This blog is staying agnostic about the war/peace divide, and instead eyes the Iran deal with measured skepticism. This is just as likely a deal that has traded sanctions for very little in return, and that has bought the Iranian regime time as it is the first tentative step towards thawing relations and bringing them into the international fold.
The ability of the current administration to follow through on its ideals, arrange a coalition of interests and allies ready to act, and properly meet American objectives remains in doubt, especially after Syria.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
McConnell wants to see Will play shrewd conservative peace advocate to the neo-conservative lobby’s grumblings
‘Wouldn’t it be nice to to see Will absorb something of their example, recognize that whether we have war or peace with Iran is of historic consequence for America and the world, and really join the battle?’
I keep putting up this quote, even though it’s hard to find middle-ground between a nuclear Iran and a very costly war:
A quote from this piece over at the Atlantic: From The Atlantic: Samuel Huntington’s Death And Life’s Work
“Although the professional soldier accepts the reality of never-ending and limited conflict, “the liberal tendency,” Huntington explained, is “to absolutize and dichotomize war and peace.” Liberals will most readily support a war if they can turn it into a crusade for advancing humanistic ideals. That is why, he wrote, liberals seek to reduce the defense budget even as they periodically demand an adventurous foreign policy.”
-Dexter Filkins on Iran here.
-Scowcroft and Brzezinski may be offering plans: ‘George Shultz & Henry Kissinger At The Hoover Institution: ‘What A Final Iran Deal Must Do’