world. The main difference between the two groups is that neoconservatives are hostile to international institutions like the United Nations (which they see as a constraint on America’s freedom of action), whereas liberal interventionists believe these institutions can be an important adjunct to American power. Thus, liberal interventionists are just "kinder, gentler neocons," while neocons just "liberal interventionists on steroids."

The liberal/neoconservative alliance is responsible for most of America’s major military interventions of the past two decades, as well as other key initiatives like NATO expansion. By contrast, realists have been largely absent from the halls of power or the commanding heights of punditry. That situation got me wondering: What would U.S. foreign policy have been like had realists been running the show for the past two decades? It’s obviously impossible to know for sure, but here’s my Top Ten List of What Would Have Happened if Realists Had Been in Charge.

#1. No war in Iraq. This one is easy. Realists like Brent Scowcroft played key roles in the first Bush administration, which declined to "go to Baghdad" in 1991 because they understood what a costly quagmire it would be. Realists were in the forefront of opposition to the war in 2003, and our warnings look strikingly prescient, especially when compared to the neocons’ confident pre-war forecasts. If realists had been in charge, more than 4,500 Americans would be alive today, more than 30,000 soldiers would not have been wounded, and the country would have saved more than a trillion dollars, which would come in handy these days. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive too, and the balance of power in the Gulf would be more compatible with U.S. interests.

#2: No "Global War on Terror." If realists had been in charge after 9/11, they would have launched a focused effort to destroy al Qaeda. Realists backed the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and a realist approach to the post-9/11 threat environment would have focused laser-like on al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that were a direct threat to the United States. But realists would have treated them like criminals rather than as "enemy combatants" and would not have identified all terrorist groups as enemies of the United States. And as noted above, realists would not have included "rogue states" like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (the infamous "axis of evil") in the broader "war on terror." Needless to say, with realists in charge, the infamous 2002 National Security Strategy calling for preventive war would never have been written.

#3. Staying out of the nation-building business. A third difference follows from the first two. Realists understand that transforming foreign societies is a difficult, costly, and uncertain enterprise that rarely succeeds. It is especially hard to do in poor countries with deep internal divisions, no history of democracy, and a well-established aversion to foreign interference. By avoiding the long-term occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States would have had little need to invest in counter-insurgency or "nation-building," and could have focused instead on more serious strategic challenges. Which leads us to #4.

#4. A restrained strategy of "Offshore Balancing." Since the end of the Cold War, prominent realists have called for the United States to adopt a more restrained grand strategy that focuses on maintaining the balance of power in key areas (e.g., Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf) but reduces America’s global footprint and keeps the U.S. out of unnecessary trouble elsewhere. Such a strategy would also force U.S. allies to shoulder more of the burden and discourage them from either "free-riding" or "reckless driving" (i.e., adventurism encouraged by overconfidence in U.S. support). For instance, realists would never have adopted the Clinton administration’s foolish strategy of "dual containment" in the Persian Gulf, or the Bush administration’s even more reckless effort at "regional transformation." Instead, realists would have maintained a robust intervention capability but kept it offshore and over-the-horizon, bringing it to bear only when the balance of power broke down (as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990). Had we followed this approach from 1992 onward, it is even possible that al Qaeda would never have gotten rolling in a big way or never tried to attack the United States directly.

#5. No NATO expansion. Realists weren’t surprised when the United States decided to move NATO eastwards; it’s typical of victorious great powers to try to press their advantage. But they were skeptical about the whole idea, fearing (correctly) that it would poison relations with Russia and that the U.S. was taking on commitments that it might not be willing to meet and that would make NATO increasingly unwieldy. A realist approach would have stuck with the "Partnership for Peace" initiative, a much smarter move that enabled many useful forms of security cooperation and kept the door open to a more constructive relationship with Russia. Over time, realists would have pressed Europe to take on the main burden of its own defense, fully aware that Europe faces no security problems at present that it cannot handle on its own.

