JustinLogan.com

Ledeen on Iran

Terry Gross had him on here, but scroll 17:45 in to hear his well-worn case that "they have been at war with us for years," which Ledeen likes to use to make the case that we cannot live with the current Iranian regime.

After dropping a Cheney-esque hint that Iran might have been behind the September 11th attacks ("Well, I'm not sure, maybe there was a relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, but I'm not making that accusation."), he then cites the seizure of the American embassy during the Iranian revolution (1979), the bombing of the Marine barracks and embassy in Beirut (1983), and the Khobar Towers attack against Saudi Arabia (1997).

So we've got the casualties incurred during the Iranian revolution, and the attacks that took place during Lebanon's civil war.  Then, we have the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia, (for which Ali Ansari curiously insists there is no persuasive evidence tying to Iran), which is indeed a worrisome case. 

The thing about Khobar Towers is that our friends the Saudis refused to provide the evidence which apparently did tie Iran to the attacks until after Mohammed Khatami was elected.  According to Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton administration was then faced with the question of whether to retaliate against the newly minted Khatami government, which did not order the attack, and risk unraveling the chances that Khatami could do some good.  Now, we can differ in hindsight on whether the decision to hold off the retaliation was a good one or not, but the fact is that it was the Saudis who possessed and held back the evidence until we were faced with the conundrum.

But the point is that that's the best Michael Ledeen can do to prove that we can't live with the Iranian regime.  Three attacks tied to Iran to various degrees twenty-five years ago, and an attack against Iran's regional enemy, Saudi Arabia, which also, tragically, killed US citizens.  That's convincing evidence that the Iranian government is nasty.  It's convincing evidence that the Iranian government is undermining us in the region.  But it's pretty thin gruel when you're trying to make the case, as Ledeen is, that we simply can't live with the mullahs running the show Tehran.

Been Busy

Had a good experience on the Jim Bohannon Show last week talking about Iran, of which you can listen to a snippet here.

Had a piece in the American Prospect today on the disconnect between the Democratic base and Democratic foreign policy elites on security policy.

Did CNBC on Iran here.

Looks like this is going to be the way of things for some time.

Radio Logan

I'll be on the Ron Smith Show in Baltimore in about ten minutes talking about my piece in the current issue of the American Conservative.  You can listen online here.

Random Bits

1.) Quote of the day comes to us from Yglesias:

Since in times of peace conservatives usually make no bones about the fact that they don't care about international law it's hard for me to understand why they go in for such tortured legal rationalizations about starting them.

2.) Steve Clemons talks about and posts a copy (.pdf) of Flynt Leverett's excellent Prospect cover story/defense of realism.

3.) Is the president really reading Promised Land, Crusader State?

4.) It appears I'll be on CNBC around 11 today talking about prospective sanctions against Iran.  Short version: not optimistic.

The Question of the Millennium

According to Joe Lieberman, posting this might just singlehandedly undermine the war on terror, but I can't resist.  Joe Scarborough asks the essential question:

Perils of Prognostication

Here's Bill Kristol, July 19:

[Iran has] overreached. They and Hezbollah have recklessly overreached. They got cocky. This is the moment to set them back. I think a setback to Hezbollah could trigger changes in Iran. People can say, wait a second, what is Ahmadinejad doing to us. We’re alone. The Arab world is even against us. The Muslim world is against us. Let’s reconsider this reckless path that we’re on.

Here's Bill Kristol, August 13th:

WALLACE: Bill, let's look back now over the past month of fighting. As you look at Israel and Hezbollah, Iran and the U.S., who are the winners and who are the losers?

KRISTOL: Well, I'm afraid Iran is probably the winner. I mean, they unquestionably signed off on Hezbollah starting this. It was a distraction from the alleged -- well, not the alleged -- the Security Council move-in on Iran's nuclear program, which no one's talked about now for a month.

And as I say, Iran has paid no price, zero price, for clear state sponsorship of a terrorist group attacking across an international border.

I think the Olmert government initially will be the loser, and I'd be surprised if it survives.There's a huge amount of criticism of his performance as prime minister from both left and right in Israel. And they have a parliamentary system, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a new cabinet there pretty soon.

Too bad pundits don't get mulligans.

A Curious Omission

Strangely, the word "Iraq" doesn't show up once in NRO's symposium on the foiled terror plot in England.  Didn't somebody say that Iraq was the "central front in the war on terrorism" or something?  Or was this just an attack from the right flank, maybe?

A Story That Didn't Get Enough Attention

The other day I ripped NRO's editors for being determined to take a failed strategy and deploy it as a remedy for itself.  But here, from the Jerusalem Post, is one line from a few days back that indicates US officials may also be hell-bent on doubling down on failure:

[Israeli] Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.

Umm, indications from whom in the US???

How We Got Here

Is it too shrill to say that drunk preschoolers could ask more incisive questions of Pace, Abizaid and Rumsfeld than our legislative representatives seem able to?  Sure, the panel is studiously ducking questions, but the nice thing is that we have this whole group of what some of us call "facts" which we can use to point out their evasions and inaccuracies.

One particular lowlight was when Lindsey Graham was asking Abizaid about the size of the Sunni and Shi'a elements of the insurgency, and then came up with a number of 30-40K.  He then had to ask how many people live in Iraq, and wondered (I'm quoting from memory):

Why can't 200,000 soldiers working together defeat an insurgency of 30 or 40 thousand in a country of 25 million?

This is the level of our debate.  Umm, why can't that happen?  Because it defies historical experience.  Because counterinsurgency is hard.  Because our troops don't speak Arabic and don't understand the divisions inside Iraq.  Because there are massive, multiple, and fundamental disputes within Iraqi society about who should rule, and how.  That's just for starters.

More broadly, is a government where a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn't know how many people live in Iraq three and a half years in really equipped to direct affairs around the world?  And to top the embarrassment off with a touch of nausea, just watch the earnest and somber looks on their faces as they feign both a genuine understanding of and capacity to criticize national policy.  Simply revolting.

For more on this, see Senator McCain's sophisticated strategy to save the mission in Iraq from a few months back.

The President's Consigliere

Read the interview at Christianity Today with Bush adviser, confidant, and chief speechwriter Michael Gerson and tell me there's something there for small government types.

On substantive differences between himself and Jim Wallis:

I don't think we can minimize some of the traditional issues. I don't believe it's possible to be concerned about social justice without being concerned about the weakest members of the human family. I also think that America can play an active and positive role in the world and that we're not at fault for everything.

On the Democratic Party:

I would love to see the Democratic Party return to a tradition of social justice that was found in people like William Jennings Bryan. During that period, many if not most politically engaged evangelicals were in the Democratic Party, because it was a party oriented toward justice.

I don't see much of that now in the Democratic Party. Instead of an emphasis on the weak and suffering, there's so much emphasis on autonomy and choice. And so the party of William Jennings Bryan, the party of Franklin Roosevelt, I'm not sure it exists any more. But it would be good if it did.

On conservatism:

It would be a shame if conservatism were to return to a much more narrow and libertarian and nativist approach.

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again: If the president nationalized the steel industry and presided over the creation of a single-payer health care system, would conservatives then get off the bandwagon?  What would it take?  The Gerson interview, to my mind, provides still more proof (how much would be enough?) that the administration doesn't care one whit about those of us who want to shrink the breadth and scope of the federal government.