Nothing to See Here

I know Petey thinks monomania is an unattractive quality in a blogger, but it does seem to me that somebody should pay attention as the Iran war drums keep beating. Here's Amir Taheri in The New York Post and here's Benny Morris in The New York Sun (see Robert Farley's refutation) and here's New Republic editor Martin Peretz's endorsement of the latter.

UPDATE: Here's moderate warmonger Patrick Clawson from WINEP writing in the World Jewish Digest. Clawson, to his credit, recognizes that the international blowback from unilateral Israel or American strikes would, at this point, be extremely severe and advocates not bombing but rather laying the diplomatic and logistical groundwork for future bombing.

Comments

I stopped reading the Morris fantasy at the line "President Ahmadinejad, by then in his second or third term..." For dedicated Iran watchers, they seem determined to ignore internal Iranian political dynamics.

Posted by Jackmormon | January 24, 2007 9:44 AM

You're like the guy who keeps going on and on about the Oscars. Monomaniac!

Posted by otto | January 24, 2007 9:44 AM

"it does seem to me that somebody should pay attention as the Iran war drums keep beating."

I've got nothing against you pursuing that. It's not unimportant.

I've just got a problem with various forms of blaming Democrats for it. And I've got a very, very serious problem with you not rapping while wearing rapping gear.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2007 9:45 AM

Max Sawicky

"In contrast, when all the Dems jumped up to applaud as Bush mentioned preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, I said to myself, we are so screwed."

Blame where blame is needed.

Posted by Jennifer | January 24, 2007 10:24 AM

Objection: hoodies are not "rapping gear".

Posted by tequila | January 24, 2007 10:27 AM

I must say that all these angry neocons commenting on Matt's blog are making themselves look like complete laughingstocks.

The last time they all looked this silly was three or four years ago when all the neocons suddenly began simultaneously denouncing any use of the term "neocon" as a vicious anti-Semitic slur...just two weeks after the Weekly Standard had run a cover story by Irving Kristol entitled "The Triumph of Neoconservatism"

I've recently been doing quite a lot of browsing in America's leading Stalinist publications of the 1930s and 1940s and the resemblances are absolutely uncanny.

Posted by RKU | January 24, 2007 10:28 AM

"Objection: hoodies are not "rapping gear"

In real life, not so much. But on video, they sure are.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Much has been written about just how much Congress can rein in Bush regarding waging war. Most ruminations I read seem to arrive at the conclusion he can do what he damn well pleases. Since he's a sociopath with a pronounced messianic complex I'd say Iran is one fucked puppy.

Posted by steve duncan | January 24, 2007 10:40 AM

Rapping gear: guns, drugs, sweaty, scantily clad undulating black women, stacks of C-notes tossed into the air, waving of diamond encrusted rings, watches and pendants, in-ground pools, garish cribs, ostentatious cars, dimly lit clubs full of liquored up, blunt dazed criminals contemplating their next job, drug buy or murder. Oops, almost forgot, the most laughable dental work on the planet. Also real bad music accompanied by pornography posing as lyrics and dance.

Posted by steve duncan | January 24, 2007 10:53 AM

Afghanistan must be in much worse shape than I thought (and I'm not under the impression everything is fine and dandy there)if Taheri is floating the notion that Iran is chiefly responsible for all the problems there. I suspect we will see more of this line of thought as the pro-war propaganda increases in the coming months.

Posted by Joel | January 24, 2007 10:58 AM

Re: Steve Duncan

When will they knock off that hippety-hoppity nonsense?

Brazilian rhumba is all crap. I know nothing about it, but I feel suddenly qualified to make that statement.

Posted by witless chum | January 24, 2007 11:04 AM

RKU

"I've recently been doing quite a lot of browsing in America's leading Stalinist publications of the 1930s and 1940s and the resemblances are absolutely uncanny."

maybe that's because the leading old-time neo-cons were Stalinists before they were neo-cons.

