GDP: United States — 13.8 trillion
Iran –$ 359 billion  (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran’s)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. — $692 billion
Iran — $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.–1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran–   525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. — 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran — 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. — 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran — 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

Navy:
U.S. — 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran — 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons:
U.S. — 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran – Zero

In multiple news venues, including NPR, Reuters, and the New York Times, Karzai’s visit is presented as an attempt at a much-needed “mending.” The mending is needed, because Karzai has been making “anti-Western” statements, including his stupidly misrepresented joke that he might join the Taliban, which has tried to assassinate him. Another outrage has been Karzai’s repeated denunciations of military operations that cause civilian casualties.

Some additional context is important. First, insurgent groups have presented an outline for peace talks, although the Taliban has distanced itself from that proposal. The second, and much more important piece of context is that a majority of Afghans, including a majority of women, support negotiation with the Taliban. Relevant polling data can be downloaded here. Support for negotiation with the Taliban has been standardly described as a debate between the Obama administration and Karzai himself, when in fact the former opposes the majority opinion in Afghanistan. Interestingly, widespread Afghan endorsement of negotiation is not an endorsement of the Taliban itself, as a majority have favored the removal of the Taliban, consider the insurgents the greatest security risk, and so on. A thorough discussion of this issue is here, and an annoying but accurate polemic in defense of Afghan democracy is here.

Stephen Biddle of the Washington Post has different ideas about democratic processes, suggesting that the U.S. provide the right “incentive” structure in Afghanistan. Biddle is not subtle in his suggestion that the Obama administration should leverage its aid and support to force Karzai to violate the will of the people who elected him. Such an anti-democratic approach is unlikely to benefit Afghans, even if it provides opportunity for tough political posturing by Obama. Removal of military support would clearly favor the very insurgents U.S. policy hopes to thwart, and removal of humanitarian support would constitute fostering starvation, disease, etc., in order to force U.S. policy preference down the throats of unwilling Afghans. Biddle laments that if Karzai were more “effective,” such an approach would not be necessary. There are plenty of political structures where such “effectiveness” could be achieved, none of them democratic.

The recent NYT article reinforces my failure to understand this American policy position. I’ll succinctly express my confusion by grouping the following items:

(1) Every year, the President marks the occasion by using phrases like “one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century” when “1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death.”

(2) Often, before he is elected, the President has made unequivocal statements. In the case of Obama as late as January 2008: “the Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact.”

(3) The president does not renounce previous statements. Obama has said explicitly he agrees with his previous statement: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.”

(4) Every year, Turkey expresses outrage at the president’s language despite the fact that he hasn’t used the word genocide. This year: “Third countries neither have a right nor authority to judge the history of Turkish-Armenian relations with political motives.”

(5) This year, Congress passed a resolution in March condemning the genocide, over protests of the Obama administration. Turkey’s response? “Turkey briefly recalled its ambassador from Washington in protest.”

I do not see the credibility of foreign policy concerns over Turkey’s reaction to American acknowledgement of the genocide. They evidently are happy to maintain relations with the United States when the man holding the presidency has acknowledged the genocide, the Congress has officially acknowledged it, the President has agreed with his own previous statements, and so on. We do not sugarcoat the crimes of the Soviet Union or the Nazis in order to placate Russia and Germany, respectively. Why do we sugarcoat crimes in this case? The alleged political fallout would be slightly more credible if the President avoided talking about the genocide at all; but how is it that he can describe literally what happened, but just can’t use the word genocide? Are there legal ramifications? What does Turkey credibly leverage over us? Etc.

Probably when you become President, you learn some secret knowledge about how the world will blow up if you discuss this particular event. Maybe someday the National Security Archive will publish relevant documents, but I doubt it.

Lastly, isn’t it bizarre that 1.5 million is both the size of the Armenian-American voting bloc and the number of people massacred by the Turks?

The new amendment reduces the “life sentence” to twenty years. In general the amendments to punishments appear to be reductions. However what worries human rights groups is the expansion of the legal definition of “infiltrator.” Previously the order had a definition that at least corresponded to commonsense: someone knowingly entering “the Area” (=West Bank) illegally. Now the word “infiltrator” includes anyone found who doesn’t have (Israeli-issued) paperwork. Indeed, an infiltrator into the West Bank can be someone born and raised in the West Bank.

This comes in the midst of two other noteworthy events in Israeli policy. The first was the announcement of continued expansion of illegal settlements during Biden’s visit. This elicited pretended rage on the part of American officials, who follow nearly every criticism of Israel with affirmation of how “special” and “strong” their relationship is. More recently, Netanyahu decided not to attend Obama’s nuclear conference, consistent with Israel’s longstanding defiance of international norms and refusal to acknowledge what everyone has known since the 70′s.

UPDATE: On the amendment, There is a more detailed report by Amira Hass in Haaretz (widely considered Israel’s leading newspaper). Today the Haaretz editors also published a brief critical statement. The editorial points out an obvious contrast that I missed: “While all Jews can settle wherever they wish, in Israel or in the territories, Israel is trying to deprive the Palestinians of even the minimal right to choose where to live in the West Bank or Gaza.”