Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria recently had a terrific piece on the right’s foolish desire to attack Iran: “Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century…. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?”
Commentary Magazine editor Norman Podhoretz, meanwhile, is desperately trying to convince the president and the rest of the country to invade Iran as soon as humanly possible.
They discussed the issue together last night on PBS’s Newshour. It didn’t go well.
Zakaria tried reason…
“We have a policy that we understand, which is containment plus deterrence. We’re using sanctions. We’re using a kind of anti-Iranian alliance mechanism in the Middle East, which has become quite successful, by the way. We have isolated Iran.
“Time is not on their side; time is on our side. I think that the onus surely must be on the other side to explain to us why, because Iran might gain the knowledge to make nuclear weapons in the next three to five to eight years, we should launch a unilateral American invasion.”
…and Podhoretz didn’t.
“I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early ’30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough.”
It’s even worse watching the video.
Zakaria did his level best, noting that Iran has “followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy” for 30 years, is opposed to al Qaeda, opposed to the Taliban, and is easily deterred by Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons, “including a second strike capacity on submarines.”
But it wasn’t to be. Zakaria is Chamberlain, Ahmadinejad is Hitler, Podhoretz is Churchill, and the interview was painful.
Keep in mind, Zakaria would fairly be characterized as a center-right pundit. Indeed, as Josh Marshall noted, “It’s perhaps an apt commentary on the rightward, lunatic turn of this country’s foreign policy that Fareed is taking what I guess must be called the left (?) in this debate.” The cliche about reality having a liberal bias continues to be surprisingly apt.
Podhoretz referenced Hitler and 1930s Germany repeatedly last night, prompting Marshall to add what should be obvious.
It’s almost an insult to what the world faced in the late 1930s. Germany, industrial powerhouse, with arguably the most powerful army in the world, at the forefront of technology, overawing and invading neighboring countries. Iran, minor economic power, second or third-rate military power, which may get a couple of small nuclear-weapons compared to the couple hundred high-end nuclear warheads in Israel’s arsenal (plus, a robust second strike capacity, as Fareed notes) and the many thousands we have — and our blue water navy, satellites, air force. Please. Time’s running out for us? We’re going to look back on this fifty years from now and see the non-podhoretz-loons as the Chamberlains of the day? I don’t know what to say.
I know the feeling.
Of course, it’s important to remember, Podhoretz is not just some random nut, popping off on a right-wing blog. He’s Rudy Giuliani’s chief foreign policy advisor. Indeed, Podhoretz recently boasted, “As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it.”
Be afraid.