steal his lunch moneybranding me a drag queenwrites
[H]e wants to pretend that he's part of the State Department. This is the second odd piece of the Iran conversation, in which pundits, with no role in our diplomatic efforts at all, think themselves so critical to America's success that they will publish the same feints and misdirections that our (theoretical) negotiators would use. [snip] I think military force should be taken off the table, as the more we appear an existential threat to Iran, the more they're going to accelerate their nuclear program. The threat of force renders negotiations somewhat moot. But that's not a strongly held judgment, and I am not a diplomat. It is not for me to pretend that my readers are high-ranking civil servants in Tehran, who must be convinced of America's determination to disrupt their nuclear program. And so I, happily, can separate out the questions. It would be a bad thing to bomb Iran. That means if we keep force on the table, and negotiations fail, we should not bomb Iran. And that means making the case for not bombing Iran, even as our negotiators may be relatively more belligerent towards Iran. Jason, on the other hand, thinks it's apparently a bad idea to bomb Iran, but also a bad idea to publicly say we shouldn't bomb Iran. He'll poke me in the eye for being a forthright opponent of military action here, even as he suggests he may also be an opponent of military action here, even as he warns that military action shouldn't be opposed or taken off the table.
arguedfor all intents and purposesa prioriJason Zengerle