#6: No Balkan adventures. If realists had been in charge, the United States and its allies would have taken a different approach to the Balkan war in the 1990s. The United States might have stayed out entirely — as former Secretary of State James Baker seemed to want — because its vital interests were not at stake. Or it might have pushed for a partition plan for Bosnia, as John Mearsheimer, Robert Pape, and Stephen Van Evera proposed here and here. What would not have happened was the Rube Goldberg effort to cobble together a multi-ethnic "liberal" democracy in Bosnia (an effort that has largely failed and is likely to unravel if outside forces ever withdraw) or the subsequent ill-conceived war in Kosovo (which inept U.S. diplomacy helped provoke). Reasonable people can disagree about whether the world is better off for the U.S. having intervened, but it’s by no means clear that the results were worth the effort.

#7. A normal relationship with Israel. Realists have long been skeptical of the "special relationship" with Israel, and they would have worked to transform it into a normal relationship. The United States would have remained committed to helping Israel were its survival ever threatened, but instead of acting like "Israel’s lawyer," Washington would have used its leverage to prevent Israel from endlessly expanding settlements in the Occupied Territories. An even-handed U.S. approach would have taken swift advantage of the opportunity created by the 1993 Oslo Accords, and might well have achieved the elusive two-state solution that U.S. presidents have long sought. At a minimum, realists could hardly have done worse than the various "un-realists" who’ve mismanaged this relationship for the past 20 years.

#8: A more sensible approach to nuclear weapons. Realists have long emphasized the defensive advantages conferred by nuclear weapons, and have opposed the excessively large nuclear arsenals built up during the Cold War. Realists appreciate the deterrent value of nuclear weapons and believe complete disarmament is impractical, but they would have been much bolder in reducing the U.S. arsenal and would have focused more attention on securing nuclear materials world-wide. At the same time, realists would have acknowledged the technological futility of strategic missile defense as well as its dubious strategic rationale (i.e., even if missile defenses worked perfectly, an adversary could always deliver a warhead to U.S. territory through covert means, thereby making it harder to know where it came from).

#9. No Libyan intervention. Realists (and some others) were skeptical of the wisdom of overthrowing the Qaddafi regime in Libya. This position wasn’t based on any sympathy for Qaddafi or his supporters, but rather on a hard-headed calculation of the interests involved and the potential pitfalls. In particular, realists worried that Qaddafi’s fall would lead to a prolonged power vacuum (it has), and that the groups we were supporting were unknown and unreliable. The intervention also set a bad precedent: Not only did the U.S. and its allies run roughshod over the Security Council resolution authorizing military action to protect civilians (but not regime change), but we were toppling an autocrat who had previously succumbed to Western pressure and given up his WMD programs. It’s possible that Libya will settle down and become a success story for liberal interventionism, but the jury is still out.

#10. A growing focus on China. Realists focus mostly on power and believe that the anarchic structure of world politics encourages powerful states to compete with each other for security. Not necessarily because they want to, of course, but because powerful states cannot take each other’s benevolent intentions for granted. Accordingly, realists are skeptical of the claim that Sino-American rivalry can be avoided by "engaging" China, by fostering tight economic ties, or by enmeshing Beijing in institutions designed and led primarily by the United States. Accordingly, realists would focus on strengthening security ties in Asia (while getting our Asian allies to pull their weight), and work to establish clearer "red lines" with China’s leadership. Over time, making it harder for China to translate its economic wealth into military power will be in order as well. Realists don’t seek a war with China or regard it as inevitable, but they believe that avoiding it is going to take a lot of careful attention to Asian security issues.

To be sure, both the Bush and Obama administrations have moved in this direction, as exemplified by the "strategic partnership" with India and the recent "pivot" to Asia. These shifts occurred in part because there were a few realists involved (e.g., former U.S. ambassador to India Robert Blackwill), and partly because the structural forces were impossible to ignore.

Not all realists would subscribe to every item on this list, of course, and one could add other items to it. For instance, if the EU member-states had been led by realists in recent decades, their ill-fated experiment with the Euro would never have been tried and Europe would be in much better economic shape today. Similarly, realists would have followed a different approach toward Iran, and would almost certainly have tried to follow up on earlier Iranian efforts to improve relations with a "grand bargain" that acknowledged Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment but put stringent safeguards in place to discourage weaponization. (That seems to be where we are headed right now, but it remains to be seen if Washington and Tehran have the patience and political will to get there).

As noted above, realists may have wrong about some of these items (e.g., the interventions in the Balkans and in Libya) and it’s possible that U.S. leaders ultimately did the right thing in those cases on humanitarian (as opposed to strategic) grounds. I’ll concede that possibility, but on the whole, I’d argue that both the United States and some key parts of the world would have been far better off if the United States had used its power in a more realistic fashion. It’s too late to avoid the past mistakes, of course, but at least we can try to learn from them.

