All the current political theater about "international sanctions" is unlikely to make the slightest difference to Iran. Nor is the administration itself likely to expect it to. What then is its purpose? To fool the American people into thinking that they are doing something serious when all that they are doing is putting on a charade by lining up countries to agree to actions that they all know will not have any real effect.
There is another aspect to General McChrystal's "resignation."
Everyone seems to be agreed that Stanley McChrystal has been a soldier's soldier-- someone who knows what to do on a battlefield and is not afraid to put himself in danger to do it.
Do we need more generals like this or do we need political generals who know how to cultivate Washington politicians, in order to advance their own careers?
Some people see a parallel between McChrystal's "resignation" and President Harry Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur. No two situations are ever exactly the same, but some of the parallels are striking.
MacArthur was proud not only of his military victories but also of the fact that he won those victories with lower casualty rates among his troops than other generals had. But General MacArthur too was not always discreet in what he said, and also had reasons to have contempt for politicians, going all the way back to FDR, who cut the army's budget in the 1930s, while Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were building up huge military machines that would kill many an American before it was all over.
If we are creating an environment where only political generals can survive, what will that mean for America's ability to win military victories without massive casualty rates? Or to win military victories at all?