America has penchant for fighting the wars it cannot win. Rationalism, arrogance, and moralizing combine to create a losing strategy. The state wants to prove its hegemony to everyone; huge state cannot remain isolationist. Throughout the history, successful states expanded their size or influence. Isolationist niche states exist at others' mercy: in WWII, Switzerland was allowed to remain intact, but Belgium was overrun. States that cannot project their influence on others succumb to others' influence. The American imperial ambitions are unavoidably natural.

Successful empires realized their ambitions for centuries before retiring into affluent safety. Those who could not arrange for themselves political (Netherlands, Portugal) or territorial (Great Britain) safety died (Rome) under onslaught of competitors not yet effeminate. America, unlike Israel, is territorially isolated and could safely withdraw from the world affairs. Consumerism of the American public is conducive to isolationism. Ambitious political, military, corporate, and cultural elites (rather, cliques) oppose isolationism.

Imperialist projection of influence is a viable strategy, especially for the only military superpower. However, the US, like Israel, maneuvered itself into unique position of powerful weakness. Both countries have great fighting capability but lack the will to deploy it when necessary or profitable.

Human mentality persists throughout the history. It is inconceivable that the common reasons for wars - greed, hatred, and ambition - suddenly ceased to operate in our time. Indeed, German aggression was motivated by all three factors, and colonialist wars of greed took place still in the twentieth century. Idealistic moral standards the leftists imposed on voters resulted in twisted policies rather than peace. Profit is a good reason for war. When the US defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against Iraq, and later invaded Iraq, it should have expropriated their oil production or impose tribute. On the contrary, America succumbed to oil racket. The US defended South Korea against the North, and still guarantees its security, but suffers from trade conflicts with Korea. Similar situation holds with Japan whom the US protects against China, and Western Europe shielded against the USSR. America developed into philanthropic empire or rather the empire which pays others to accept its protection. Such an arrangement is not only unreasonable, but also unsustainable. Vassals keep asking for more and giving less. They refuse America even a token of loyalty: Saudi Arabia supports jihadists. They scourge America for failing to meet their demands and expectations. A mighty empire acts like a lowly servant.

Jews learned throughout our history that being weak and haughty is a recipe for being hated. Jews changed the situation for a short time in 1967: strong Jews did not arouse anti-Semitism. America traverses the same path: foreigners find it self-gratifying to taunt - fearlessly because with impunity - a weak giant. America's moralizing prompts the others to hate it.  The US cannot always live up to its declarations, and enemies catch it by its words and impeach its credibility.

The proper strategy for empire is nothing new: punishing expeditions performed with exemplary cruelty, tribute to cover the costs of peacemaking, and regional bases-colonies financed by plundering local resources. Anything else amounts to costly entertainment.

US Admiral William Fallon oddly declared that Iran is unlikely to produce nuclear weapons until mid-next decade. That is obvious nonsense. Iran has already received the bomb design from Pakistan and North Korea, uranium enrichment technology from China, and ballistic missiles from China and North Korea. Once the 3,000 centrifuges in Natanz produce enough weapons-grade material - a year at most - Iran needs a few more months to produce the nuclear weapon. Fallon's statement smells of Bush' shrieking responsibility for disarming the mullahs.