I liked Matt's firm rejection of war with Iran when I first read it, because it was right. I like it even more now after reading Matt's explanation of how it shapes political debate:
Politically, defining the terms of the debate is important. A certain number of people are going to want to hold a nuanced,sophisticated middle-ground position on the Iran question. That's fine,that's the way the world works. The important question becomes whatcounts as nuanced and sophisticated. I took it as a good sign that inthe latest New Republic Peter Beinart's column on Iran refers to my own column as "Not exactly subtle" and the main liberal take on the issue "too glib" while ultimately having much harsher words for Iran hawks. If that's the way things are going to play out, then I say so much the better for unsubtly and glibness on the part of those of us who'd prefer not to see another disastrous war.
