The annual Iranian defence and security budget is roughly what America spends in 42 hours! America's overall defence spending is larger than the sum spent by the next 15 nations (which include Russia, China, India, UK, France and Japan). Iran spends about 3.2% of its GDP on defence and internal security, national police, immigration and border control for its population of 70 million. To compare, America budgets some 15-16% of its GPD on defence, before federal and state expenditure for Homeland Security and national intelligence services are added. This summary of facts, on its own, vindicates Iran's regional intentions and frames America's involvement in the region in a proper light.

Remember, when America tried to expand its mistaken Vietnam adventures into Laos and Cambodia, they just diverted themselves from the tasks in Vietnam. America's inability to secure Baghdad after 4 years, and its blame-game with Iran, simply repeats this sad tale. It is a folly to blame America's shortcomings on Iran or any other nation.

For as much as Americans dislike historical reviews, we have to search for roots to the present as far back as the Great Depression in 1929. America might be on the verge of similar mistakes. A very insular America managed to bankrupt itself back then, mostly because of grand but inward looking, theories that were disconnected from world events.

Americans subsequently helped their European cousins during and after World War II with a generous Marshall Plan. That was a one-off event that was not repeated. In fact, Americans were angered by attacks on its own territory in Hawaii and responded with a completely different war against people that had no blood ties with Americans. The surrender of Hirohito to an American soldier framed the mood of those days.

The attacks of September 11 by extremist Sunnis, and former American proxy agents in Afghanistan, have triggered a relapse to that angry mood.

The period after the War and the FDR-Eisenhower era framed a rigid foreign policy around this simplistic interpretation of the world. Victory was ranked atop the dignity of other people in the world. There was even less tolerance for competing political and, at times, religious ideologies. Those that subscribed to other principles did so at the peril of isolation. A simplistic "Us versus Them" scheme was put to practice. Little change to this structure has been made for the last 60 years.

In contrast with such stale and rigid policies from the 1950s, Europeans have set aside centuries of hostilities and feuds. They have converged onto common principles, formed a union and a forum for dialogue and cordial exchanges between 27 countries. All have chosen to trade and not threaten. They have frank, but cordial, discussions with other nations and commonly agree to stay away from school yard bullies.

The rest of the world appreciates the great contributions of Americans to human progress: modern aircrafts, microchips, communications in the age of the Internet, and great advances in medicine and science (medical imaging machines, DNA mapping, etc). The world has welcomed American people, their pioneering businesses and their popular culture, both music and films.

However, a great majority in the world are baffled why American statesmen and foreign policy masters copied Coca Cola and McDonalds to make an intolerant, one-size-fits-all foreign policy. Why does America mistake the UN and its agencies for a drive-through shop where it emits short orders, rather than engaging in discussions on even turf?

America’s sporting rules are roughly applied to delicate diplomatic engagements. American statesmen talk about punts. And, alas, no American sports end up in a tie. A period of "sudden death" is followed by an absolute winner.

Europeans must be baffled by the American policy of keeping, and even expanding, economic divides. Since WWII, Europeans have gained limited and uneven exceptions under "Most Favoured" or other kinds of "status recognition" agreements with America. However, America has refrained from a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. In this age of WTO and free trade, the United States Trade Representative classifies Europe and the Middle East as one region. Henry Kissinger, a notable architect of American policy since late 1950s, has continuously argued that there is no need for development of the Middle East or their single-commodity economies as America may otherwise lose its leverage in the region.

Finally, Europeans (and other foreigners) note the power and ease of influencing policy in Washington. The Byzantine bazaar of influence and the flow of lobbyists and cash from foreign sponsors of think tanks is simply amazing. They can easily invade U.S. Congress.

The Shah's last Ambassador to Washington is still remembered as a master schmoozer and a PR artist for what was essentially a dictator. Some 30 years later, those embassy parties and free flows of French booze, Persian caviar and Swiss watches are still the talk of the town (and a day's worth of Iranian oil exports financed the annual budget for that exercise). So, it is not surprising to see that the same rigid rules are still effective as The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and its group affiliates, manage to spin Washington with about $1 million a day.

In all, Europeans, and others in the world, wonder whether those old and rigid policies of America are sustainable in a modern world and whether the world can afford to grant exception to a nation that has merely 5% of the world population that, although it makes up for a quarter of the world’s economy, also generates 30% of greenhouse gases and more than 19% of global financial debt.