War is the goal of the neocon collective; more subhuman than subhuman is its motto. Always has been, always will be. Neocons have to have an external enemy, legitimate or manufactured: it gives them political power and gives them — for lack of a better phrase — personal fulfillment. War is the force that gives meaning to their lives, makes them feel part of something important. Some people collect stamps, others like to attend church; neocons fap to destruction wrought by America or Israel on “eeevildoers,” preferably dusky and Muslim.
Everyone decent reacts to the flood of news out of Iran with despair at the chaos, sympathy for the protesters, and anger toward the regime. So far, the American government has reacted cautiously and correctly. (The same, alas, cannot be said of the EU.) Everyone decent wants a legitimate, democratic Iran reformed indigenously. Everyone, that is, but the neocons, who take to geopolitical tragedy the same way that Friedmanite crapitalists take to natural disasters and buzzards take to fresh roadkill. (This tendency, by the way, explains why Richard Cheney would desire another 9/11.) Ahmadinejad’s Rove-eque campaign and Bush-esque “victory” is a perfect tragedy by which they hope to exacerbate the already considerable tensions between Iran on one side and Israel and America on the other.
[B]etter to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.
[Ahmadinejad's victory is] about the best result possible… it pleases me.
Max Boot, of “earthquake rays” fame, perfectly echoes Pipes, presumably even down to the rapid fapping, the smarmy grin, and the Faster Chickenhawk, Kill! Kill! heavy panting. Or as superneocon Donald Rumsfeld said, “If you cannot solve a problem, make it bigger.” Until it blows up and shitloads of people get killed. Ahmadinejad, a clown, makes the neocons’ job of warmongering easy: Michael Rubin’s and Marty Peretz’s fear of losing him is obvious. Mousavi, on the other hand, would be difficult to demonize, though it won’t stop them from trying. Tim F. has it exactly right when he says:
[F]ringe actors like al Qaeda and the neocons or Ahmadinejad and Bibi need each other for political survival. The relationship isn’t even antagostic, it’s a symbiotic mutualism. Intractable, crazy antagonists legitimize the position of extremists who oppose them.
This has always been the case with neocons. They began by needing (and admiring) the Soviet Union. When the Warsaw Pact regimes fell and it became obvious to everyone that Moscow would do nothing about it, Norman Podhoretz and crew insisted that it was all an elaborate communist trap; then after this laughable period of denial, they moped, looked in vain for a new Evil Empire; finally, opportunistically, they seized 9/11 as a chance to replace the Communist Bloc with the Islamic World. Muslim extremists have turned out to be the best Best Fiends Forevar neocons could wish for, in the sense that the Kahanist and Christianist tribalism as well as the Israeli and American national exceptionalism, which have grown to be core components of the neoconservative mentality, “need” an “islamofascist” counterpart. After all, the bigotry of identity politics always burns more brightly than mere ideological clashes (as per the capitalists vs. commies dynamic).
In the last few days, the despicable pukefaces who got us into the Iraq War have been doing their best to get us into a war with Iran. Either they advocate that Obama directly confront the Iranians, or they characterize his heretofore cautious response (which is the best way to help the protesters) to the Iranian elections as (of course) weakness and appeasement, or they simply use the occasion to applaud the Good Tribe (Jews) and lash out at the Bad Tribe (Persians). Here, then, are several voices among the crapcaphony, a flock of neocon vultures singing of Iran, so far away:
[T]he vicious manipulation by which the mullahs control Iran can no longer be considered as their “internal affair.” Fascism at home sooner or later means fascism abroad. Face it now or fight it later. Meanwhile, give it its right name.
Yeah, well, Hitchens has a special talent for unlearning his lessons, though to his credit he did not this time offer the “faultlines of mass destruction” rationale for regime change in Iran. Meanwhile, Stephen Hayes, Richard Cheney’s most treasured and dingleberried buttpuppet, basically asserts that Obama is a wimp. Jennifer “Bili” Rubin concurs, as ultimately does, after some surprisingly thoughtful suggestions (what’s up with that?) Hayes’s boss, Bill Kristol. Elliott “Mr. Kenilworth” Abrams, meanwhile, can hardly contain his enthusiasm that “[Obama's] engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.”
Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, and Mitt Romney all claim Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent victory is Obama’s fault, munichappeasementhitler. Victor Davis Decimus Meridius Vacupithecus Metroplex Malorumus Hanson amplifies this theme, and seems to say that Iran’s elections show that Obama’s foreign policy has caused the whole freakin’ world to go to hell. Hanson the classicist finds one bright spot, however: it makes George Bush look better to history.
James “Marty’s lapweasel” Kirchick sees fit to remind, at least by implication, the New York Times that Iran hasn’t had a legitimate government since the freedom-loving, human rights-respecting, and democratically elected Shah Reza Pahlevi. So put that in your bong and smoke it, Sulzberger!
Roger L. Simon uses the Iranian elections as an opportunity to slag race-traitor Roger Cohen in particular and continue his jihad on the New York Times in general. He thinks the election results mean that “the reactionary” Obama should stop worrying about the Israel-Palestine conflict and instead confront Iran, even though he won’t cuz he’s a liebruhl terror-lover or something. Israel should do what it must (cough cough) with Iran, though it should try not to immolate those nice young Iranian protesters (Simon obviously has some very smart bombs in mind). Moses Whine also finds time to express distaste at so many Iranian-American dual citizens voting in Los Angeles.
Those shifty, cosmopolitan Iranian-Americans of dubious loyalty are also very much on what passes for Michael Ledeen’s mind:
For that matter, dual citizenship is ridiculous. Make up your mind, already, are you one of us or one of them?
Michael Ledeen is Jewish. And a very meshuggah one indeed to make such a boomerang of an argument. But then Ledeen’s so internalized his own tribalism that he probably doesn’t see the irony or the danger. For him, Jews really are the chosen people of the bible while his tribe’s nasty modern rivals, the Persians and Arabs, are equivalent to and deserve the fate of the biblical Amalekites. At any rate, aside the nasty comment above, I’m mildly surprised and amused that Mr. Faster, Please has been so relatively slow to boil (by his standards) regarding the recent crisis. Ledeen, when it comes to Iran, is easily the most insane and bloodthirsty of all the neocons, and the one to watch especially in the next few days.
The Iranian elections are the perfect bait for the multitude of sociopaths in greater wingnuttia, and particularly in its neocon division. Obama’s Cairo speech already got them hyperventilating; some are already apoplectic. There is always a danger, considering Obama’s “bi-partisan” fetish, of a rightwing push influencing his policies which, in this case, would make things worse for the Iranian dissenters. So the stakes are high, and we have to push back, by showing these sick-fuck wingnuts for what they are.