Filling in for Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias puts the Iran debate in perspective:
The Iran debate has really become rather surreal. You have the "Islamofascist" locution jumping from the fever swamps of rightwing punditry into the mouth of the President of the United States. You have the Secretary of Defense issuing dire warnings of another Munich. These things are being done by the exact same people who, four years ago, were utterly dismissive of claims that invading Iraq was likely to serve Iranian interests better than American ones. Indeed, you have the exact same people who two years ago were assuring us that it made sense to commit American blood and treasure to fight Sunni insurgents on behalf of Iranian-backed Shiite militias now saying we need to commit more blood and treasure in Iraq to stop . . . Iranian-backed Shiite militias.And that's just the beginning. Read the whole thing.
I have argued repeatedly that publicly fretting about what to do with Iran is a losing proposition, because it lends a sense of legitimacy to a 'crisis' that is at best exaggerated (and at worst completely fabricated) to serve Republican political ends. Yglesias treats the 'crisis' with exactly the derision it deserves; his piece serves as a template for how we should all respond.
[That's all, folks]
|