I don't buy that Geithner or anybody else is part of some conspiracy, or out to enrich their friends. It's just that they have a certain mindset on how the nations financial system needs to operate based on what they know from their own years on Wall Street. They believe that the nation's credit system must be based on big, centralized Wall Street investment banks, and they are madly pulling out all the stops to save those institutions. That explains the bailing out of AIG, and through them Goldman Sachs, etc. They also believe it is necessary to keep in place the people who run them, which explains these apparently irrational bonuses.

Unfortunately, that model of the banking system has shown itself to have been fatally flawed, and most likely cannot (and probably should not) be resurrected. But Obama's Treasury people just don't get that. They're part of that old network, and just can't see past it, and so they're part of the problem. Until these guys are replaced with new folks who can think "outside the box" they'll continue with bailout after bailout until we're all totally broke.

I know most here think that the Bush administration people were just evil and/or stupid in their policies toward Iran. And that now with Obama, we will have instead a learned, brillant foreign policy, with the correct international viewpoints understood. So everything will maybe now be peace and love with Iran. Think again.

All countries, including the USA and Iran, ruthlessly put their own national interests first. Countries are allies when they have mutual interests, and are rivals (and worse) when their interests compete. Iran wants to dominate the Middle East, and we (and our allies) don't want that to happen. So Iran has assumed the mantle of the leader of the Anti-American, anti-Israel and pro-islamic nationalist forces, simply to try to to obtain their goals. Our conflicts with them will continue until we somehow make it in Iran's best interest to act differently. But given that their interests and ours are completely at odds, how exactly is that going to be possible?

The Bush people felt the best way forward in such situations was to threaten a country militarily. They didn't exactly invent that approach - it's the traditional one, though only a few times did the USA actually follow through, mostly with mixed results (Vietnam, Kosovo, now Iraq, etc.) That approach doesn't seem to have worked too well with Iran, and maybe even has been counterproductive, pushing them to accelearate their nuclear weapons program.

Now certainly I (and most Americans, I believe) don't like this military bullying approach to world affairs, and wish their were another way. But what exactly would that be (and please don't start talking about the UN). Until somebody can come up with a workable, different approach for the US in these type situations, nothing much will change. Obama, like all before him will have to play the military card, if not on Iran, than on North Korea or someone else soon. Just wait and see.

Like so much else with the Obama administration, it all sounds good in theory - Just criticize the Bush administration and promise unspecified "change." But what exactly different are they proposing toward Iran (besides just a friendlier video message)? Is our national interest in the Middle East to be redefined? If so, what of our present allies, and will that change just be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and lead to addditional, worse problems? What exactly are we going to be able to offer Iran that makes it in their interest to work with us, and which our allies in the region (especially Israel) will agree to?

Thanks for a good and thoughtful post. I agree that the US has too readily abandoned diplomacy recently, and the approach you describe to rebuild that element of our foreign policy should be given a real chance. I hope the Obama administration does indeed try to do so. I probably also shouldn't have dismissed the UN out of hand as I did.

But I think a lot of people are overly optimistic as to what can actually be accomplished through diplomacy with Iran. The Bush people were not as stupid as some here want you to belive; there was plenty of back door communication with the Iranians all the way along, despite Bush's supposed refusal to talk with them directly. And I don't buy the argument that it's all about the CIA and the Shah way back - Not when something like 75% of their population wasn't even born then.

We just haven't been able to develop yet that mutuality of interest that will change things. And it's not just us causing it; the Iranians have their own problems that make them just as much at fault for this standoff as us. I think both of us need to in effect apologize to each other for bad past behavior (not just us). Bush saying they're part of an "axis of evil" may be out of line, but then again years of calling the US the "great satan", not to mention denying the holocaust and supposedly wanting to "wipe Israel off the map" aren't exactly great diplomacy either. Not to mention numerous activities on both sides that the other considers "terrorism."

Since we were even able to develop some sort of mutual interest with the Soviets during the cold war (not blowing each other up, if nothing else), it's not impossible that we can reach some sort of mutuality of interests with Iran. Times change, and better understanding will surely help. But we haven't got much time - Iran's nuclear ambitions give a year at best before Israel takes unilateral military action because of its fears for its own survival (real or paranoid). Not a good scenario for avoiding the military option once again, unfortunately.