Voters Take Sharp Anti-Establishment, Change-Oriented Turn; Defense Department, Same Old Conflict-Inducing Policies: Trouble Ahead!?

If the early polls, caucuses and primaries have revealed anything about what is to come in this year's election, it is that the electorate is in an extremely anti-establishment, change-oriented mood. The party-backed Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, is being given a challenge no one anticipated by an independent-minded democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, and the candidates backed by mainstream Republican party leadership do well to run a distant third in the early polling and state primaries. Voters are clearly fed up with politics as usual, the same old political party leadership, the gridlock in Washington DC, the declining state of America's middle class, repeated disappointment in political leadership which promises so much, yet produces so little, our own nation's infrastructure failing while billions of dollars and thousands of lives are lost in foreign endeavors which fail to resolve conflicts, only make them worse.

 Unfortunately, different segments of the American public are being driven in opposite directions in their desire to repudiate the political status quo. Anti-establishment Democrats are moving towards the left, towards Bernie Sanders, anti-establishment Republicans towards a wild card outsider, Donald Trump, or an extremist right-wing Tom Cruz, with many independents joining in  the move toward one extreme or the other.  Sanders surprising and growing appeal is pulling Hillary Clinton's campaign further towards the progressive side than it would otherwise be, ideally she would position herself as a moderate,  comfortably in the middle. The outcome of this clash is certainly impossible to foresee at this time, but one thing does seem all too clear--an increase in polarization and divisiveness is likely, both during the election and beyond, which can only produce more stalemate and peril for the nation.

 The campaigning is a full-blown media spectacle, fascinating and often entertaining for the viewer, but are we observing the gradual approach of a political perfect storm, the parties and the population so divided that the consequent breakdown in the functioning of Washington DC could have catastrophic results? Hopefully this will not occur, but it is a possibility if the pull towards the extremes continues, if some degree of moderation and collaboration does not emerge.  Both of the latter have been in all-too-short supply lately.  The historical ideal in our nation has been that, after the presidential election is over, congressional leaders on both sides of the political divide work together with some degree of accommodation and compromise to provide legislation in the best interests of the entire nation. This ideal has happened less frequently in recent decades, and hardly at all since 2008, to the great detriment of our nation's progress and well-being.

Meanwhile, while our domestic focus is on the looming election battles, our Defense Department establishment has been issuing some policy statements and warnings of foreign threats which sound all too reminiscent of past pronouncements and conflict-inviting policies that led to ill-fated consequences.  Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified before Congress as to his perception of our nation's greatest foreign threats, specifying three nations, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Strangely similar to the tragically-conceived "Axis of Evil" of the George W Bush administration, in which Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were named, it would be a tragedy if it led to similar results.  The danger in such hostility-arousing labeling is that it can tend to make more likely the very negative outcomes it is warning against.  In the case of the Axis of Evil, it preceded the administration's  initiation of a manipulated war of choice against the first-named Iraq, the consequences of which we are still struggling with, after 13 years, at great loss of life and tremendous national treasure and esteem. In the current listing of foreign threats, it places them in a firm role of adversary, rather than as nations, among many others, with whom we have various issues that need to be dealt with, negotiated, and contained, preferably in concert with other nations. We are negotiating in this fashion with Iran, and containing the ambitions of North Korea.  With Russia, it is a different story.

 It is especially concerning to see Russia on the list of threatening nations, and placed at its very top. That issues exist with Russia is undeniable, over the Ukraine, Syria, nuclear weapons control, Iran, expansion of NATO, Putin's leadership style, etc. The West, however, bears at least partial responsibility, along with Russia and other nations, for these issues arising.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has given up their open expansionist drive and replaced a communist economic system with a system incorporating free enterprise.  Many in the West, however, especially in the US, have never given up seeing Russia as a threat, and have treated Russia in a way that would invite its enmity. A real "mirror image" effect occurs between the US and Russia, they see the US as a threat to them, which mirrors the threat we and our allies fear from them. This sets up, of course, a vicious circle, in which each side makes moves to counter the threats they perceive from the other side, and these responses can indeed be threatening.