Here's a summary of what would've happened if Realists were running the show:

#1. No war in Iraq.
#2: No "Global War on Terror."
#3. Staying out of the nation-building business.
#4. A restrained strategy of "Offshore Balancing."
#5. No NATO expansion.
#6: No Balkan adventures.
#7. A normal relationship with Israel.
#8: A more sensible approach to nuclear weapons.
#9. No Libyan intervention.
#10. A growing focus on China.

Did the realists get everything right? Nope. Poland's a good NATO member, Afghanistan might've been built properly, a special relationship with Israel helps, and so on. However, compare that list with the disaster we have today. I'd rather have no War in Iraq and Poland not in NATO, than a War with Iraq and Poland in NATO, and yes, Neoliberals like Clinton and Biden supported the war. The Balkan Adventures still have Europe reeling, and played a destructive role in the EU. Slave markets are open in Libya.

Anyways, NSG, what's your recipe for Foreign Policy, and what do you think of Bolton's Foreign Policy? His opinion on President Trump is best left for another thread.

[Saiwania]

There is a ton to like about a war with Iran in my mind, provided it is limited in scope. There should be an air war but maybe no ground campaign. I'm content with letting Iran's regime stay in power but decimating their military so they'll have to spend a decade or more rebuilding it.

The best thing about a war with Iran is that it doesn't appear that Iran is able to attack the US homeland in any way like the US can to Iran's home territory. For that reason alone, I'm more willing for it to be done. The US can't attack Russia or China directly because both are the few nations that're equivalent in terms of power projection capabilities- hence having some ability to attack the US homeland directly. Those countries are obviously off the table.

[Gig em Aggies]

There is a ton to like about a war with Iran in my mind, provided it is limited in scope. There should be an air war but maybe no ground campaign. I'm content with letting Iran's regime stay in power but decimating their military so they'll have to spend a decade or more rebuilding it.

The best thing about a war with Iran is that it doesn't appear that Iran is able to attack the US homeland in any way like the US can to Iran's home territory. For that reason alone, I'm more willing for it to be done. The US can't attack Russia or China directly because both are the few nations that're equivalent in terms of power projection capabilities- hence having some ability to attack the US homeland directly. Those countries are obviously off the table.

well you can have your cake and eat too as they say. just bar Iran from the Swift network and sanction the oil life lines then Iran's economy will sink faster then there Nimitz class carrier mock up.

[Kowani]

Wait, I thought it was well known that Bolton was a terrible human being with a worse mustache?

[Major-Tom]

There's a reason that Dems in Congress are largely still discontent with Bolton. If they want someone to assure the American people of Trump's absurdities, it shouldn't be from Bolton.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

On one hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump did all the stuff Bolton said he did. On the other hand, I’m doubting everything he said simply because he’s the one saying it

[The Lone Alliance]

Wait, I thought it was well known that Bolton was a terrible human being with a worse mustache?

But he hates Trump therefore he is now a "Good guy".

[Rojava Free State]

John Bolton was a fucking scumbag and a downright evil bastard since before he joined the Trump administration. One of his life's works was the death of 3000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis back in the 2000s.

[Rojava Free State]

Wait, I thought it was well known that Bolton was a terrible human being with a worse mustache?

But he hates Trump therefore he is now a "Good guy".

This is what I hate about some anti trumpsters. They lack principle and will side with literally anyone to shit on Trump. Trump is a terrible person. Bolton is worse.

[Chan Island]

John Bolton is a psychopath who should be sent to the Hague. I really, really do not care for what he has to say about anything and ultimately am dismissing these claims as from too unreliable a source.

Hell, I despise Trump but Bolton is not the champion to bring on anything. And we should all loudly ignore him.

[Myrensis]

Wait, I thought it was well known that Bolton was a terrible human being with a worse mustache?

But he hates Trump therefore he is now a "Good guy".

Pretty sure no one is claiming Bolton is a 'good guy'.

He's more like a mob witness: We know he's a criminal asshole, but if he can help bring down the bigger criminal asshole in the White House, he can be dealt with.

