"He created a new Department of the Navy and began building warships."

Not correct. The Navy got its start under President Washington.

"A bill was presented to the House of Representatives on 20 January 1794 providing for the construction of four ships to carry forty-four guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each — by purchase or otherwise. The bill also provided pay and sustenance for naval officers and sailors and outlined how each ship should be manned in order to operate them. Opposition to the bill was strong and a clause was added that should peace be established with Algiers the construction of the ships was to cease.[6]...

In March 1796, as construction of the frigates slowly progressed, a peace accord was announced between the United States and Algiers. In accordance with clause nine of the Naval Act of 1794, a clause that specifically directed that construction of the frigates be discontinued if peace was established, construction on all six ships was halted. After some debate and prompting by President Washington, Congress passed an act on 20 April 1796 allowing the construction and funding to continue only on the three ships nearest to completion: United States,[7] Constellation[8] and Constitution.[9][10][11]

--wiki

USS Constitution was launched in October, 1797. USS Constellation engaged in the first real battle of the US Navy on 9 February 1799, capturing the French frigate L'Insurgente .

Walt

Why does the article feature a picture of James Madison?

It is amusing that the picture of Madison was mistakenly used. Madison would have probably done just the opposite of Adams. He opposed the Jay Treaty and led us into war with Britain.

my friend's mother makes $67 every hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $7203 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site... makecash16.com

For Obama's sake, there is no war fever equivalent on Iran that was experienced against France under Adams' term. If anything, the US has the exact opposite problem: war anxiety from Iraq and Afghanistan. With regard to this analogy, this is the biggest difference with Adams' problem with France.

But this would likely help Obama's case on Iran. With a little luck and an ebbing importance on foreign policy due to the economy, Obama very well could have relatively few consequences of trying an Adams-inspired method of diplomacy. Although I don't think it would help or hurt his presidency with either outcome since his presidency is under threat from other problems like the economy.

This is a pretty good article, but I am convinced that Obama is planning for a war with Iran and merely wishes to appear reluctant to have one.

He knows bombing Iran will re'elect him President, and he can actually finish his cocialistic agenda for the US.

He also knows the rhetoric of Republicans like Gingrich, McCain, and Lindsey Graham are godsends he could hot have invented as allies to his re-election in that respect.

If we bomb Iran--using Israel as the delivery--the election is over. Obama wins.

And so does Jeb bush and the neo-rockefellerites in the Republican Party. Bush will as surely be the next President if Obama wins and Obama will be re-elected if Iran gets bombed.

Ridicilous analogy..France and the United States of 1798 were similar powers where France could be considered a real threat to this country. Modern day Iran is a fly on the USA elephant's hide, a nuisance not a threat. Hype the threat.

I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that there we no nuclear weapons pack in 1798. In essence the US could plan for an attach by France over the course of many months. France was not a theocracy that publicly stated its goal was to wipe its neighbors off the face of the earth. These guys believe that are quickening the end of the world so the 12th Imam will appear and Iran will rule the world. Iran's leaders actually believe this to be true. The makes the situation very different than 1798.

The 12th Imam: Why Is This Especially Important Now?
While Christians look for Jesus’ 2nd coming, the Jews await the Messiah and Muslims await the 12th Imam. However, of the three, Allah’s designated Mahdi is the only one who demands a violent path to conquer the world. Mr. Ahmadinejad, and his cabinet, say they have a ‘signed contract’ with al Mahdi in which they pledge themselves to his work. What does this work involve? In light of concerns over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reportedly stated Israel should be wiped off the map. He spoke to the United Nations in September ’05. During that speech he claims to have been in an aura of light and felt a change in the atmosphere during which time no one present could blink their eyes. Iran’s PM is also said to have spoken in apocalyptic terms and seems to relish conflict with the West whom he calls the Great Satan. This is while he proclaims he must prepare the world for the coming Mahdi by way of a world totally under Muslim control. He is working hard to bring about the world-wide horrors that must be in place for their al Mahdi to bring peace.

