I had a wide-ranging interview last week at the Republican convention with Randy Scheunemann, John McCain’s director of foreign policy and national security. We had to slim down the text for the print magazine, but the director’s cut would have included a few other sections. Here are some noteworthy excerpts:

(1) I asked Scheunemann to respond to the critique that McCain helped egg Mikheil Saakashvili on.

It’s been suggested that Saakashvili, although he’s victim, felt emboldened to goad the Russians because of the support he heard from Washington and McCain. Is there any culpability on this side of the pond?

This is the classic blame-America first argument. I disagree with the premise of the question—that existing tensions in South Ossetia could suggest culpability on the part of the Georgians. The reality is that in cases of naked cross-border aggression, the aggressor will always seek to blame the victim. The Sudeten Germans had real grievances, too.Is Georgia at fault because it had the audacity to hope to join the NATO alliance? It has become clear in the aftermath of the Russian invasion that this wasn’t about what happened on August 6 in South Ossetia. This is about the nature of the democratic regime in Georgia that the Russians want to bring down. They’ve called Saakashvili a political corpse, they’ve refused to deal with him, and if the international community tolerates that behavior, it will only embolden the Russians in other places. That’s why the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Ukrainians are worried.

Put it this way: would the Russians have been as eager to take down Saakashvili on the day he was inaugurated as in the week before they invaded, by which point his rhetoric toward Russia had changed? And did the West help change his rhetoric?

Almost from the beginning of the Saakashvili administration, Putin’s Russia has sought to undermine his regime. Among the actions that the Russians have taken is cutting off energy supplies, cutting off electricity, not allowing the import of Georgian products—wine, water—and putting a trade embargo on Georgia, supporting the separatist regimes that were unrecognized until recently in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They do not really recognize the independence of Georgia. They are trying to create a past historical era—not the Soviet Union, but the tsarist empire. Putin doesn’t want the 20th century, he wants the 19th century, and he’s been quite explicit about his goals. And to blame the victim for the actions of the aggressor shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what happens when aggression goes unpunished. It emboldens aggressors.

(2) Surprisingly, although Scheunemann went through standard motions about the peace process, he wasn’t categorical about an Israeli deal with Hamas, should Jerusalem choose to pursue one. (Remember, the Bush administration in July 2002 said that Yasir Arafat—who was markedly less radical than Hamas—a could not be a negotiating partner. Of course, that was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s policy at the time, too, so the Israelis respected the president’s decree.)

Bush and Clinton waited until their last years to work on Israel and Palestine. Is this important enough in the constellation of issues for him to pay close attention in the early years?

It’s very important to continue to work on the peace process, but you have to recognize that for a successful outcome, you have to have two parties willing and able to make an accord. That’s how Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan. The Israeli side is clearly willing. But for all of the good intentions of the key leaders in the Palestinian Authority, there are questions about whether they could deliver on a peace deal—without even getting into the issue of Gaza where terrorist are in control.

Should we risk eroding the Palestinian consensus on a two-state solution while we wait for a partner on that side?

First, there is no Palestinian consensus on a two-state solution. For Hamas, it’s not about 1967, it’s about 1948. Second, John McCain has a realistic understanding of how you make peace. When you try to push parties that are unwilling to get together, you’re not going to have success. He’s said it’s important to keep moving forward, but we have to be realistic about the prospects.

Some Israeli diplomats talk about bringing Hamas into talks, because there’s no one else. Would McCain oppose that?

Senator McCain would certainly not do what Jimmy Carter did and meet with Hamas. At the same time, he says we can’t be in the business of second-guessing the Israelis on security. Whether it’s operations in places like Gaza and southern Lebanon or the suspected nuclear facility in Syria, or in security negotiations. Israel is a democracy and has every reason and every right to put its security first and the United States should not be in the business of second-guessing Israeli decisions.

(3) Scheunemann told me that “the international community” needed to lean on Iran and, without really thinking about it, I described our Security Council counterparts using the polite term—“allies”—that you might hear from the White House but not an outside observer. His subsequent description of Russia and China, I think, differ substantially from how the Obama campaign might describe them.

Our allies don’t seem to care as much as we do.

There are different views among different allies, there’s doubt about that. Senator McCain has raised this issue with President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown—

I was talking more about Hu Jintao and Putin.

You said allies.

They’re not allies?

Russia and China are obviously not allies. Whether or not China and Russia are willing to go along with serious sanctions, we need to try in the Security Council. But we need to be realistic and understand the limits of lowest common-denominator consensus. It has prevented effective action in Darfur, in Burma.

Can our like-minded allies muster enough leverage by themselves?

That question requires sustained diplomacy and leadership to increase the financial, diplomatic and economic and McCain has said that would be the highest priority if he should be elected president.

How would you guys react if Bush launched a military strike in Iran between a November McCain victory and a January inauguration?

I’m not going to comment on a hypothetical like that.