Two Contrasting Views (w. a Plea)

With the defeat of Israel by Hizbullah you'd think the neocons and Cheney would moderate their arguments for invading Iran. Indeed, some in Israel like Defense Minister Peretz are suggesting that Israel open up a dialog with Iran. With thinking like this, I imagine, Cheney and the neocons will not only not moderate their war cry for Iranian blood but will begin to litter the media with greater and greater paranoiac visions of Armageddon. ...

First, the good news from a man who sponsors and promotes dialog with extremist groups like Hizbullah. (via No Quarter) Larry Johnson reports:

Israel, it seems, has few options at the moment. However, there are reports in the Israeli press that Defense Minister Amir Peretz this week hinted at one of them: renewed dialogue with Lebanon, the Palestinians, and even Syria.

Bearden, a staunch advocate for dialogue, even sees the possibility for Israeli dialogue with Iran — although the country is a prime backer of Hezbollah and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

On the other hand, the neocon Bill Kristol ratcheted up his call for attacking Iran, basing his logic on the idea that if Hizbullah can defeat Israel in the field, then that means they will only get stronger and we should hamstring them and their sponsors before they become much harder to defeat.

According to Kristol:

But such a military strike would take a while to organize. In the meantime, perhaps President Bush can fly from the silly G8 summit in St. Petersburg--a summit that will most likely convey a message of moral confusion and political indecision--to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies. This is our war, too.

These comments keep coming from the neocon side, even thought those whose expert voices you'd expect to make a difference keep saying otherwise, e.g. 22 diplomats and military leaders who wrote a scathing indictment of the notion that attacking Iran is prudent, much less workable.

And then there's the voice in the wilderness (via Think Progress, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who asks a very simple but perhaps over-arching question:

And now Iran.

“Some in this administration want some excuse to take military action,” Hagel says.

“That would be disastrous, catastrophic. It would enflame the Middle East in ways we can’t imagine today.”

The United States and Israel already are isolated in the region, Hagel says.

Two wars — in Iraq and Afghanistan — have strained the U.S. military, partly because of decisions made by “all these smart guys” who now talk about bombing Iran.

“The American force structure is broken,” Hagel says. “Everything’s breaking down. We’re chewing up our people.”

A war in Iran would require reinstitution of a military draft, Hagel says.

But Hagel's voice will not be heard; like many before him he'll be laughed out of court as a rustic hick without any sense of the true purpose of the American destiny.

I've wracked my head for over what it is that the neocons want. They've been good at hiding their intentions behind a facade of innuendo, suspicion, and misdirection. Their Machiavellianism carries on something of the spirit of Hamilton since it exaggerates the role of a strong executive with sole war-making powers. As such, they hope to renew the American virtu, a spirit of conquest and entrepreneurial expansionism that will weed out the decay of luxury and self-satisfaction bred by our consumer culture.

Related Links

• What Next?
  
• Making Peace Stick in Lebanon
  
• Israel's Armchair Generals Second-Guess Olmert Over War
  
• Hizbullah Rebuilds and Regroups