What would John do?

The folks over at Foreign Policy Magazine have a pretty interesting article up-pointing out that in a lot of ways, the current situation Vis a Vis Iran is similar to that which John Adams faced: A foreign power creating headaches for American policy and a distinct segment of the US population clamoring for a war. Adams faced the latter group down-albeit at great political cost to himself-and in so doing may have saved the young Republic from real disaster.

In the summer of 1798, U.S. President John Adams faced the gravest crisis of his time in office. Hostilities with the revolutionary, expansionist regime in France had been rising since his election, with French privateers seizing American merchant ships off the Atlantic coast. Adams's effort at diplomacy had backfired. The envoys he had sent to France had been met with extortionate and insulting demands; the publication of their dispatches, in what came to be known as the XYZ Affair, had provoked a firestorm of outrage and war fever, the likes of which the young republic had never before known. The public, led by Adams's own Federalist Party, was demanding a declaration of war. Adams himself had stoked those public passions. But now, in the summer, he hesitated between belligerence and yet more diplomacy.

The United States is now locked in conflict with Iran, another revolutionary, expansionist power. It is not yet summer 1798, but it's getting close. Today's president, Barack Obama, as firmly committed to the principle of engagement as Adams was to the principle of neutrality, is still giving diplomacy a chance. But the bugles are sounding. Israeli officials openly and urgently talk about the need for military action; Iran has apparently responded with a barrage of assassination attempts abroad; and polls show that a majority of Americans are prepared to use force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The president is under pressure, not from his own party, but from his adversaries, to issue an ultimatum to Iran. We may be only one stupid mistake away from the point where an attack becomes unavoidable.

Just like the lies being spread around Washington in the present day-so too were lies spread about Adams by his political opposition. Adams well understood the threat, just as Obama does now. However Adams also knew that a war would be a disaster for the new Republic.

Unlike Bush, however, Adams did not want war, and neither, it turned out, did France. Once Charles M. de Talleyrand, France's foreign minister, saw that the United States was preparing for war, he began authorizing intermediaries to tell influential Americans that France had no wish for hostilities and would accept a new envoy with none of the onerous conditions (including the payment of adouceur, or bribe, to himself) imposed on the previous mission. Adams began hearing from private citizens and diplomats, including his son John Quincy, then minister in Berlin, that France wanted peace. None of this was publicly known, and opinion remained no less inflamed. But Adams concluded he had to take a risk on Talleyrand's bona fides. In February 1799, he appointed his minister to the Netherlands as envoy to France. And in October 1800, the two sides signed a peace treaty known as the Convention of 1800.

Of course there are some very big differences. 1) Adams did not have the albatross of Israel draped around his neck-which Obama does. Iran may not want war with the US ( I firmly believe the Iranians are not that stupid-what they want is regional dominance, but not national suicide), but they haven't come to terms with Israel's existence yet and that's a problem. They also have not grasped the true ability of Israel to retaliate against them-nor the commitment that the United States has to Israel. 2) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad  can hardly be considered a rational actor-unlike France's Talleyrand. 3) There is the wild card of Iranian leadership's commitment to the apostate religion of Islam-whereas in 1798 religion was in its proper place, on the sidelines. And Adams had time and distance on his side-Obama doesn't,  thanks to the march of technology.

Kind of sad, really. The people of Iran have great potential. However they are being led to the trough through accidents of history and a revolution gone badly wrong. One might hope that eventually there will be a reckoning with the Mullahs. But don't kid yourself that's not happening anytime soon. " It may be, in short, that Iran will stop at nothing to reach at least the capacity to build a bomb. And then Obama or his successor will have to choose, not between war and diplomacy, but between war and containment. And in that case, it will take much more political courage to stick to a policy of patience and restraint."