 Russia does have considerable reason to feel threatened by the West.  Attempts to expand NATO to its very borders, earlier in Georgia, now in the Ukraine; the placement of missile systems in nations on their borders; some of our political leaders castigating Russia as a threat, even prior to any threatening behaviors emanating from that nation. Russia has, and should, react against what it perceives as threats to its national security.  When western influences attempted to draw a neutrally-aligned Ukraine into the western orbit with a governmental overthrow in 2014, this was clearly a reach too far which Russia could not allow, they wasted no time in acting to secure their long-standing rights in the Crimea. Russia has shown willingness to negotiate with the West, over the fate of the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainian regions through the Minsk process, also in the fight against terrorist groups, in reaching the Iran Nuclear treaty agreement, and in nuclear weapons security negotiations. They are offering to join in negotiations over Syria, and in the fight against ISIS, and there has been recent progress in talks for a ceasefire between conflicting sides in Syria, so some of the carnage can end, the needs of the displaced and refugee population attended to, and focus placed on defeating ISIS.

 With our prime immediate world threat being ISIS, priority should be on seeking full international cooperation in that battle. Seeing  Russia at the head of an enemy list is counter-productive to any hope of engaging them in any fruitful negotiation and collaboration in that, and many other, pressing regards. When there is great reason and some room to negotiate, prematurely casting a nation as an enemy not only often has the self-fulfilling prophecy effect previously described, it also reduces the likelihood of drawing that nation into full cooperation in needed joint endeavors, like the defeat of ISIS.  Other leading nations do see ISIS as their major threat, while our nation's priority remains divided and muddled, fighting ISIS but also supporting rebel groups fighting to overthrow Assad . Syrian military forces  constitute the most powerful ground forces capable of fighting ISIS in their Syrian strongholds. We can't have it both ways, supporting groups fighting Assad and having effective ground forces fighting ISIS at the same time.  If the fight against ISIS is the highest priority, Assad's forces are needed, and would be in this battle, along with other Moslem forces, and with Russian and full western support.  With a temporary ceasefire in the civil war against Assad by the rebel groups, and with Assad's fate  deferred until later, this can occur. Secretary of State Kerry's negotiations to achieve this end deserve full support.  The battle against ISIS will take effort over time, and western involvement and leadership in the Middle East will need to be replaced by locally-generated Middle Eastern engagement and solutions.  This will lead to uncertain outcomes and perhaps be difficult for western powers to fully accept, but the days of western-induced, fought, and maintained regime change and control are over, if history is any judge.

In short, both domestically and in the foreign affairs field, major changes are in the air, being forced upon the US, if not deliberately chosen, by failures  in the political and international status quo that has existed.  In the domestic arena, it is the voting public that is demanding change, only establishment politicians and vested interests are highly resistant. In the foreign arena, profound changes in the world we live in are necessitating the need to change our nation's way of dealing with the world around us.  We are still the sole military superpower, but there are now other, multi-sources of power. The world economy, emerging nations, restive populations, communications advances, the demand that nations must cooperate in dealing with major climate, health, terrorist, and numerous other active and frequent global threats.  Change is never a smooth, seamless process, many people will actively resist, perhaps view change as a negative capitulation of principles they hold dear. Others will push too hard, expect too much progress too soon, and set themselves up not only for massive disappointment but also for massive resistance from opposing forces. Is there leadership available capable of negotiating the challenging, troubled times ahead?  Only time will tell.
 

AMERICA'S ANGRY: THE VOTING PUBLIC IS LETTING THE ESTABLISHMENT KNOW THEIR ANGER IS FOR REAL

America is angry. And the mainstream establishment of both of our political parties is in disarray.  The polls and the debates leading up to the primaries which will determine this year's presidential candidates have taken the leadership of both parties by surprise. Their likely presumptive candidates are not doing well, the party machinery having failed  to corral their voters to support their favored candidates.  Just a year ago. the experts were talking about a possible match-up between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, they already had the largest campaign chests and donor lists, and the support of prominent party leadership. The public was curious about the possible duel between two established political families, but clearly not impressed by what it offered the nation.