There are so many overwhelming differences between the two issues, that one begins to wonder if the writer even proof read his own article.

First you mention the Alien and Sedition Acts in passing. How can anybody look this disgusting piece of legislature? You may say that he was not the driving force, but he sure signed it and enforced it without any apparent second thoughts. I highly doubt that you wish to see the Obama administration deport Iranians and arrest critical journalists, as Adams did.

Secondly, you mention how Adams lost the favor of the Federalists because he did not take America to war. Neither party is exactly clamoring for war against Iran, but you would be hard pressed to find many Democrats calling for war to Iran.

What point is there to be made with this ridiculous analogy? That we should try more diplomacy in lieu of war, or that we should flex our muscles to force Iran back to the table? Obama has done both already, so therefor there should be something else that Adams can teach us about this issue. Either that or the author thought he could be clever with a stupid and lazy historical analogy.

Here we go again with pseudo intellectuals distorting history to make a political point. First, President Adams did pull back from going to war with France in 1798-9, but not for the reasons suggested! In the late 1790s we were in the middle of a Rapprochement with England and France was upset by the new and close association between the United States and England, which to a large degree was being facilitated by French commerce raiders continually confiscating American merchant vessels. This culminated in the infamous XYZ affair. In the aftermath of the Affair Adams did release the documents pertaining to the Affair to Congress which did create a strong anti-French bias and war hysteria in the United States. In a letter accompanying the documents Adam said that he would never again send a delegation to France without assurances that they would be honored as the representation of a “great, free, powerful, and independent nation.” It was in this atmosphere that Congress did approve an enlargement of the Navy and Army. The Quasi War with France followed and in early in 1799 England approached the United States with the proposal of an alliance. Talleyrand, the French foreign Minister, realized that he had overestimated American pro French sentiment and understoond that he could gain nothing from a war with the United States and that indeed, a war with the U.S. might jeopardize French plans to reacquire to Louisiana territory, the details of which were just about completed with Spain, decided to send Adams a formal letter of apology in which he stroked Adam’s ego by stating that they would be received with the respect due a “representative of a great, free, powerful, and independent nation.”
This gave Adams an alternative to War, and the ammunition he needed to go against the advice of his entire cabinet and Congress and to pursue a diplomatic resolution. Adams realized as a result that he had brought the nation too close to war and also by extension too close to falling into the orbit of Britain. Also in 1798-99 Adams understood that the United States was in no way prepared to fight a war. The size of our navy was miniscule and our army was not much better. There was no way the country was could afford to go to war in 1798 and Adams knew this. To characterize Adams as the person who took the lead in turning away from war is to misrepresent both Adams and the events that followed in the wake of the XYZ affair. First Adams did not decide to pursue diplomacy until after Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, apologized and asked Adams to send another delegation to France. The result was the Ellsworth Commission which went to France and from it the United States obtained a cancelation of the Treaty of Alliance of 1778 with France. The successful and peaceful resolution of the events of 1798-99 were of the utmost importance to the United States for it resulted in a normalization of relations with France and would pave the way for the United States to purchase the Louisiana territory from France in 1803.
To characterize and compare the current situation in Iran to Adams and the XYZ reflects a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of American and World History. Iran, as far as we know, has made no similar attempt to reconcile with the international community or the United States. They continue to act as a rogue nation pursuing the development of Atomic weapons despite the efforts of the United Nations to develop a compromise that would allow for them to development atomic energy peacefully. Until Iran demonstrates some willingness to compromise diplomacy will fail and sometimes history has shown us that continuing to pursue diplomacy when a rogue nation and its leaders only use the international community’s desire for peace as a stalling tactic to buy the time necessary to complete is military buildup may result in untold devastation being unleashed on the world.
The League of Nations, led by Great Britain and France were so afraid of war in in 1930’s that they allowed Germany and Adolph Hitler to rearm Germany and the result was that the world descended into WWII. Sometimes Nation’s must be willing to risk war to preserve the peace. Had Britain and France been willing to take a harder line against Hitler at any time prior to Munich in 1938, it is highly likely that WWII could have been avoided. The actions and rhetoric coming from Iran and its leaders are eerily similar to that of Hitler and Germany in the 1930s. To dismiss Iran’s rhetoric concerning Israel is pure folly. I am not in any way suggesting that a military strike be conducted on Iran, but the option of doing so and a strong resolve by the international community is a must if we are to avoid a catastrophic event in the Middle East. We must be willing to risk war to preserve the peace.