John Bolton was a fucking scumbag and a downright evil bastard since before he joined the Trump administration. One of his life's works was the death of 3000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis back in the 2000s.

"Since before he joined the Trump Administration" are the key words there. It's been amusing watching the Administration and their apologists wail about what a terrible dangerous lunatic liar Bolton is and therefore how what he says about the President can't be trusted...but absolutely everyone was fully aware of what a terrible dangerous lunatic liar Bolton was when the very stable genius decided to make him part of his Administration.

[Rojava Free State]

John Bolton is a psychopath who should be sent to the Hague. I really, really do not care for what he has to say about anything and ultimately am dismissing these claims as from too unreliable a source.

Hell, I despise Trump but Bolton is not the champion to bring on anything. And we should all loudly ignore him.

He was complaining about Trump not being hard enough on Iran. This guy is itching to turn some Persians into ash, and we're supposed to nod our heads and say "bad trump" when bolton complains about not being allowed to murder people?

[Shofercia]

Friendly reminder: this thread's about foreign policy, not President Trump. From the OP:

There's plenty to discuss with John Bolton's book revelations about President Trump, but this thread's more about how the US conducts foreign policy. To no surprise of people who can think and neutrally analyze the policy prescribed by John Bolton, his book isn't so much against President Trump, as it is a plea to invade Iran.

Sai's post, whether one agrees with it or not, was on topic. If you want to discuss what a piece of shit Bolton is, feel free to do so, in the context of Bolton's foreign policy.

You can also say what you want the US foreign policy to be, how disastrous/wonderful the War with Iran might be, the Millennium Challenge Games that were, let's face it, US v Iran, etc. But please, let's stay on topic.

[Slavakino]

I wanna war with China

[Outer Sparta]

Of course Bolton is terrible with foreign policy. Him, Trump, and Pompeo are all in the same boat regardless of Trump firing Bolton.

[Rojava Free State]

The US needs to stop fighting wars where there doesn't gotta be one. I couldn't give a fuck about what goes on in Iran, and I dont understand why Bolton does.

[Slavakino]

The US needs to stop fighting wars where there doesn't gotta be one. I couldn't give a fuck about what goes on in Iran, and I dont understand why Bolton does.

Because this dude doesn't realise the real enemy is China and needs to be stopped now

[Major-Tom]

The US needs to stop fighting wars where there doesn't gotta be one. I couldn't give a fuck about what goes on in Iran, and I dont understand why Bolton does.

Vice did a great documentary in Iran back in November, it was a return to form for the outlet that had gone wayyy downhill. I won't thread jack much about it, but it shows how wary Iranians are about war, how virtually nobody there wants escalation barring their tiny variant of hotheads in the military.

[Rojava Free State]

The US needs to stop fighting wars where there doesn't gotta be one. I couldn't give a fuck about what goes on in Iran, and I dont understand why Bolton does.

Because this dude doesn't realise the real enemy is China and needs to be stopped now

We need to play defense against the chinese. If China does anything, we respond in kind. Till they act, we don't. I dont want americans dying in Asia again like they did in 1969.

[Major-Tom]

The US needs to stop fighting wars where there doesn't gotta be one. I couldn't give a fuck about what goes on in Iran, and I dont understand why Bolton does.

Because this dude doesn't realise the real enemy is China and needs to be stopped now

Well, war isn't an option, plain and simple. It's going to take a concerted, multi-nation led effort to effectively reform our own trade policies in such a way that we don't suffer all the while China's economic output does.

Easier said than done, but way more agreeable than anything involving war or any level of physical intervention.

[Rojava Free State]

The US needs to stop fighting wars where there doesn't gotta be one. I couldn't give a fuck about what goes on in Iran, and I dont understand why Bolton does.

Vice did a great documentary in Iran back in November, it was a return to form for the outlet that had gone wayyy downhill. I won't thread jack much about it, but it shows how wary Iranians are about war, how virtually nobody there wants escalation barring their tiny variant of hotheads in the military.

The truth is that Iranians are not bloodthirsty savages but are instead normal people like everyone else.

Just like the Iraqis were, before we portrayed them as subhuman savages and proceeded to bomb the hell out of them, killing thousands of innocent people.

