Neocons now say Obama isn't Hitler, he's Prince Metternich. And that's even worse.
by digby
I see that this Iran deal is bringing Neocon wingnuttery back.(Them other boys just don't know how to act.) Check this out from AEI. After positing that this all might have been a wag the dog scenario (with the Ayatollah obviously in on the scam) they come up with a much more cunning plan from the Kenyan Usurper:
Rather than merely being feckless, the administration may actually have a long-term plan, and this initial nuclear deal is only a tactic in a broader strategy. The overall aim is a strategic partnership with Iran because the administration sees that country as the only island of stability in a sea of chaos and violence.
Iran has a population of 76 million, a government that hasn’t changed in 34 years, and a GDP greater than Egypt, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, and Yemen combined. No one knows who will be running Egypt or Saudi Arabia a few years from now, but Iran has withstood a serious rebellion with impressive resilience – and has rescued the Syrian regime from an even more threatening uprising.
That, at any rate, is how a self-styled realist might view Iran. Blinkers are clearly required. The administration has to ignore what a tilt to Iran would do to relations with the Israelis, Saudis, and Sunnis in general. It has to ignore that the United States has traditionally stood for freedom and against religious tyranny – both for moral and practical reasons. But what are the other choices? The Iranian temptation is strong.
Imagine a kind of order that Prince Metternich pulled together for Europe with the Congress of Vienna: a century (1815-1914) practically without warfare. The White House evidently sees the modern analogue as an alliance among the US, Russia, China, Europe, and…Iran.
We draw this conclusion not from any special knowledge of presidential deliberations but from simple deduction. First, why would the administration – any administration – duck the opportunity to strike Iran a significant blow by helping the insurgents in Syria? Or by using force in response to Bashar-al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons? In fact, the White House opened a back channel to Iran at least eight months ago, and we can only assume that the president decided not to attack Syria in part because he saw the event as a prelude to the Iranian nuclear negotiation – and that negotiation was another step closer to a strategic partnership.
Second, an entente cordiale with Iran would be just the kind of grand gesture that would justify and sanctify five years of what has appeared to be a stuttering, meandering foreign policy. So this is what the president was up to! Finally, a broader deal would mean that the president could get back to work on domestic affairs without having to worry about pesky international problems.
Again, we are speculating. But from the facts at hand, we find no better explanation. The administration may be on its way to fulfilling – with a vengeance – its initial pledge to “engage” with Iran. Unfortunately, by doing so the president will make the world a more dangerous place.
Right. There simply cannot be any other explanation as to why the administration didn't grind Iran into dust other than some nefarious plot to create a new world order. Why in the world would any president give up the opportunity to get into a war in Syria? What could be better than that? How can any president justify failing to take advantage of the possibility of a long term quagmire in the middle east perhaps even with Al Qaeda involvement and against the will of the international community? We've done so well with that sort of thing in the past few years. And anyway, Iranians are a primitive people who have little experience in world affairs. If you just keep kicking them in the face, like dogs they will eventually come to heel. Everyone knows that. It's only been 34 years. Let's give this thing a chance to work!
Of course it's always possible that the administration merely thinks they might have a chance to prevent another nation from going nuclear in a region filled with religious fanatics who hate each other. But that would be feckless. Real Men go to Tehran --- riding triumphantly an armored vehicle, goddammit.
They conclude:
As Henry Kissinger wrote in 1957, “It is a mistake to assume that diplomacy can always settle international disputes if there is ‘good faith’ and ‘willingness to come to an agreement…. Appeasement is the result of an inability to come to grips with a policy of unlimited objectives.” He was talking about France under Napoleon and Germany under Hitler, but he might as well have been speaking of Iran under the mullahs.
Of course he was ...
.