 Both parties clearly misread the depth of anger and disappointment felt by the public over what has been happening in Washington DC in recent years. The government was proving to be highly dysfunctional. Twelve years of failed fighting in the Middle East; gridlock in Congress, with the opposition party determined to block virtually every move proposed by a twice popularly elected President; two parties becoming more and more polarized, unable to agree even on issues that both recognize are necessary for the nation's well-being; a divisive media, further inflaming the public's sentiments about government; rapidly increasing income disparity, weakening the shrinking middle class, with no relief in sight from Wash. DC.  Terrorist attacks added fear, insult, and injury to the rising anger, which finally welled out and overflowed as the public started responding to early presidential polls.  Still, the political experts assumed Donald Trump's initial popularity would subside, and the more mainstream GOP contenders would rise in the polls. The Democratic Party leadership took it for granted Hillary was home free.  They scheduled a minimum number of debates, Hillary was slow to engage in substantive campaigning. The public, though, clearly had other ideas.

Trump's poll numbers have continued to rise, reaching levels that the pundits never thought possible. His closest competitors on the GOP side are also from those outside the party's mainstream, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson.  Their other close contender, Marco Rubio, while favorable to the party leadership, has had to become more strident, and adopt more contentious positions, to keep pace. Trump and Cruz openly display their anger, in their manner as well as in their positions. When Trump was indirectly criticized by party leadership for being intemperate, he openly embraced the charge of being angry, and turned it to his favor, as he fully shared and reflected the anger his ever-increasing base themselves experienced.  The GOP base is clearly not just angry at seven years of President Obama and what they perceive as his faults in leading the nation. It is also angry at the leadership provided by the dominant Republicans, their failure to foster more party unity or break through their obstructionist role in Congress, all leading to the lowest Congressional approval ratings in history, and  with Republicans in charge of both chambers. It is not likely this anger will dissipate prior to the November election, so be ready for a contentious candidate, and a contentious election.

On the Democratic side, it is developing into a real contest for the nomination, rather than an easy stroll for Hillary Clinton. While Bernie Sanders, an avowed democratic socialist, was not expected to garner more than 10 or 15% support, he has risen steadily in the polls, into the 40% range. He is drawing enthusiastic crowds, and has obvious appeal to those in the democratic party base who listen to his message. Young voters especially seem to be drawn to him, as well as some independent voters who have seen both parties  failing to meet the nation's basic needs.  The many Democrats who were initially drawn to Barack Obama because of his message of hope and change, only to become highly disappointed that the change he promised was not backed up by consistent action and steadfast leadership, have found in Sanders someone whose sincerity, clarity of message, and strength of purpose suggest that the change he offers may this time be change one can believe in. Their anger may be more muted than that of current Republican voters, but their rejection of the establishment is equally strong. They want a candidate who doesn't mince words, who they feel they can trust, who is truly independent and likely to represent the public's best interests, not just the interests of their primary donor base.  Hillary is seen more as an establishment politician, one whose message may lean towards what her base wants and what may prevail in an election, but does she offer real change over policies that have been failing over the past several decades?  Even with those who may vote for her, she is failing to elicit the necessary enthusiasm to guarantee winning elections.

