Sick's approach is one marked by sobriety, observing that a "major contradiction in U.S. policy is that we proclaim Iran to be a mortal threat, yet we craft our policies as if Iran can do us no harm." He continues:
Iran is not, and will not become, a serious military threat to the United States in the foreseeable future. Iran is a midlevel power with a dysfunctional and unpopular government. Iran’s GDP is about the same as the state of Georgia in the United States, and its defense budget is a fraction of its Arab neighbors or Israel, not to mention the United States. Iran has a robust self-defense capability but very little power projection capability. Its nuclear program may have attracted great political attention, but it has consistently failed to live up to its hype. Politicians have been (falsely) predicting the imminent appearance of a bomb in Iran’s arsenal for twenty years....
Sick's overview is very informative, and even beginners will find it useful. Furthermore, he is suggesting - rationally - that US policy in the Persian Gulf is a problem, based on flawed assumptions, and fixable. But the White House might not be sweating these details.
It's worth taking into account that the United States tends to ensure for its own purposes low-grade tensions in the Middle East. The status quo in the region cannot be allowed to cool past a certain temperature. With Iran being situated as the region's current villain (as of 1979), Tehran functions in a capacity allowing Washington to gesture, issue warnings, and justify further weaponization of the area. It was recently announced the Obama administration is involved in discussions with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates for a $10 billion weapons deal - one sending a "very clear signal" to Iran, according to secretary of defense Chuck Hagel.
Also worth bearing consideration is that it is customary, albeit quietly, for the American population to pay for these arms packages; much of the foreign aid issued to clients comes with the stipulation that a large portion of it (in some cases all of it) be spent on products made and sold by US defense contractors. Corruption isn't the problem in this country; what's done legally is far worse.
Sick is correct that the president, now in his second term, has an opportunity before him to create positive change in the Middle East. From what we've seen so far, one couldn't be blamed for anticipating more of the same. It will also be worth keeping an eye on secretary of state John Kerry in the coming months. If Obama is going to make a last-minute move on Israel and Palestine in the mode of Bill Clinton in 2000, we should be able to see signs of it in Kerry's diplomatic activity. And if this is the White House's intention - Camp David III - then expecting a rerun of Camp David II is sadly in order. Then again, Clinton came closest to a deal and could have secured one had he pushed hard enough. But the future tends to resemble the past.
Gary Sick essay:
http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/45787800398/us-persian-gulf-policy-in-obamas-second-term
Al Jazeera report on weapons deal:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/2013421113011380292.html
