These comments are all very helpful and appreciate your insights.
Though I am still unclear about what WILF thinks of Liddell Hart's contributions since he was clearly hedging and holding back on his true feelings :-)
But you're right, this question is not about parsing his specific definition - it is about whether the azimuth deficit in US engagement with Iran is really one of strategy or more of policy.
BW - as usual - makes a noteworthy point. "Grand Strategy" - is the distinction between having a strategy for a specific objective (like no nukes) and a broader strategy for pursuing national interests (perhaps in relation to a specific country) what is meant by "Grand Strategy"?
WILF - very nice summary of a big picture objective "The US wants Iran to become a peaceful, pro-western, secular, Gulf State, who will buy lots of goods and services from the US." Perhaps that could be the basis for a grand strategy, perhaps not. I don't know.
I suppose what I'm missing is the connection between national interests, objectives and plans (strategies). Maybe as WILF says we should but don't think explicitly though policy questions of "why?" "so what if we accomplish it?" and "so what if we don't accomplish it?"
Without that, though, it seems easy to get mired in a battles over positions (I want to do X. We don't want you to do X) rather than pursuing interests. An interest-based approach might open up a wider range of solutions ... and perhaps be less likely to escalate conflict.
But at least from your responses, it seems like I'm thinking of the concepts in the right way even if there is not a commonly used language to separate them.
Thanks again everyone.
(p.s. Rex- nice to see you here).
Bookmarks