With Iran interest in mind, it's hard to tell which one, Trump or Clinton, will be more uncontrollable !

I'd go with Trump. Enough of this crap.

Are you defecting from the H Camp, Fredie?...Remember; The return to the pre-1967 international borders is the remedy to many ills...

"With Iran interest in mind, it's hard to tell which one, Trump or Clinton, will be more uncontrollable !"

Hear hear. 

So why did you think that Trita Parsi, the international political whore currently in service of Islamic regime of Iran issued a Fatwa a while back to all his followers to vote for  Hillary?

How many followers Trita has anyway? really?! This is political posturing so that if Hilary wins, he will go to her and will tell her 'see? we supported you. Now do this for me per favore'! The point is that NIAC doesn't have a chance with a GOP candidate -of any kind- to get any leeway. Actually Trump was their best bet in this regard! Frankly I have a hard time taking Trita seriously. When I say 'crap', I'm talking about that faction of democratic party that supports that crap. If NIAC didn't exist, they'd have created one!

I still think Hilary has a good chance to win. I guess there is still four months to go and it would be hard for Trump to keep his supporters in the state of perpetual agitation. Choosing a vice president is always calculated based on the affect it has in the outcome of the election. And the foreign policy and what a vice president nominee stands for has little bearing on American voters in that regard. So still Hilary option is more predictable than Trump and Hilary distanced herself from Obama on matters that are our concern. If she wins, it's not all that bad. As Bob Dole said, at the end of the day, no matter what the candidates promise during the election, they won't be able to do a thing if they couldn't work with the congress. Don't worry. Nothing happens suddenly in American politics!

Foreign policy is not quite the same thing of-course. But Hilary is not quite the same person as Obama either.

I posted an interesting interview of Katie Couric with Bob Dole. Take a look at it if you haven't yet. It is very interesting.

benross says:

"Frankly I have a hard time taking Trita seriously."

Only two people seem to have taken NIAC seriously, Fred and Bruce Bahmani. 

Trita has no followers. My bad. He has employees. about 68 of them. at last count only 12 could claim Farsi as their mother tongue. The rest listed arabic as their father tongue.

But the issue is that Trita has access to lots of money through  his paymasters in tehran. And money can corrupt!

Pro-Iran deal Democrats took money from "Iran Lobby"

Dear Fred, also for your consideration:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/21/donald-trump-is-sucking-up-and-selling-out-to-putin.html

Thanks for the link.

That's where I'm most concerned about and I think I noted it somewhere before. Donald Trump green light to Putin (in early stage of his campaign along with his downplaying of NATO) and his belief that the developping countries don't want democracy and America shouldn't 'impose' it upon them, are the issues that play right in the hand of Islamists.

On the other hand, this may well be part of his rhetoric for internal consumption. He knows well that on a sensetive issues such as these, he has to work with the congress in which, not only the vast majority of the party he is representing, but also a good portion of Democratic party have a different opinion.

And let's not forget that Obama and the other portion of democrats had effectively the same approach as Donald Trump toward the popular protest on 2009 in Iran.

Amist1973,

You’re well read, erudite, have a clear point of view and demonstrable interest in the welfare of Iran and Iranians. Your command of English is far superior to mine.

I’ve asked this from benross and few others, I think from you as well. I’m going to repeat my request.

Doc, most your comments and particularly the links you cite, always makes me wish you would consider writing a blog once in a while.

Dear Fred and benross: thank you for your kind words. (Fred, you are too kind. I can honestly say that I have learned a lot from reading your blogs). Here are my 2 cents:

No presidential candidate or presidential ticket will be even remotely "perfect". In both domestic and international policy, I think Hillary Clinton is substantially "less bad" than Trump would be. If we focus just on foreign policy (the topic of this blog), she has a reputation of being a strong supporter of a vigorous US role in international affairs. Per report, she strongly backed US intervention in the former Yugoslavia when she was First Lady. She adopted a similar outlook as US Senator from New York, as a presidential candidate in 2008, and as Sec of State during Obama's first term. This background (along with Trump's sympathetic statements in favor of Putin, China's Tiananmen crackdown, Assad, Saddam, recent interview re: not backing other NATO members, etc, etc) explains why Putin et al. have shown support for Trump. In fact, Wikileak founder Julian Assange's program on Russia Today (aka Putin TV) has been the venue for the recent DNC leaks, which seem aimed to undermine Clinton's campaign.

Of course, no one can predict the future, but the above points lead me to favor Clinton over Trump, as imperfect as Clinton and the Democrats may be.

For what it's worth, I would have favored, for example, a Marco Rubio over Clinton.