[Ansarre]

#1. No war in Iraq.
#2: No "Global War on Terror."
#3. Staying out of the nation-building business.
#4. A restrained strategy of "Offshore Balancing."
#5. No NATO expansion.
#6: No Balkan adventures.
#7. A normal relationship with Israel.
#8: A more sensible approach to nuclear weapons.
#9. No Libyan intervention.
#10. A growing focus on China.

All of these are bad things and I'm so thankful that realists like Walt didn't decide foreign policy. THANKFULLY, there are good realists like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger who have been influential in shaping foreign policy.

Anyways, NSG, what's your recipe for Foreign Policy, and what do you think of Bolton's Foreign Policy? His opinion on President Trump is best left for another thread.

Bolton has a good foreign policy and it's a shame he's no longer in a government position. My signature jokingly includes "Bolton 2020" because I'm a big fan of his, but he just doesn't have a chance at winning and he's 71.

Personally my foreign policy is centered around preserving Western global hegemony and countering China and Russia primarily. This would be done by regime changing all of their little allies, who are coincidentally all ran by wicked people. Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea. And supporting pro-western governments in places that are vulnerable to Russian and Chinese expansion - Ukraine, Vietnam, the Philippines, and most of Africa, for example. Recognizing the growing prominence of isolationism among the American left and right, I'm a supporter of European unionism so that there is another country with the potential to take America's role should it become isolationist. Promoting the free movement of people and capital, and fighting against global terrorism, are things I deem to be important too.

[Rojava Free State]

#1. No war in Iraq.
#2: No "Global War on Terror."
#3. Staying out of the nation-building business.
#4. A restrained strategy of "Offshore Balancing."
#5. No NATO expansion.
#6: No Balkan adventures.
#7. A normal relationship with Israel.
#8: A more sensible approach to nuclear weapons.
#9. No Libyan intervention.
#10. A growing focus on China.

All of these are bad things and I'm so thankful that realists like Walt didn't decide foreign policy. THANKFULLY, there are good realists like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger who have been influential in shaping foreign policy.

Anyways, NSG, what's your recipe for Foreign Policy, and what do you think of Bolton's Foreign Policy? His opinion on President Trump is best left for another thread.

Bolton has a good foreign policy and it's a shame he's no longer in a government position. My signature jokingly includes "Bolton 2020" because I'm a big fan of his, but he just doesn't have a chance at winning and he's 71.

Personally my foreign policy is centered around preserving Western global hegemony and countering China and Russia primarily. This would be done by regime changing all of their little allies, who are coincidentally all ran by wicked people. Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea. And supporting pro-western governments in places that are vulnerable to Russian and Chinese expansion - Ukraine, Vietnam, the Philippines, and most of Africa, for example. Recognizing the growing prominence of isolationism among the American left and right, I'm a supporter of European unionism so that there is another country with the potential to take America's role should it become isolationist. Promoting the free movement of people and capital, and fighting against global terrorism, are things I deem to be important too.

Fighting wars for capital. Damn, that'll really get american support.

I support telling Israel and Saudi arabia and turkey to deal with their own issues, bringing our soldiers home, telling europe to also deal with its own issues, and leaving an ultimatum that anyone who attacks us is screwed. Otherwise, we out.

[Major-Tom]

Vice did a great documentary in Iran back in November, it was a return to form for the outlet that had gone wayyy downhill. I won't thread jack much about it, but it shows how wary Iranians are about war, how virtually nobody there wants escalation barring their tiny variant of hotheads in the military.

The truth is that Iranians are not bloodthirsty savages but are instead normal people like everyone else.

Just like the Iraqis were, before we portrayed them as subhuman savages and proceeded to bomb the hell out of them, killing thousands of innocent people.

Iranians, by and large, are some of the most generous people I've ever met. I have nothing but criticism for their government, but that doesn't necessitate any interventionist nonsense.

[Ansarre]

The truth is that Iranians are not bloodthirsty savages but are instead normal people like everyone else.
Just like the Iraqis were, before we portrayed them as subhuman savages and proceeded to bomb the hell out of them, killing thousands of innocent people.

Unfortunately their government is made up of bloodthirsty savages who support terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Extreme sanctions should be the bare minimum. Supporting anti-Hezbollah groups in Lebanon and Syria is another key step to make. Once Hezbollah is eliminated as a threat, regime change via military action or some other way to destabilize Iran until the government falls apart should become a priority.