Jimmy Carter. As for Iran being removed from the terror list, that’s about as clearly political a move as ever existed. Even if Hezbollah isn’t thinking of attacking the US mainland, they most certainly do carry out attacks against American targets elsewhere. Which makes Clapper’s assurances about them rather uncredible.
I’m not a huge fan of JC, but his was the only modern presidency when we weren’t bombing the shit out of someone. I guess I missed how that was a problem for us.
We don’t have to bomb to be respected or feared. We just have to not cozy up to our enemies against our friends’ interests. Or as Moynihan famously put it: ‘Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, he has essentially adopted our enemies’ view of the world’
And another question. Under Jimmy Carter, did the world become a safer place, or a more dangerous place? How about under Obama? Now compare their records to the records of Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and Bill Clinton.
Then why did you specifically quote the bit about U.S.-based Hezbollah agents posing a threat to the American mainland?
Bolding added.
Because they do. A conveniently timed report from the FBI director is not proof of anything. I just didn’t think it was worth debating since Hezbollah’s status in international terrorism is well established.
But an alarmist 60 Minutes report from twelve years ago is. Got it.
No, Bob Graham’s word is worth something. He was only head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Yeah, American intelligence was at its absolute peak back in 2003, wasn’t it.
We agree they are here. But just to raise money? They would never dare to switch to recruiting and planning attacks?
“Never”? No. There is no such thing as “never,” not in politics there isn’t.
There is, alas, no way to guarantee that the U.S. will never attack Iran, or Iranian citizens; there is, alas, no way to guarantee that Iran will never attack the U.S., or American citizens. But as long as the two countries chat away, do deals with one another, increase trade, work to improve relations and to find shared goals and common ground, the chances of that happening drastically decrease.
Under the US the world is a much safer place for Americans – chiefly because we got most American troops abroad out of harm’s way.
As far as the bad stuff that’s cropped up, like ISIS, these would have been made much worse (and much less safe) with further intervention.
Why should they bother? As it stands now, people go nuts and carry out attacks that they can claim after the fact. Without taking the risk of American intelligence sending in a fake. They get all the value, none of the risk.
They would have to thoroughly vet their targets before they make the approach, otherwise they run the risk of being turned in by other Muslims. Which they would be. Remember that guy in New York, the Muslim who went straight to the authorities when he got wind of a potential attack? How everybody was saying “Who was that mosqued man, I wanted to thank him…”
Well. OK, not everybody. Me, mostly.
This should read “Under the present administration…”
Well, how about the country I happen to live in? Canada is not happy with the deal. Dunno if you Yanks cout Canada as a “power” though.
Of course, then there are the Sunni countries in the ME, who have ambivalent feelings about the deal for their own sweet sakes.
The “other powers” mostly don’t care if Israel has been ‘sold out’ - they are marginally friendly, neutral or unfriendly towards Israel anyway. A lot of people worldwide are happy to see that loudmouth Bibi get slapped across the chops. 
However, no matter what they think about Israel (or Bibi), getting a reputation for selling out even (as far as they are concerned) nasty and obnoxious ‘friends’ is, from a strictly unemotional POV, not a good thing for the US. Countries can publicly applaud Bibi getting shafted, while privately resolving not to put themselves in a position where they get shafted by trusting the US too much.
It may well be worth the risk. But to pretend the risk doesn’t exist is foolish.
I wouldn’t know how to measure the “safeness” of the world, nor would I know how to attribute a given amount of “safeness” to a given US president. And neither would you.
Well, true, more or less. I wouldn’t say our relationship with Iran was significantly better during Carter’s term.
But you are correct - boycotting sports events and crashing helicopters, not bombing, was more Mr. Peanut’s style. And splashing killer bunnies with a canoe paddle.
Regards,
Shodan
Thank heaven for Reagan, Carter would never have had the balls to face down Grenada’s military juggernaut!
And starting the most successful CIA covert action ever. That was Carter.
Without Reagan, how else could we have helped both drug lords and theocrats simultaneously? You can’t put a price on that kind of efficiency.