First of all, Stalin just so happened to be at the same photograph from Yalta. The author's did a great job, and their message is that despite Obama's distaste for American Primacy and lip-service about multilateralism, his buddy-buddy antics with dictators -- and disregard for alliances dating back before his birth -- he has failed in formulating a viable FP that is characteristic of the manner in which claims geopolitics should work.

He is a neophyte, and since his presidency, has an abysmal batting-average in terms of choosing countries to coerce. Frankly, I think he is in way over-his-head and could bring the world to the precipice of disaster unless he can adjust his ways. Let's hope he's got his own "Triangulation" plan.

I'll go even further. Thus far, Obama has been an embarrassment to the Presidency. That's right, I said it.

Upon further inspection, I find the snubs of Britain and France to be quite interesting. On the surface, things like snubbing an invitation for a meeting five times/the gift issue or declining a dinner reservation, seem like obnoxious things to do to old friends. However, it is here that I become humble and realize that there is a lot of geo-strategic significance to otherwise quotidian aspects of life, like eating dinner with friends or accepting a gift. It would be silly for me be pretend that I understand the significance, and is why I ask: What is the strategic logic in making allies beg to even grace your presence? While meeting the leader of the free world is certainly invaluable, is a policy of treating your allies in a way that necessitates their dependence upon you sustainable and/or even relevant, taking into account U.S.s dwindling, but still hegemonic, status.

I also take back saying that he has thus far been an embarrassment to the U.S. Presidency, because it is far too early to make such an unequivocal statement, and because its not like I have inside info about U.S. Grand Strategy. But to me, the way Obama has treated France, Britain and Israel (specifically) is appalling. In the end of the day, the hope that Obama is just 8 steps ahead of his rivals in the chess game of politics, and knows he can get away with such slights. However, if I were from either of those countries, I'd be pretty pissed at Obama. I'm not exactly thrilled, and he's my Commander-in-Chief.

Well giving Israel unlimited rope is clearly no path to peace. I would argue that sanctions would be most effective vs an allied country like Israel. Vs enemies it often causes them to solidify their positions and nothing gets done. With a country like Israel, who is on the umbilical cord of the US, it is good to show them that we drive policy once in a while.

The two state solution is a racist fantasy of the Israeli government, and even that is too much for them to stomach. Israel is far too powerful and Palestine far too weak for any meaningful state to develop. The obvious solution is 1 powerful state that confers equal rights on all its citizens. This is unacceptable to the racist Israeli Jews however, who insist on remaining the numerical majority, despite all demographic information to the contrary.

This charade trying to establish 2 states will probably go on for decades longer. This region of the world will permanently be cursed to violence and despair until we stop with ethnic politics. A "Jewish Democracy" is apartheid by another name.

Palestinians only account for a 20% of Israel's population. The two-state solution is the only solution; anyone claiming that a one-state solution is any sort of viable scheme to fix the M.E. conflict is delusional, to say the least. Israel has every incentive to concede the majority of the W.B. (97-98%) and all of Gaza...when the Palestinians get their act together. For now, the Palestinian's have no infrastructural capacity to build a state, or the ability to mend the schism's in their own camp, let alone bargain with Israel who is itself divided, thanks to its right-wing coalition holding Bibi hostage.

Point being: Israelis (Likudniks, that is) do not want to cede territory to the Palestinians, but are willing to, if they stop making maximalist demands that are non-starters for any final-status negotiation: right of return and no building in E. Jerusalem just arent happening pre-agreement

Sacrificing US national interests for certain special, globalized interests and the increasing militarisation of society to support the warfare/welfare state. I get the point, looking past the horrible domestic policies of our "allies" like the Saudis, or our erstwhile pets like Saddam, to further US interests. We make deals with monsters while mumbling on about human rights and democracy. The president should make nice with Saudis, but ramble on about Iraq and Iran as threats ala George W. Bush, is that your point? But the point is, US interests aren't furthered. And as far as being a bad president, he's in good company. This country hasn't had a decent leader since Eisenhower, and before him you have to basically go back to Lincoln, and before him you have to go back as far as John Q. Adams. The rest are a bunch of mediocrities.

There are a plethora of reasons why your reasons are vacuous. I could list many nations that subsidize a particular region or ethnic group, yet still face open rebellion. It is not enough. The only way to avoid long term problems is to bring everybody into the political sphere and give them equal rights. A "Jewish Democracy" BY DEFINITION requires that the Arabs, who have far higher birth rates, be systematically eliminated from their lands. One word for this is genocide. Even now, it is an open argument in Israeli society that something must be done about Israeli Arabs as their demographic % is rising at the expense of Israelis.

All of this is insane ethnic politics. Until there exists secular democracy, with no preference toward either religion, then these problems will be passed on for generations. "Tough" is a horribly stupid thing to say. Israel is a fundamentally racist country and I would argue that there is no place for religious states in the modern world, whether it be Israel or Iran (as both are in the same league).

I assume you feel the Islamic Republic of Iran should be disbanded and forced to become a secular democracy on similar moral grounds? Their Jewish minority is afforded far lower status than Israel's Arabs.

In a similar vein, when will you stand up and demand that the United States and Mexico form one nation? After all, the United States is "occupying" Mexican territory (Texas, California) and continues to treat illegal Mexican immigrants like second class citizens.

Point being, if you're going to pick on Israel for being a Jewish state, then you need to be consistent.

Didn't see your last note about Iran. At least your consistent. Nevertheless, I still fundamentally disagree. Nationalism may seem arbitrary and even racist at times, but it is in many respects a fundamental human right. We've learned that when we've tried to suppress national identities, it usually results in worse strife, as in the Balkans. There's nothing wrong with nationalism up to the point that it suppresses another people. This is unfortunately has been the case with Israel and the Palestinians up until now – BOTH sides, generally, reject the right of the other side to nationhood. Nevertheless, making one state for both peoples won't satisfy the national aspirations of either nation. Two states for two peoples may sound like an empty slogan at this point, but it really is the only viable solution.

"The obvious solution is 1 powerful state that confers equal rights on all its citizens. This is unacceptable to the racist Israeli Jews however, ..."

That solution was proposed in 1920 and the Jews supported it - unfortunately, the racist Arabs would have none of such a plan and began their campaign of terrorism to drive the Jews out of Palestine.

"A "Jewish Democracy" BY DEFINITION requires that the Arabs, who have far higher birth rates, be systematically eliminated from their lands. One word for this is genocide."

Um, no, displacement of people is not genocide - at least for anyone who knows what genocide means.

"Or is this typical US arrogance?"

Maybe the comment is typical anti-US parroting without any functioning braincells behind it.