by CKR
Lucky Joshua Muravchik! Two articles in national Sunday papers! On top of an earlier article on the same themes in Foreign Policy!
Lucky us! A neocon finally being honest with us about neocon aims! No more of that Straussian indirection! A kinder, gentler neocon!
Muravchik's Washington Post article skirts the open absurdity of his Foreign Policy article. He looks back to the good old days of working with liberals to make war in Bosnia, turns back to tired mischaracterization of the liberal response to 9/11, and slides over the wisdom of installing democratic governments at the point of a gun. Like other neocons recently quoted in Vanity Fair, he finds fault with the Bush administration's execution of war in Iraq rather than its theory. Things may even be going well overall.
In fact, despite the alarming spike of anti-Americanism worldwide, the political space in many Middle Eastern countries -- such as Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and most of the Persian Gulf nations -- has widened appreciably in response to Bush's pressure and advocacy.And he provides a teaser:
Until someone comes up with better ideas than these, the neocon strategy of trying to transform the Middle East, however blemished, remains without alternative.Which leads us to his Los Angeles Times article.
The headline is refreshingly straightforward: Bomb Iran. Editors write the headlines, but Muravchik made it easy for them.
Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it.The false dichotomy, of course. And a nuclear-armed Iran could eliminate Israel. It's true that a half-dozen nukes would pretty much turn Israel into green glass if Iran wanted to ignore the deaths of the Palestinians who live there, the collateral damage to Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, the fallout cloud that prevailing winds would push toward Iran, the international disapproval, and the likely nuclear retaliation. But Israel's hundred or so nukes could also destroy Iran. Israel's nukes exist now. Could this be part of Iran's concern?
Not a problem for Muravchik. He goes on to extrapolate to a future regional Iranian hegemony, which would, of course, be bad for Israel and the United States.
A great new neocon idea! What they really stand for!
War, and more war.