Posted by Joe Scordato | January 24, 2007 11:05 AM

witless chum, I agree. I've also heard all the stories about those rhumba freaks shooting up radio stations, killing each other in drive-by carnage, raping underage girls and flouting Brazil's drug laws with abandon. A real bunch of miscreants, yessir!

Posted by steve duncan | January 24, 2007 11:22 AM

I think the Iran monomania is kinda sweet. I mean, if Bush bombs Iran, Democratic "toughness" should have adequate opportunity to assert itself. Car antennas and stun guns on the Senate floor would be neat.

Just incidentally, I was seriously shocked that John Edwards attended, by video, one serious neo-con gathering about Iran.
In Herzilya, Israel attended by a bunch of Israelis including Netanyahu, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Gordon England, Jose Maria Aznar, Richard Perle, James Woolsey...and John Edwards????

I knew I didn't trust that cracker. Details at Steve Clemons (Monday) and Gideon Rachman's Financial Times blog.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 24, 2007 11:34 AM

steve duncan -

You appear to have confused rhumba with the Scandinavian metal scene.

Posted by Quarterican | January 24, 2007 11:39 AM

Boy, what has happened to Benny Morris? I read his book "Righteous Victims" several years ago, and it still ranks as the best non-fiction book I've ever read. He seemed a thoughtful, sober historian at the time. I'd heard that he's gotten more conservative, but this is a pretty far swing to the right.

Posted by nifa | January 24, 2007 11:43 AM

It's true that one can be concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and also concerned about the prospect of American or Israeli military strikes. I put myself in that category. What you need to do to get into that category is express concern about both things.




You claim to be concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran, and yet anyone who advocates aggressive, non-military steps to confront Iran, such as Clawson, is deemed a "moderate warmongerer", "laying the diplomatic and logistical groundwork for future bombing."




Being genuinely concerned about a nuclear Iran while at the same time labeling arguments for aggressive, non-military responses as "moderate warmongering" is incoherent. It makes sense, however, in light of your stated views that engaging in a good faith debate on Iran will simply lead to a diastrous replay of the run-up to the war in Iraq.


But this cynical scorched earth policy you are taking is dangerous - it is leading you to take positions that while popular with the left-wing peanut gallery, are intellectually dishonest. (Something you admirably otherwise do not engage it.) And it is leading you to take positions on Israel advocacy that are increasingly unhinged.

Posted by mhp | January 24, 2007 11:54 AM

As far as I know, Petey is entirely supportive of my John Edwards monomania.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 24, 2007 12:08 PM

Jackmormon:

You and everyone else really have to read the Morris piece to the end. Then determine whether someone like him should be able to drive a car, much less American foreign policy.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 12:12 PM

Several more screeds that conveniently leave out any mention of Iran's offer for a Grand Bargain a few years back, which included as points for negotiation giving up its nuclear program and recognizing Israel.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 12:15 PM

I've just got a problem with various forms of blaming Democrats for it.

I don't. I realized the Democrats weren't going to do anything about it when A) they said hardly anything in opposition to it and B) they got busy disagreeing over the wording of a NONBINDING resolution against the Iraq escalation. They have actual power now and they're still acting like they're impotent. There isn't time for that.

mhp:
Bush is moving as fast as he can to take us into another unnecessary war. Instead of worrying about the correct, evenhanded posture toward everything, can we agree that an another unnecessary war in the next 2-3 months is a more pressing danger for this country than a potentially nuclear-armed Iran 5 or 6 years from now? It doesn't work to intone seriously about the deep threat of a nuclear Iran while trying to strike some kind of moderate opposition to the President's insane crap. All that does is validate his premises.

Matt is absolutely right that a good-faith debate about Iran will be a replay of the runup to Iraq. Because the administration never debates in good faith. How many times does that need to be demonstrated?