This election scenario portends a very unpredictable outcome.  The establishment is being rejected, real change from what exists now seems desired by a majority of the voting public. The vested interests resisting change are as strong as ever, but the forces opposing them have developed more strength than expected. Full battles are underway within each party, change versus establishment, to be followed by a vigorous battle between parties, perhaps over a major change in the direction our nation takes in upcoming years. If the GOP wins in the direction of change, expect more conservative dominance, a drawing back from the government being involved in meeting societal needs and granting more human rights. Could Tea Party thinking become ascendant for a time, more exclusion, more divisiveness, more petulance, more acceptance of prejudice, less acceptance of those who are different?  Or might change be in a much more progressive direction, renewed emphasis on a push for major economic and social changes directed towards the government being involved in attempts to elevate the well-being of all elements within the population? Change in either direction involves major risk. So, too, does continuing on the same path we have been on in recent years. The public does seen to be angry, pushing for change, whether ready or not. Which way will it be? Time will tell, and that time may not be far away.

My Latest Poster.....copyrighted.

COMBATTING ISIS: IS THE US LOSING A RARE OPPORTUNITY TO FOSTER A BROAD COALITION OF NATIONS IN THIS COMMON CAUSE?

ISIS has emerged in the last few years as the most dangerous enemy facing  major Western powers, as well as being a threat to Muslim nations and peoples not willing to submit to its tyrannical domination in pursuit of creating an extremist, radical Islamist caliphate in the Middle East.  Its rapid rise has astounded the West, its military leadership drawn from elements of Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni army, which was disbanded by the US occupying forces when they took over Iraq in 2003.  These military careerist were turned loose without employment, were increasingly joined by other disaffected Sunnis in Iraq who were alienated by the Shiite government that the US had installed, merged with radical Sunni rebel forces in Syria fighting the Alawite Shia government of Bashar Assad, joined by other anti-western, extremist Islamic youth who might have otherwise been attracted to the now deflated al Qaeda movement, and became a major military and financial force when they were able to capture large supplies of US military weaponry, as well as oil producing areas, that the US-trained Iraqi army was unable to defend.

 ISIS's hatred of the West seems to know no bounds, and similarly shows no mercy on other Muslims who resist its overtures. It has, in effect, declared war on Western nations, especially those with any history of involvement in the Middle East, and on Muslim nations and peoples that dare stand in its way.  Its prime strategies  are to advance and conquer  areas of the Middle East, and now even  in Africa, where its reach extends, and to spread terror and fear within Western nations beyond its immediate reach through vicious attacks.  The nations of the West, the Middle East, and much of the world, have no alternative but to respond in force.

Facing such a sworn and prime enemy, a rare opportunity exists for all involved nations to join together in a broad, cooperative coalition, including even those that are not typically inclined to join together and have various issues that tend to keep them apart.  If the major forces having reason to oppose ISIS, namely Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Kurds, and other Middle Eastern, Muslim nations and sects, were providing troops on the ground; and  the US, French, Russia, the UK, and Germany were providing air support,  ground advisors, and military coordination, their power, through all working together and coordinating their efforts,  would be overwhelming.  The dynamics of multi-power politics, unfortunately, are preventing this from happening.

 A major obstacle is the US insistence that the removal of Assad in Syria continues as a co-priority of our policies, so we are continuing to support rebel groups other than ISIS fighting Assad, while at the same time launching attacks on ISIS in Syria. This puts us in opposition to the position of Russia, which is supporting Assad, has a legal military presence in Syria at the invitation of Assad, and adds to Assad's military strength, which is already the major ground force fighting ISIS in Syria.  Turkey's motivation to fight ISIS is diminished by its ongoing conflict with Kurdish populations.  Iran is desirous of fighting ISIS and has forces on the ground in Iraq, but its diplomatic battles with the US make any real coordination in their mutual efforts problematic.  The Iraqi forces are weak, appropriately reluctant to accept US boots on the ground in their land, as the majority of local populations are not only against a repetition of that, but also aware the presence of western ground forces are a major recruiting attraction for ISIS, and in keeping with ISIS's strategic plan .  And on it goes, a region so racked with a long history of western interference, and with deep sectarian and political divisions,  having difficulty uniting temporarily to defeat a common enemy.

