My latest post on Iran and the Netroots is up at The Van Der Galien Gazette. Please go check it out, and here is a snip:
In the past, â€œLiberal Hawksâ€ such as me have been accused of being vapid and disingenuous regarding a possible attack on Iran. This accusation has always puzzled me, since even a cursory glance around the blogosphere makes it pretty clear that the Netroots and other neo-progressives are all over the place regarding Iran. If you were to read some of these bloggers, you would perhaps be left convinced that only Dick Cheney and the dreaded (and often mythical) Neo-Cons were behind this â€œwar narrative.â€ Not only is this disingenuous, but it borders on deceitful. As Matt Stoller lamented today, Senator Obama in fact takes the Iranian threat quite seriously. He supports a federal and state divestment plan, and has also weighed the possibility of a military strike on the regime. Weâ€™ve heard similar rhetoric from the Clinton campaign, and even the populist John Edwards has agreed to keep an open mind about an attack. Indeed, survey data shows more of a mainstream concern over Iran, a concern obviously not shared by the neo-progressives.
This obsession with Dick Cheney & Co. not only gets us nowhere, but it prevents us the opportunity to objectively dissect our policy decisions towards the Republic. For example, thereâ€™s the recent post at FP Watch by the astute and thought-provoking Jeb Koogler, addressing the recent terrorist designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) by the State Department. According to Jeb, a mobilization for war could be the only possible outcome from such a maneuver. This is sheer exaggeration, to put it lightly. While such a labeling would likely be used in any justification for an attack, it can also be used to strengthen a case before the United Nations, which could in turn lead to stronger sanctions or a UN approved embargo. Whatever the motive, if the far Left chooses to hyperventilate every time the U.S. makes an effort to curb Iranâ€™s activities, then they in fact risk marginalizing themselves in the conversation.
You can read the rest here.