A fascinating aspect of this article is its total failure to mention the attitude toward Karzai taken by the UK, Germany and other countries, including Iran, that are involved in Afghanistan and trying to keep the Taliban at bay.

USA today follows the norm of US news media, acting as if the only country involved in Afghanistan is the US. "Americanizing" the effort is thus promoted, without saying so expressly. This in turn may ensure failure of the effort.

Israel is by far the leading power in the Middle East, after Turkey, and it needs to accept that to secure its future it must get out of the West Bank (and the Golan Hieghts).

This story should have mentioned alternative routes for US military supplies going to Afghanistan. Iran is one of them.

More evidence of astonishing ignorance of most Americans about the wider world, and what is actually happening in that world. The Bush administration had a field day playing the American public for fools, with of course a good deal of help from prostitute news media.

One major shortcoming of this piece is its failure to address the problems caused for the US, in the Muslim world and among Muslims around the world, arising from American support of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, plus the idiotic Iraq War adventure.

Obama and Clinton need to read this piece carefully. Israel's insane effort to continue to steal Palestinian land and water, etc., is putting vital national interests of the US into jeopardy.

Astonishing piece, worth reading several times. And Obama, and Clinton, should pore over it carefully.

Very fine warning to Obama, not to let the generals dictate US foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia. LBJ ruined his presidency by listening to the siren calls of the generals about "victory" in Vietnam - - an absurd concept in the curcumstances. General McChrystal seems incapable of understanding that Iran is trying to prevent the Taliban from returning to power in Kabul, and Iran says the US troops are making things worse, not better.

Fun piece, but important too. Gorbachev does not mention here that he considered taking down the Berlin Wall even before the Berliners did so.

A significant flaw in this piece is its assumption it is up to the US to deal with Afghanistan. No mention of Nato, or India, or Iran, even though many countries are involved in trying to bring minimum stability to Afghanistan.

This opinion should have noted that the US encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia and overthrow the government that had been succeeding in its effort to re=establish stability in the country. Its claim that the US was "compelled" to invade Afghanistan is a wobbly one, though for sure the Taliban was an appalling government in Kabul.

Must reading for Obama, that'ssfor sure. And remarkable rubbish from James Dobbins who "warns" that Iran, Russia and China might get involved in Afghanistan if the US gets out. In fact, Iran's assistance is essential if minimum stability is to be achieved. Russia and China need to help also, so the US can drop back into a much less prominent role.

This story accepts without question the Obama administration claim that the US military involvement in Afghanistan is primarily directed toward preventing al-Qaeda from re=establishing itself in that country. Al-Qaeda is a very small element of the insurgency.

Obama should read this piece several times. Mikhail Gorbachev told the Soviet Politburo in November 1986: "We have been fighting in Afghanistan already for six years. If the apporach is not changed, we will continue to fight for another 20-30 years."

This story would be much better if it raised the issue of whether the US should be taking such a large role in Afghanistan, when other countries are much better placed to sort out how best to bring stability to the country. Iran says Nato should have sent tractors rather than tanks to Afghanistan.

Good report, but it avoids the issue of whether the elections of a president, nationwide, even make sense in a country like Afghanistan.

Weak story, accepting at face value Obama's assertion that keeping al-Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan is an administration objective, possibly requiring manyt thousands more US troops.

Zakaria might well have also asked whether the US should be taking such a large role in this matter when other countries in the vicinity are better able to work out a means of achieving at least minimal stability in Afghanistan.

Good advice for Obama, as to merits of not pouring more US troops into Afghanistan.

Great reading for Obama.

Outstanding narrative; Obama should take the time to read it carefully, as should all the NSC staff etc.

Dick Cheney at it again, with another Iranophobic rant. And Russophobic. Champion of eternal war, an imperial America, and grotesquely large "defense" spending: Obama could take this country further on the road to ruin by listening to an idiot like Cheney. This is perhaps too kind.

Not to be missed. Those wondering how it is that the US maintains such an idiotic foreign policy and endless war in the Middle East and South Asia, should read this.

Excellent partial explanation for the reasons putting in more US troops will only increase chances of failure in Afghanistan.

Fair report, but one might well ask if the entire set-up makes sense. A nationwide presidential vote to me seems inappropriate for Afghanistan.

Good report even though I think the entire brouhaha about elections is overblown, and that the US-style nationwide vote for president was ill-suited for the country.

Informative piece, but it clearly shows the Afghan elections were more important for countries sending troops to Afghanistan, than for Afghanistan itself. I think Galbraith has caused a great deal of trouble.

Major flaw in this piece is the author's assumption the "surge" in Iraq was both a good move by the US and a success; in fact, both assumptions appear to be false.

This article would be stronger if it set out clearly that the Iranian leadership oppose nuclear weapons but apparently want Iran to be able to develop such weapons should the need arise.

Haass argues that the war in Afghanistan is one of choice. He thinks US strength should not be wasted there, but saved for other "problems" including Iran.

One weakness of this commentary is its failure to define who are the "we" who might "lose" Afghanistan. Iran, Russia and China are enemies of al-Qaeda and seek stability in Afghanistan. I recommend Anatol Lieven's fine analysis in the Financial Times today, "How the west can exit the Afghan quagmire".

Good piece by Zakaria. I would ask why the US would even wish to injure Iran's nuclear program, provided it is strictly civil. Zakaria is quite right that an insane US or Israeli attack on Iran would entrench the government further, rather than weaken it. I think Iran seeks stability in the Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, so normal relations between Iran and the US would sderve the interests of both countries. Mao's China split from its alliance with the Soviet ... More »

The Guardian promotes an intelligent relationship between the US and Iran, which has been missing for 30 years.

More essentially Iranophobic pontificating by Jackson Diehl.

Very fine analysis; not to be missed.

Extreme example of Iranophobic rant. Iran has given numerous signals it would accept Israel within its June 1, 1967 borders, but don't ook for such insight here.

Classic Iran bashing by the Wall Street Journal. Contrary to the claims made in this piece, there is no evidence the election was "stolen" because every poll that I have seen, taken after the election, showed Ahmadinejad as the winner. The "new" nuclear facility near Qom had not even been completed, with the centrifuges still uninstalled. The Journal's assertion the facility will be "cleaned" before it is inspected by the IAEA, seems spurious.

Excellent commentary and analysis. Iran seeks the strengthening of the NPT and the IAEA - - both causes supported by Obama himself.

Scott Ritter offers good reasons to be wary of claims that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. Let's remember the frenzy of spurious assertions that Iraq had WMD and needed to be invaded.