Yesterday, in mocking the sort of liberal hawks who define themselves as "liberals that acknowledge the existence of very real enemies in the world, and maintain any and all options in dealing with those enemies...You thank God when you can avoid confrontation, but act swiftly and decisively when left with no other diplomatic options," (cue soaring theme music), I asked "Who are these liberal doves who avoid confrontation when avoiding confrontation is impossible, and then seek to act sluggishly and in as muddled a fashion as possible when finally moved to act?"
Turns out...I am! Jason Zengerle weighs in today, wondering, "But isn't Sullivan describing Ezra--at least as it relates to his views on Iran? So far as I can tell, Ezra really does believe that, in the case of Iran, the military option should be taken off the table no matter what." Vis-a-vis the nuclear weapons, I do. So yes. And it would seem that we just got a clear answer from Jason on whether we should bomb Iran to prevent their construction of nukes. Zengerle believes, given what he approvingly quoted, that an Iranian nuclear program is something we cannot avoid confrontation with, and if we are unable to stop it through diplomacy, we will have to stop it through force. We thank you for your honesty, Jason.
But then we get to the end of the post and, lo and behold, it turns out Jason doesn't believe any of those things at all! "I'm beginning to be persuaded by the case that a U.S.-led attack on Iran could have more dire consequences than a nuclear Iran," he writes. But "without the threat of force looming in the background, I don't think the diplomatic approach has much of a prayer."
But unlike irresponsible doves like me, Jason may think "that a U.S.-led attack on Iran could have more dire consequences than a nuclear Iran," but he doesn't think anyone should say that. Instead, he wants to pretend that he's part of the State Department. This is the second odd piece of the Iran conversation, in which pundits, with no role in our diplomatic efforts at all, think themselves so critical to America's success that they will publish the same feints and misdirections that our (theoretical) negotiators would use.