 Since much of this immediate crisis, the rise of ISIS, was created through misdirected Western involvement,  Western nations should be a major factor in its resolution, even without  ground forces to engage ISIS in land combat. Middle Eastern nations have the most at stake with the rise of ISIS, it is necessary that they provide the ground troops to regain and hold land ISIS has overtaken.  Only local populations can hold and maintain peace on that land over time. The West cannot successfully do that, and if it tries, it diminishes the motivation of regional nations and peoples from fully engaging in that battle.   The West must, however, provide the coordination, facilitation, and air support necessary to ensure success. This is where current US policy is failing to demonstrate responsible leadership by encouraging formation of a full international coalition.

 As the major instigator of the ISIS crisis, and the nation with the most military power in the region, the primary coordination role should reside with the US, and it has resisted this role, with its priority on replacing Assad in Syria, along with its antipathy towards Russia, the major apparent reasons.  The French government, after the ISIS attack on Paris, has made it very clear, the immediate priority is on defeating ISIS, other considerations are secondary. They are in consultation with Russia to push for a broader coalition. Russia also is clear, its been attacked, it has large Muslim populations and restive adjacent peoples, extremists elements must be defeated, established governments maintained when threatened by extremists. Regime change and nation building by the West has failed elsewhere, why would Syria be any different.

 US policy remains, unfortunately, highly conflicted, and is frustratingly, potentially tragically, inviting conflict among the nations that should be working together against ISIS. When Russia made the decisive move to actively enter the fray in Syria, seemingly outmaneuvering the months of equivocation and hesitancy of US policy, the US response was far from welcoming a new, major force into the battle against ISIS.  Instead, a reference was made suggesting that our coalition was much better than that of Russia and Syria. Hardly words to lay the ground work needed for two nations, who have many reasons to better learn, through experience, how to work together for a beneficial common purpose, to begin that process.

 Is it too late to reverse the process, to model more cooperative efforts in a cause that desperately needs it and in a region that has long suffered from its absence?  One certainly hopes not, but the prospects are not encouraging.  The US would need to alter its stance, and provide more creative leadership. The most vocal voices in the US are currently reactive, conservative, fear-dominated.  When threat and fear are paramount in the  political thinking of leadership, it has a very constrictive effect on the vision inherent in policies.  The call for change would have to be loud and clear, and arise from citizen involvement in pushing for more enlightened policies. It is tragic when opportunities for cooperation on tasks  as vital as the defeat of ISIS, and potentially life-saving as the avoidance of major warfare, are not fully acted upon and carried out to fruition.

AMERICA'S OBESSION WITH TRUMP: A RUDE WAKE UP CALL FOR US ALL

For the past three month's America's news media and its viewing and listening audience has been fed a non-stop diet of Donald Trump.  He was first seen only as a passing fancy, someone who the public would quickly see through and fall out of contention as a Republican candidate for president.  The GOP establishment certainly hoped this would be the case, and the media laid in waiting to chart his expected downfall.  The Trump name has always been a financial and media creation, in real estate, in business, in reality show entertainment, and, now, how would it fare in politics?  Certainly not here too, the public is too smart, too shrewd, too selective for that!  How wrong the experts, and most of the concerned public, has been!?

What is responsible for Trump's continued, in fact, growing popularity among potential Republican voters?  And how should the general public's mounting fascination with him be viewed?  Certainly the media's virtual nonstop attention to him since the campaigning began has played a significant role.  Trump knows how to play the media beautifully, drawing attention to himself and away from others. The public seems fascinated by his sheer gall, his crassness, his crudeness, arrogance, and insults. He has given new meaning to the term "Teflon Candidate", comments and behaviors that would destroy other potential candidates if made by them, are seen, when coming from him, as a refreshing breath of his selective, candid, unique perspective--political correctness is overrated anyway, isn't it?  The 16 other GOP contenders for the presidency are getting a mere pittance of attention from the media compared to that granted Trump, and most of that attention is focused on his style, his passing comments, his crude putdowns, not on the details of any substantive ideas he is adding to the campaign.  The nation is faced with numerous serious issues that demand in depth, substantive discussion and resolution, this has been virtually totally lacking in the Republican campaigning so far, as the focus on Mr. Trump has diverted attention to the admittedly unique but politically trivial aspects of Trump's personal style.  Politics is in danger of becoming another of his media reality shows, much more entertainment than substance, with the nation's real issues left to dangle in the overblown hot air and periodic laughs.

