[Ben Ficklin]

WaPo, NYT, and WSJ are considered to be "Papers of Note", which means when a person of standing wants to editorialize on a subject they will be published in one or the others. And sometimes, such as with the military intervention of Libya, all 3 papers were used by different people of standing to publish their opinion.

As for "dabbling on the other side of the politics", NeoCon hawks are very influential at WaPo and NYT. Plus, Fred Hiatt, who heads the WaPo editorial board is very hawkish on foreign policy(but liberal on domestic issues), so the WaPo editorial board is always critical of Obama's foreign policy.

Sharansky's attempt to compare Iran today with the Soviets way back when is not a very good analogy. It would be better to compare Iran today to Iran way back when.

Back then, the US sent the CIA into Iran to put the Shah Pahlavi onto the throne. The takeover of the US embassy was a pre-emptive move to shut down any attempt by the US/CIA to influence Khomeni's ascendancy.

Today, the world economy is very prevalent, so economic interdependence of the nations makes sanctions a more useful tool in foreign policy than it was way back when.

We use this term "Soft Power" in foreign policy, which is a persuasive approach using economic and cultural influence, to implement policy, which is a lot cheaper than military intervention, which is important when the national debt is high, and we haven't paid off the still ongoing wars.

[Gaffer]

We use this term "Soft Power" in foreign policy, which is a persuasive approach using economic and cultural influence, to implement policy, which is a lot cheaper than military intervention, which is important when the national debt is high, and we haven't paid off the still ongoing wars.

Oh yes. It is such an effective means of achieving aims (dubious as Obama's are). It is of some note that the ones on the other side seem to devote so much of their soft economic power on achieving their aims, instead opting to sponsor terrorism, foster state-backed religious zealotry and using outright violence to achieve their "soft" aims. I'm not buying it.

[elhombrelibre]

Sharansky noted the shortcomings of historic analogy in his article. Perhaps you missed that.

I think most people are aware of the CIA's role in Iran in 1953. During his rein, Iran was a emerging secular country. It was a de facto ally of the USA. Bringing up the nefarious activities while discussing Iran is similar to Obama bringing up the Crusades. Both measures were defenses of the West. It's clear that the anti-American themes oppose defending the West, yet there will always be those who point out that those who chant Death to America or G-damn America or not really our friends.

I understand soft power very well. Presumably, in the case of Iran, you think it's a magic wand that can be used by the likes of Obama instead of real power.