Brief Iranian Aside

I know very little about the Iranian election/protests. It's not clear to me if what we're seeing is a genuinely significant uprising (meaning that it has the potential to up-end the regime). Or even if it was a seriously stolen election. The possibility that Ahmadinejad actually commands a plurality of popular support from the rural areas and the underclass seems as plausible as the possibility that the ruling theocrats have passed some tipping point where their legitimacy is imperiled. Who knows.

Well, actually, Andrew Sullivan knows! Over the last few days, some conservatives have treated Sullivan as if he was a reasonable, reliable source. What are the chances that this Sullivan post will put an end to that.

Pletka is a hard-right neocon, very close to the Kagans, and a former aide to Jesse Helms. Her support for Ahmadinejad is the same as Daniel Pipes' and the Mossad's. What we're seeing is how much of the neocon agenda really was about freedom. I have long since stopped believing that, having observed them closely for the past few years. They are about warfare against Israel's perceived enemies, and extending US hegemony to eclipse any rival regional or global power. That is the prism through which you have to watch their every statement. But why is the New York Times giving a platform at this moment to people who got the Iraq war so terribly wrong? Are there no consequences for total neoconservative failure?

Like I said, I don't know much about Iran, but it does seem to me that the Official Neocon Position^TM is probably pro-protest and anti-Ahmadinejad. It's the Obama administration which is going to pains to not jump to any conclusions or rush to support the protesters.