Matthew Yglesias Lets Them Have It

I don't always agree with Matthew Yglesias, but he's a really good writer. He always strives to look at all sides of the equation and try to challenge asumptions. Therefore it gives it all the more weight we he comes out so vociferously on one side of a given topic, in this case the debate over Iran. This has so clearly been overhyped, distorted, and overblown that it takes someone like Yglesias to simply demolish the subject:

David Ignatius is in Iran and reports that though "you might expect that Tehran would feel like a garrison town" it's actually surprisingly relaxed. But why might you expect that Teheran would feel like a garrison town? Well, you would if you've been following the media's dubious, highly-spun coverage of the issue. But you wouldn't if you asked yourself some basic questions. For example, if Iran is preparing to mount a Hitler-style bid for world domination they must be engaged in a big military build-up, right? But there is no such build up. Maybe there's no need for a build-up because the Iranian military is already so vast and mighty? Well, no. Iran has a defense budget of about $6 billion a year.

The United States spends over 50 times more than that. But perhaps comparisons to the USA are misleading. Lets compare our would-be regional hegemon to its neighbors. Well, Israel spends $9.6 billion and Saudi Arabia spends $25.2 billion. Pakistan, immediately adjacent to Iran and nuclear armed, actually has engaged in a recent defense buildup. What kind of quest for hegemony is Iran supposed to be on? Ignorant American pundits and television personalities may be unaware of these facts, but surely Iranian military and intelligence officials have noticed that Iran has no capacity whatsoever to conquer the region.

Meanwhile, the freaky and unpredictable Iranian regime has actually been in power for a very long time. Since before I was born. The regime is not only long-entrenched, but quite corrupt. Mightn't this lead you think it's being run by reasonably comfortable men who enjoy the fruits of power, intend to stay in power, and know a thing or two about maintaining their power rather than by irrational lunatics who've been waiting in the wings for 27 years preparing to spring their bid for world domination upon us without first having acquired so much as a single modern tank?

The neocons who build up Iran to be the Third Reich and Ahmadinejad to be Hitler (even though he doesn't control the armed forces) EXPECT their audience to be ignorant. Sadly, their audience also includes the pliant media who is willing to take their talking points from fax machine to the air in 10 seconds flat. Simply put there is not a military buildup of any substance happening in Iran, and their desire for nuclear armaments (which is in its infancy) comes out of learned behavior. Iraq didn't have WMD and they were attacked. North Korea gained WMD and they were not. The Bush Administration isn't exactly genius at hiding their strategy.

Nobody wants Iran to have the bomb but nobody with an ounce of sanity thinks that a full-scale military attack would do anything but irreparable harm. We have leverage over Iran that we refuse to use. Despite their growth in stature due to us taking out their known enemies in the region, they are still at a military disadvantage and are not economically strong. They've offered a comprehensive peace agreement that acceeded to pretty much all American demands as recently as three years ago. The people in power right now don't want such a peace agreement. It would ruin the prospects of war.

It's important to have some context to this Iranian debate. There are not one, but TWO SIDES who are being dishonest about their goals in the region. I heard Ahmadinejad challenged Bush to a debate yesterday. The smart approach would be to ignore him; he's not the head of the government but a rabble-rouser who wants attention so he can solidify his grip and expand his miniscule power in the country. We instead respond, because having a boogeyman is central to hyping a potential conflict. They believe that he is being dishonest, and shouldn't be taken seriously, when he says that Iran's nuclear program is being used for civilian purposes. But they believe that he is being honest, and should be taken very seriously, when he threatens the Western world. They fall into this trap because it's convenient for all sides of the conflict, as everyone gets to centralize power and throw into action the war machine.

The question is, will Democrats fall for this nonsense again?