Are we about to bomb Iran?
David Brooks writes: "The Bush administration is not about to bomb Iran (trust me). It’s using diplomacy to build a coalition to balance it, and reverse an ugly tide."
I think that means a strike is fairly imminent. Right? And also, in what world is "diplomacy" a word you use to describe a futile attempt to align the enemies of a hostile third party?
Solving the Palestine problem is both essential to creating stability in the region and good for its own sake. Likewise, creating circumstances under which Iran can realize its growing power in the region in an acceptable manner is...likewise both essential to creating stability in the region and good for its own sake. What's neither essential nor good for its own sake is threatening Iran with military strikes while working to establish a weak alliance of mutually hostile peoples meant to serve as its temporary regional enemy... and then calling the whole plan "diplomacy".
Comments
David Brooks says 'trust me'. I do trust Brooks, I trust that he is about 90% wrong on almost any issue that he speaks about. And I'm not just talking about being wrong on his opinions, I'm talking about any Brook-labelled 'facts' that are just as likely (as his opinions) to be non-facts.
I had a fantasy yesterday: Russia and China announced that any air attack of Iran would be countered by the combined air forces of their two countries. They each sent 100 aircraft and pilots to Iranian bases as a token of their intent to act as deterrent forces against outside preemptive aggression.
Post A Comment