http://www.iamvipshopper.com

Polls I've read show the opposite - that Americans do not want a conflict with Iran. We all know a poll's language can be manipulated for desired results, not that anyone in D.C. or the Security Military Industrial Complex would do this.

Polls also show a growing trend in conservatism - but the growth is largely in less populated states - not those tending to be liberal or moderate.I suspect that the "war boys" of the Southeast and some western states - where there are fewer electoral votes - are the ones beating the drums. Americans are sick of wars, and thinking Americans understand that someone behind the scenes is trying to create a conflict with Iran - no matter what they say in public.

It is clear that the Obama administration will undertake every effort to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran. However, to date, there is no evidence that Iran is prepared to make the compromises necessary for diplomacy to succeed.

When the article falls flat on it's face in the first couple of paragraphs implying Iran is " expansionist" that's the red flag for me, that the rest of the article is bullshit propaganda. Exactly the same verbal diarrhea that was spewed from the media pipe attempting to justify war with Iraq. I saw the pictures of Iraq's destroyed and abandoned nuclear research facility, and have read the results of IAEA inspections in Iran, these facts are in the public domain. Iran has no nuclear weapon. The gross hypocrisy of using the term ," expansionist" in context with bombing the Iranian nuclear infrastructure is hypocrisy at it's most odious, when Israel has an undisclosed nuclear weapons program, is not compliant with IAEA inspections of it's nuclear industry, is not a signatory of the NNPT. Israel and the US are also better defined as ," expansionist" given the fact that the US is currently engaged in military actions on the far side of the Atlantic ocean, and Israel is still expanding into the occupied territories of Palestine.
All of this islamophobic crap is better defined as pants wetting propaganda that lies to the American people about the fact that a war with Iran has already commenced in the form of a blockade. A military blockade is always the first act of war, but now the American people are lulled into complacency by the Orwellian newspeak term," sanctions" when those same sanctions, used in Iraq resulted in the preventable deaths of over a million Iraqi elderly, women and children, from starvation, and preventable disease, because the American people were sold the lie that " sanctions" would bring the Iraqi government to the bargaining table. Wrong, " sanctions" by the UN / US only increase the best excuse for enmity and hatred of the west and the US foreign policy. Get a clue, Turn off the TV.

It is laughable to consider Iran an imperial power.

That would be like saying 1970s Sweden was an imperial power because it influenced the cultures and politics of other countries through words.

ya, like france and modern day iran are similar situations..

get real.

iran is about to get smoked.

I think a more pertinent question is "would John Adams read Foreign Policy magazine?".

The answer, by any objective measure, is no.

http://www.debka.com/article/21772/

not the same. Aggressive statements are like bluffs in poker. No one can say what will happen, but the notion that Pres. Obama is not acting with care or is determined to strike Iran for political purposes seems at odds with his removal of America from Iran & the planned disengagement from Iraq. An actual war would be politically disadvantageous at this time.

Once again when one doesn't have logic, obscenity and attacks are the only weapon one has available

I believe Obama will make the right choice that is best for the US. I don't think he will decide on something that increases his chances for reelection. I remember watching a 60 minutes episode on my iphone 5g a while ago that documented a day in the life of the President of the US. The one part that really stuck out to me was when Obama said that on a daily basis he is faced with decisions where all choices are wrong, just some are less wrong than others.

There are other learning experiences from the so-called quasi-war with France more directly applicable to the current standoff with Iran. In spite of its state-of-the-art domestic policy, France pursued its foreign interests as a rational state actor.