The media's preoccupation, however, doesn't do justice to the underlying reasons for his continued popularity.  That the three leading candidates in the GOP field are all considered anti-GOP establishment candidates carries a powerful message of how angry Republican voters are with the leadership of their party.  Congress's approval rating has never been lower, both chambers are under Republican control, their intent to stonewall Obama on most issues has failed miserably in the public's view, Obama's approval rating is over three times that of the Congress that has consistently tried to block his every move.  No one has captured that anger, and that desire to "make America great again" better than Trump, and all the mainstream Republican contenders that were expected to be the frontrunners are left with single digits in the polls, floundering in his dust.

Even considering this very legitimate anger of many concerned voters, and how they may be attracted to a non-establishment, untraditional candidate, it is still surprising that so many are drawn to apparently support a man like Donald Trump.  His overt egotism, his non-stop bragging, his focus on the superficial, his lack of depth, his petulance, his crassness, his tendency to immediately polarize and put-down, his lack of empathy, and total absence of any experience in affairs of state, or dealing with conflict situations with anything other than bullying, force, and pressure.  Is this really the kind of leader a significant number of Americans would choose to have?  Has our American psyche, our current civic and cultural state, sunk that much in recent years?  Candidates are a media creation as well as a political creation.  Much of what is on TV and in our media models some of the behaviors and attitudes Trump demonstrates.  If his apparent popularity is a reflection of on-going changes in our national character, it is, to be sure, a rude wake up call for those who want more for our nation, and expect better from our leaders.  Will the wake up call be answered by an informed, sensible public?  Much is at stake, lets hope so!

THE GOP'S TOP 10 TO DO LIST: NO WONDER CONGRESS IS SO UNPOPULAR!

Ever wonder why the approval rating of Congress has been at an all-time low in recent years. Ranging in the high teens to low twenties, it has been consistently less than half the approval rating of the President.  No knowledgeable person has any doubt that the nation has serious problems, and that they are not being dealt with by our elected leadership with the effectiveness and urgency that they require.  It is clear the public holds Congress much more responsible for this than the President, if their approval ratings are any measure of this.  In looking at the actions of Congress since Obama's election, and in listening to the constant statements of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, a pattern emerges, in clear focus, that sheds light on Congress's historic low ratings. McConnell and Boehner may not agree with the following depiction of their To Do List, but with a nod to David Letterman's genius, this is one only partially tongue in cheek rendition of their Top Ten List during the Obama presidency so far.

1.  Block everything Obama proposes, the good things included.
2.  Raise Defense Department and NSA spending, cut everything else, especially for human and
     social services.
3.  Invite Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress, without consulting the President and as an
     indication of disrespect.
4.  Beat the drums to start another foreign war, with boots on the ground from more American
     families.
5.  Role back hard won civil rights, in the name of national security.
6.  Curtail privacy rights, except of course for corporations.
7.  Ban environmental, climate change concerns and legislation, as an infringement on economic
     liberty and corporate profit-making potential.
8.  Vote Congress a raise.
9.  Declare Congress on a well-deserved vacation.
10. Blame the Democrats for the collapsing and dire State of the Nation.

Any wonder why Congress is as unpopular as it now is? Or why Obama has gotten so much gray hair during the past seven years?  The list may be a slight exaggeration, but only slight. To many Americans, it does reflect the essence of what they see as having taken place, to the detriment of all of us.

IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY: OUR BEST CHANCE 1) TO BEGIN A TRUE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS AND 2) TO FINALLY REJECT THE POLICIES AND PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT US THE DISASTROUS IRAQI WAR

-For the past 12 years our policies in the Middle East have brought us nothing but failure, frustration, loss of life, treasure, and international status. The Bush-Cheney administration promoted the neoconservative concepts advanced by the right-wing think tanks that our initial successes in fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan could serve as a springboard into invading and overthrowing the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq, establish a government there more favorable to our interests and those of Israel, and from there go on to "democratize" other Middle Eastern governments. We were, after all, beginning the century as the world's sole superpower, with absolutely unmatched military strength, and we had mobilized much of the world's support following al Qaeda's attacks on our homeland on 9/11.  The voices raised at home and abroad that this undertaking would be a calamitous overreach and unleash endless Islamic sectarian rivalry as well as further hatred of Western influences were totally ignored and ridiculed. The past 12 years have proven the fallacy of the war-initiators expectations, and the proof of the concerns of those cautioning restraint. Disaffected Sunnis have formed ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and their strength is spreading, Iraq is torn between Kurds, Shia's, and Sunnis, Syria is torn with civil war, Afghanistan is searching for a resolution, needing our continued support but also needing to make accommodations with the Taliban which continues to control many regions.  Pakistan is torn between supporting Western influences but also placating the elements of its population which lend support to extremist Muslim factions. Turkey is becoming allied with us in fighting ISIS, but also is engaged against the Kurds, which are our allies in the fighting in Syria and Iraq. And Iran, while vowing enmity to our ally Israel, is aiding Iraq and Syria in its fight against ISIS, and is also willing to assist in our efforts against ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist elements.  In this highly complex, conflicted region with so many cross-currents of rivalry and hatred, there are certainly no easy solutions, but one thing should be clear from the history of the past 12 years, any resolution will not be imposed primarily by western powers and through the mere application of their military might. This is where the Iran Nuclear Treaty negotiated between Iran and the five major western powers imposing sanctions on Iran's nuclear development provides a valuable opening-- to not only ensure that Iran's nuclear development is clearly limited to peaceful, energy-providing applications, which should be the right of any advanced nation, but also to begin to create some bridges allowing Iran to become more engaged with the West in finding other ways to reduce the myriad areas of conflict and tension that are racking the region. 

Iran's population is one of the best educated, young, fastest-growing in the region. While its clerical leadership is old and still imbued with considerable hatred over the past history of western involvement and interference in their nation, the younger elected leaders have shown more desire for reasonable negotiations with the west.  The nuclear treaty provides a valuable opportunity to test this out, it is a potential win-win situation for both sides. Yet, in the United States and in Israel, the same forces that brought us the failure of the Iraqi War are campaigning with all their vigor, money, and might to defeat it. Blind to the fact that most of the rest of the world will be eliminating the sanctions even if we don't, further isolating us and demonstrating our reduced world influence, these same voices present the same tired but loud fear-mongering arguments. A "mushroom cloud" lies ahead, anything but more sanctions and military threats indicates "weakness", real leaders don't negotiate, they draw the line and impose their will. John Bolton would be ready to launch a surgical strike now, to knock out Iran's nuclear capability, regardless of the regional and worldwide consequences.  Dick Cheney would still argue for the same type of policies that have failed in the Iraq War he encouraged us into, with virtual guarantees of success. Most Republican senators are falling in line opposing the treaty, being ready to defeat anything the Obama administration attempts to accomplish. AIPAC and other conservative Jewish lobbying groups are campaigning against it, and may influence some Democratic senators. A number of more liberal Jewish organizations in the US are vigorously lobbying for the treaty's approval, but they lack the political influence and donor money of AIPAC. It will be a tough battle, our Congress may vote it down, but, regardless of the outcome, the Obama administration, other western powers, and Iran all deserve credit for putting it forward. It would be a continuation of the US's 12 years of tragic involvement in the Middle East, if the same old trigger-happy, violence-prone, war hawk voices of the past are again listened to and lead to our turning our backs on a valuable step towards a more enlightened Middle Eastern policy.