Politics is not really my area of specialty, but I did find something by searching under Foreign Policy “Realism,” from Wikipedia.org “all of which share a belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics . . . ”

Sounds like a cynical and over-generalized definition with respect to foreign policy efforts.

Military is first and foremost a measure of security and defense. Offensive dictatorships use military power differently than defensive democracies.

I am not certain that the term is being misapplied or applied out of context. Maybe since you used the term in a previous blog and then only dropped it as a comment in this one, it is inapplicable. Since you do not elaborate, I am going to ignore it.

Also, I made that chum/feeding frenzy comment attached to the next blog article, sarcastically. I obviously value being able to comment and read this blog.

ME

When you say realists, I think of legal realism. Maybe if you explain, I will understand better.

So then the parallel to a realist in legal terms, is a positivist, which does not sound like a neo-con.

That makes no sense, who is on a foreign policy team? The Department of State operates foreign policy matters in general, so be specific otherwise.

What started in 2006? Foreign policy tilting away from Israel? Reads like . . . umm hogwash.

In fact, this started during the Bush administration in 2006 when the ‘neo-cons’ were replaced by ‘realists’.

Basically, I guess I just get a little irritated at the fact that sometimes, even though a right or moderate right government works in Israel, you sometimes infer that the same is required in America in order for Israel and America to maintain an allied relationship that is compatible.

That is why, sometimes, political ideologies should not be taken as static in a discourse involving the issue of Iran and its nuclear policy. You even acknowledge, as I continue to suggest, that other Middle Eastern countries can be allies for Israel against any Iranian proliferation. And those countries are anything but liberal in many ways.

After I looked back at archives from one of the links, the one on the X-Band Radar, an article that I had not really paid that much attention to in the past, I noticed a comment by you in an article entitled “Why I still can’t make up my mind,” with a comment date of October 13, 2008, wherein you state that you don’t view the US government as controlling the Israeli government actions per se, but only that the US makes impressionable influence on Israeli government.

Now, since Obama is in office, you seem to be more convinced that Israel’s bent towards the right is incompatible with a democratic government in America, often, since you deride the Obama administration efforts.

If you look at foreign policy efforts, in general, the Obama administration is acting, which is more than could be said about other administrations. So, the fact that Iran is being persuaded to communicate with the modern 21st century, instead of hiding behind its so called proxies, is a start.

Consider your past comments with respect to the influence of American approach on Israel.

So what does Iran want? Control of the region and its oil supply and to export its revolutionary Shia Islam. What it will insist upon from the US are concessions that advance these goals. Such would not be good for Israel.

It’s certainly true that the Egyptian and Saudi regimes, as well as the Emirates, would be happy if Iran did not have a nuclear weapon.

What would I do? One thing would be to fully support Israel in its struggle with Iranian proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. The Obama Administration is pushing the nonsense that creating a Palestinian state is a road to peace, but since what will happen is that it will shortly be a Hamas state, the effect will be to weaken Israel and reduce US influence in the region.

I’ll write this more clearly in a blog post.

What support do you have for the contention about the Obama administration and America’s perceived lack of support with respect to Israel’s security, aside from fears based on decisions that do not correspond with traditional approaches to Iran, that have been unsuccessful?

In other words, if you were in a position to control anything with respect to Iran, how would you approach the situation, and why would your approach be more effective than what you fear is occurring at present?

Also, would your approach be overly biased with respect to Israel (is that a dumb question?), or would it also consider other Middle Eastern countries that likely agree with general premises on approaches to combating Iran’s nuclear advances?

Well, Israel is the best place to support because it is burgeoning democracy, with great influence for many people in the Middle East and around the World. Israelis spread good will for the full and most part and provide genuine contributions to society and culture around the World.

So, consider the source of those disingenuous ninnies . . . the same weight of ignorance accorded in their misperceptions is the same weight of credence their influence will be given in meaningful spheres.

Supporting a flourishing democracy in an area where such political and social dynamics have generally been absent, is positive.

It is not clear what you meant by “disingenuous.” That Israel may have been erroneously viewed as having received favoritism from US?