The Washington Post has replaced the American Enterprise Institute as the primary hub of neoconservative arguments for U.S. aggression in the Middle East. AEI served a Republican administration, and cannot perform that role for Democrats. So the Post is now doing the job, percolating militarist ideas for the Obama administration. Old wine in a new bottle. Jennifer Rubin is the latest hire, fresh from Commentary magazine, arguing for an attack on Iran:
we should begin to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force. When there is a credible threat of force -- not occupation or invasion, but strikes sufficient to hobble Iran's nuclear program, military and Revolutionary Guard -- the decision-making calculus may change. What of the notion that the nation will rally around the flag if attacked?
I don't think she even considers the inevitable result, that Americans will be targeted everywhere. Also, is this merely the sequel to Jeffrey Goldberg's piece in the Atlantic: the Israelis will do it, but they can't really do it, therefore the U.S. must do it...
Oh and check out this transition:
we should continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program. Every nuclear scientist who has a "car accident" and every computer virus buys us time, setting back the timeline for Iran's nuclear capability, while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program. Think of it as the ultimate targeted sanction.
Third, we need to make human rights a central theme