Thanks for this excellent analysis, but I take exception to this:
"The Likud government of Israel, for which AIPAC is an unlicensed foreign agent, does not believe that negotiations can succeed, and wants the US to force Iran to give up nuclear enrichment altogether."
On the contrary, the Israeli Right fears that the negotiations will succeed, giving them one less excuse for the fearmongering they find so convenient for both domestic and international political purposes.
If a certain number of personnel in the diplomatic offices in your country aren't spies of some sort, you're not very important. This has been standard procedure of every country for as long as there have been diplomatic offices. The problem here is that cover was maintained poorly.
The reason the story on this incident has been so muddled is that the administration and the DoS can't afford to admit what was going on out loud even though it's obvious to any thoughtful observer. Whether you think to exposure of this operation was a good thing or not, it's obvious that if a Dem congress was exploiting a GOP administration's attempt to do the same thing in a similar situation, the accusations of treason would be flying thick and fast.
You seem to be objecting to a comparison to "most" nationalisms that Dr. Cole doesn't make. "Nationalisms like other nationalisms" is not the same as "Nationalisms like most other nationalisms." As is pointed out in other comments, a religious element of national identity is common, although certainly not universal.
For many Americans (let's start with those whose ancestry doesn't trace back to northern Europe) "the government" has never been "our government." There's no doubt that the group for whom this is true has been expanding rapidly over the last decade or so.
Is there any reason to think that acknowledged Israeli support of any faction would not destroy any viability they might have as participants in a future ruling coalition, or would the dynamics of a new Syria allow for such a thing?
Because none of these positions are motivated by consistent principle or logic. Any appeal to either by advocates of the policies is a smoke screen.
Positions labeled as traditional values are really just what the speaker imagines his grandpa would have preferred, and political positions sold as part of a freedom or small government agenda are really just the preferences of whatever monied interest the speaker has accepted patronage from most recently.
Refusing to take the red herring arguments seriously and instead talking about what's really going on would increase the efficiency and clarity of the discussion a great deal.
I'm not sure that the collapse of Catholicism will help much in Northern Ireland. That was always primarily an ethnic conflict between privileged Anglo/Scots immigrants and disadvantaged natives. Religion was more of a marker than a motive, I would think. They wouldn't have much trouble telling each other apart even without it.
The progress of the women's movement is the most remarkable cultural change I've witnessed in my lifetime. I'm a little too young to have experienced the before and after of the civil rights movement, but I started (U.S.) elementary school in a world where the highest aspiration of my female classmates was expected to be to find a husband and graduated from high school into a world where access to every professional path was a reasonable expectation if not quite a reality. That this isn't universally recognized as an improvement for all of us is a tragedy.
An excellent analysis as always, but repeatedly calling Lindsey Graham a "Queen" is beneath you. There are plenty of things to criticize the senior Senator from SeCessionland about without having to go there.
Question for those with a deep understanding of the nature of the regime - do they believe that their fate after a rebel victory is likely to be that of Qaddafi in Libya? If so, granting that chemical weapons are unlikely to be an effective military weapon, how likely would they be to use them if they believe their position is hopeless with no other objective than to take as many of their compatriots "with them" as possible?
Until Israel is interested in peace, Obama's position is beside the point. There would be other kinds of value in a reevaluation of US policy, but forcing an unwilling Israel to make the changes and sacrifices required to make peace with it's neighbors (and vice versa) is quite outside the US government's capabilities.
© 2026 All Rights Reserved
Thanks for this excellent analysis, but I take exception to this:
"The Likud government of Israel, for which AIPAC is an unlicensed foreign agent, does not believe that negotiations can succeed, and wants the US to force Iran to give up nuclear enrichment altogether."
On the contrary, the Israeli Right fears that the negotiations will succeed, giving them one less excuse for the fearmongering they find so convenient for both domestic and international political purposes.
If a certain number of personnel in the diplomatic offices in your country aren't spies of some sort, you're not very important. This has been standard procedure of every country for as long as there have been diplomatic offices. The problem here is that cover was maintained poorly.
The reason the story on this incident has been so muddled is that the administration and the DoS can't afford to admit what was going on out loud even though it's obvious to any thoughtful observer. Whether you think to exposure of this operation was a good thing or not, it's obvious that if a Dem congress was exploiting a GOP administration's attempt to do the same thing in a similar situation, the accusations of treason would be flying thick and fast.
You seem to be objecting to a comparison to "most" nationalisms that Dr. Cole doesn't make. "Nationalisms like other nationalisms" is not the same as "Nationalisms like most other nationalisms." As is pointed out in other comments, a religious element of national identity is common, although certainly not universal.
No worries - now that this demand has been met I'm sure a new set of goalposts will be along shortly.
A very wide ranging and useful summary. Here's hoping the Obama administration continues to resist the bad counsel they're getting on this matter.
For many Americans (let's start with those whose ancestry doesn't trace back to northern Europe) "the government" has never been "our government." There's no doubt that the group for whom this is true has been expanding rapidly over the last decade or so.
Is there any reason to think that acknowledged Israeli support of any faction would not destroy any viability they might have as participants in a future ruling coalition, or would the dynamics of a new Syria allow for such a thing?
Because none of these positions are motivated by consistent principle or logic. Any appeal to either by advocates of the policies is a smoke screen.
Positions labeled as traditional values are really just what the speaker imagines his grandpa would have preferred, and political positions sold as part of a freedom or small government agenda are really just the preferences of whatever monied interest the speaker has accepted patronage from most recently.
Refusing to take the red herring arguments seriously and instead talking about what's really going on would increase the efficiency and clarity of the discussion a great deal.
I'm not sure that the collapse of Catholicism will help much in Northern Ireland. That was always primarily an ethnic conflict between privileged Anglo/Scots immigrants and disadvantaged natives. Religion was more of a marker than a motive, I would think. They wouldn't have much trouble telling each other apart even without it.
The progress of the women's movement is the most remarkable cultural change I've witnessed in my lifetime. I'm a little too young to have experienced the before and after of the civil rights movement, but I started (U.S.) elementary school in a world where the highest aspiration of my female classmates was expected to be to find a husband and graduated from high school into a world where access to every professional path was a reasonable expectation if not quite a reality. That this isn't universally recognized as an improvement for all of us is a tragedy.
An excellent analysis as always, but repeatedly calling Lindsey Graham a "Queen" is beneath you. There are plenty of things to criticize the senior Senator from SeCessionland about without having to go there.
Question for those with a deep understanding of the nature of the regime - do they believe that their fate after a rebel victory is likely to be that of Qaddafi in Libya? If so, granting that chemical weapons are unlikely to be an effective military weapon, how likely would they be to use them if they believe their position is hopeless with no other objective than to take as many of their compatriots "with them" as possible?
Until Israel is interested in peace, Obama's position is beside the point. There would be other kinds of value in a reevaluation of US policy, but forcing an unwilling Israel to make the changes and sacrifices required to make peace with it's neighbors (and vice versa) is quite outside the US government's capabilities.