The threat that the United States would launch a military attack on Iran has never been "taken off the table," but you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think that a U.S. attack on Iran in the near term is a realistic possibility.

Even the Bush Administration nixed an Israel attack on Iran, as the New York Timesreported Sunday. (Haaretzreported this months ago.) President-elect Obama pledged as a candidate to abandon the "strategy" of isolation and engage Iran diplomatically. And the U.S. already has two wars going (three, if you count the war on Gaza, which is being waged with U.S. weapons and approval, and which is doing as much political damage to the U.S. in the Muslim world as any war waged by the U.S. directly.)

But many of the decisions and actions that led to the U.S. attack on Iraq in March 2003 were not taken in 2003, but long before. If we had the opportunity for a do-over, wouldn't we scrutinize those decisions and actions much more carefully? Decisions are being taken now which could set the stage for war with Iran in the future.

Recent press reports have indicated that Dennis Ross has the inside track to be a "super-envoy" in the Obama Administration with responsibility for diplomacy concerning Iran. Putting Dennis Ross in charge of diplomatic outreach to Iran would be a akin to putting Bernard Madoff in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ross's views on diplomatic engagement with Iran are the mirror image of the diplomatic engagement President-elect Obama promised during the campaign.

There's more...

Projectile Politics

Josh Marshall of TPM wrote today that the Joe Biden model of the Vice Presidency could be closer to the Dick Cheney model than we might hope. It's an interesting argument based largely on the fact that Joe Biden is old enough that he would likely not run for President in 2016 (he would be 74) and therefore does not have to weigh the politics of extensive VP involvement, just as Cheney did not.

Vice President Cheney's clout within the Bush administration is heavily tied to the fact that the he early -- and quite credibly because of his medical history -- disavowed any plans to seek the presidency in his own right. We're in the midst of a four decade trend toward more and more powerful and influential vice-presidents (in the sense of clout not constitutional prerogative). But the big brake on the veep's role in decision-making has always been the fact that everyone else who wants to be president someday has a strong interest in keeping his power in check.

But I think that Biden will only have as much power as President-elect Obama allows. The Obama machine has been incredibly well oiled since it began more than two years ago and I don't think this will change after Obama is inaugurated. From what I can tell, Cheney was so involved in the Bush presidency because Bush wanted and needed that. He simply did not have the knowledge and political ability to do it by himself.

But despite his inexperience, Obama is a competent leader and skilled politician. I don't see Biden making a play for extensive powers without Obama squashing it. But if Obama wants an involved VP, then it will happen.

There are a few areas in which Obama could use the Vice President's help. First, there is foreign policy, Biden's strong suit. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the choice of Biden as VP was a clear sign that Obama would look to his running mate for support on issues of national security and international diplomacy. But some early Obama cabinet picks shows that he would also look elsewhere for help. This was especially apparent in his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, another high profile foreign relations authority.

It's still early to predict what Biden's role will be in the White House. But I predict that Obama will set the tone for that role and Biden, whether he wants to or not, will have to obey.

NYTimes on VPs

There's more...

Crossposted at Projectile Politics

Yglesias brings up a good point about today's Governor's Association meeting in Philadelphia. Biden issued a speech laying out some reasons that we should promote public transportation, specifically rail transit. Focusing Obama's stated desire to promote public works projects on public transportation would be incredibly smart. There are still many American cities that have sub-par transportation systems within the city and almost non-existent rail options from the `burbs.

Jumpstarting a massive rail construction program would kill many birds with one giant, expensive stone. It would prompt suburbanites who live outside the city to visit and spend on urban businesses and entertainment; it would provide cheap, public transportation for urban workers who live outside the city; and most importantly, it would drastically reduce the number of people who commute in personal vehicles, and thereby benefit our degraded, asthma-ridden natural environment.

Seattle is a good example of the need for more rail-centric public transportation. Within the city, it is fairly easy to get around using the bus system. But there is no rail transit besides the monorail that goes about three blocks and was created as spectacle for the World's Fair in 1962.

But a Light Rail will be completed next year to transport people from SeaTac airport to downtown Seattle and back. I'm very glad that this is happening, but its impact will not reach its potential unless complemented by a more extensive rail program becuase traffic west into Seattle from the Eastside is awful for hours every morning and evening. And the same goes for along I-5 north of the city center. Both are areas that the Light Rail will not service.

Biden's suggestion for developing more rail transit would help cities like Seattle develop their rail programs to benefit workers, drivers, and the environment.

There's more...