January 22, 2006
The Paper of Recoil Strikes Unilaterally Against Iran
Perhaps not unilaterally. They have Hillary on their side. Tip o' the hat to Cap'n Ed Morrissey. Read it, please. If the editorial policy of the Grey Lady ever gave one chuckles (or motion sickness)...
I don't get it: A strike against Iran would be in Republican's favour, by generating a crisis that would greatly influence security concerns in time for the '08 elections. The Dems, Hillary's faux posturing notwithstanding, have no credibility at present over security issues. One would think that Hills would prefer to support an internal revolution in Iran, NOW, and thus generate a relatively pacified status quo... Which would allow the American public to take a breath, hold its nose, and vote for HillaryCare in '08.
Prediction: Madame Clinton and Mr. Murdoch see eye to eye on much. Any bets that Fox and the NYTimes dovetail on this issue?
I'm for the Revolution, personally. Now. First choice... even though a successful Revolution in Iran might pave the way for Hills in '08. Striking preemptively would be a very dangerous option... better than sticking our heads in the sand and our butts in the air, perhaps. There are Iranian lives and American lives on the line here. One would suppose that Madame Clinton and Pinky Sulzberger would give a damn. Where is the Democratic Party on this, BTW?
On the other hand, commentor DougF may have a point: It could be that Revolution is merely a chimera generated by CIA (gulp) intelligence. We may lack substantive opposition within Iran to support. (Michael Ledeen says otherwise.)
I'm with Ledeen: Revolution. NOW.
Previous Articles:
Two Scholars on the Middle East: Dark Weather Approaching
Les Cowboys
What... No "Nuance"?