Besides which, what reason do you have to trust that Iran is going to become a real nuclear threat anytime soon? That they say so? Ahmedinejad has good reason to puff Iran up. That the same people say so who swore Iraq had a nuclear program?

Posted by Antid Oto | January 24, 2007 12:15 PM

You claim to be concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran, and yet anyone who advocates aggressive, non-military steps to confront Iran, such as Clawson, is deemed a "moderate warmongerer", "laying the diplomatic and logistical groundwork for future bombing."

Clawson is leaving out some crucial information that should be taken into consideration. Why?

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 12:18 PM

mhp:

MY probably knows more about who Clawson is than you do; his resume speaks louder than whatever he is now saying. For my part, I remember encountering his name in 2003, when he was quoted as stating of MEK, "They're not terrorists. They do armed attacks against Iran."

Clawson wants, and has long wanted, to attack Iran, and if he is now publicly adopting a non-military approach, it is purely tactical. MY is correct, as you have noted, to have concluded they are not arguing or negotiating in good faith. At this point, that is not "cynical", it is realistic.

You are the one arguing in bad faith. If you want to disabuse anyone of that notion, drop the insults ("left-wing peanut gallery", "unhinged") and neocon locutions like "intellectually serious", which is right up there with "moral clarity" as a code word for war.

Why try to win us over? The only potential opposition to the attack on Iran, the Democrats, have been irrevocably boxed in in terms of public debate by their eagerness to amplify Bush's warnings about the supposed threat from Iran. You've already won.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 12:26 PM

read the Morris piece to the end

My God.

Posted by Jackmormon | January 24, 2007 1:45 PM

It's a continuing mystery why Clawson, a surpassingly strange fellow who came to neoconservativism directly from some obscure, cultic ultraleftist groupuscle, is taken so seriously. To be sure, he is of normal intelligence, & Iranian specialists of any quality are scarce, but he was bizarre in the 1970s & he's bizarre now. Somehow we're not supposed to notice.

Posted by KH | January 24, 2007 3:07 PM

KH:

Your question answers itself. He is a neoconservative. Therefore he is taken seriously.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 3:38 PM

Brendan, I know, rhetorical question. I'm sorry I can't recall the name of the odd little groupuscle Clawson was active in. He was one of its ideologists, wrote some of their literature, which should be easy enough to track down. (While in grad school, he published some trite, albeit marginally more academically oriented Marxist items in The Insurgent Sociologist, Review of Radical Political Economics, etc.) Then, a year or two later, a new suit & neoconservatism.

He might have defended the MEK in essentially the same terms in either of his incarnations.

In a way, there's nothing unusual about Clawson's trajectory: there've been people with, e.g., LaRouche connections, & there's the legendary Alcove 1 Trotskyist heritage, etc. But, sorry to put it so crudely, there's sometime about this guy especially that gives me the creeps. He still has the air of a devotee of some tiny, demented cult, but at the same time he's at the table with some very powerful people.

Posted by KH | January 24, 2007 4:30 PM

It would be nice if Benny Morris and/or the warmongers would explain why a Mutual Assured Distruction principle would not work with a nuclear Iran. Does he not think that Iran's nuclear missiles would be met in kind? Does he think the Iranian leaders would knowingly sacrifice their entire population and country to nuke Israel?

Posted by Steve in Sacto | January 25, 2007 12:57 AM

He does address that question, Steve. Apparently the Iranians all believe that Allah will defend them from an Israeli counterattack, so they're basically undeterrable. And based on a speech 27 years ago by Khomeini (who is actually now dead) he reckons that even if they don't all believe in the faith-based missile defence system, the Iranians wouldn't mind getting their country mullered in retaliation, because they're a bit mad like that.
I loved the way he believes Iran would bomb Jerusalem. (The only people who might are the Saudis; Wahhabis aren't into holy sites. They tore down the Tomb of Mohammed.)

Posted by ajay | January 25, 2007 5:38 AM