Mark Danzigerisn't very impressed with "foreign policy experts."

I think that we should take the same attitude toward the current regime in Iran that Reagan did to the Soviet Union--"They lose, we win."

[Update a couple minutes later]

Oh, and here's the latest insanity from the UN--Iran and Syria are leading the disarmament commission. And we're supposed to take this institution seriously?

And here's an interesting (albeit glum) report on what Iran is up to in Iraq:

it's not just the Sunni Arab neighborhoods that need attention. Radical Shia outfits, like the Iran backed Mahdi Army, have also become more aggressive. The pro-Iranian groups have been losing strength, mainly because Arabs don't trust the Iranians. Despite sharing religious beliefs (most Iranians, like most Iraqi Arabs, are Shia), Iraqi Arabs know that the Iranians despise them, and are still unhappy with the results of the 1980s war. In that conflict, Iraqi Shia Arabs fought for Saddam against Iranians, and fought the Iranians to a standstill, and a ceasefire. This was a humiliation for the Iranians, who had walked over the local opposition for thousands of years. But the Iranians have money, weapons and technical assistance for Iraqi Shia Arabs willing to cooperate. All the Iranians want is more chaos inside Iraq. This makes Iraq weak, and less of a threat to Iranian ambitions in the region. While some of the pro-Iranian Iraqi Arabs believe they have a chance of turning Iraq into a religious dictatorship (like Iran is), most know they are being played, and paid. You take the money. Jobs are scarce. But Iran is still the enemy. Always has been, always will be.

More evidence is piling up that Iran has, as many intel specialists have long suspected, been supporting some Sunni Arab terrorist groups, as well as Shia Arab ones. There are dozens of Sunni Arab terrorist groups, scattered all over the physical and political map. Apparently Iran helps out Sunni Arab terrorists who are less likely to slaughter Shia. There are parts of the country where the only targets are Kurds and Turkomen (both Sunni) or Christians (a rapidly disappearing, via migration minority). Iran has long had problems with Kurds, Turks and Christians, and does not mind killing them.

I can think of two obvious reasons why foreign policy experts, as a rule, tend to be dangerous arrogant fools:

(1) Nobody really knows how to keep the peace between nations while still ensuring justice, and the suppression of evil. It's the equivalent of quantum gravity, a construct which we believe exists, but which no one on the planet has yet been smart enough to even outline plausibly.

Of course, that doesn't stop credulous people from believing that some quack or other has finally found the secret. Nothing ever does -- that's why folks selling magic weight-loss pills and natural male enhancement have prospered from the time of ancient Egypt to the present.

(2) Job security! As long as there are foreign policy problems, there will be a call for foreign policy experts to do something about them. It's not really in their own interest to truly solve international problems (or admit they haven't a clue how to solve them), any more than it's in a divorce lawyer's interest to reach a quick and amicable settlement with the opposite party.

"I think that we should take the same attitude toward the current regime in Iran that Reagan did to the Soviet Union"

Hype it beyond all measure, then rush to claim credit for the inevitable?

"And we're supposed to take this institution seriously?"

Yes, just not while they're leading it.

"More evidence is piling up"

Interesting--rather than give any evidence, the author simply stipulates that it exists.

"or Christians (a rapidly disappearing, via migration minority)"

Why would they be fleeing? Everything is going great in free, prosperous, democratic Iraq.

In Iraq, Marsh Arabs are winning, Christians are losing. You win some, you lose some. What the heck.

Carl, was Wolfowitz a foreign policy expert? How about Feith, Perle, the Kagan family etc? Do you really want to put them all in the same bucket?

Regarding Iran though, one has to observe that Ahmedenijad is really begging to be bombed.

It seems inevitable and even fitting that Iran will be attacked prior to Bush leaving office.

For example if a link to Iran emerges in the Green Zone bombing today, an event of that sort will likely be the crystallizing straw.

Clearly if the recent event with the British sailors was an event with ours, we would probably have bombed Natanz already.

I hope we do it in a manner that doesn't set back moderates in Iran by 30 years. How we can do that and further not make our job in Iraq much harder if not totally impossible, assuming it isn't already, grates on the gray matter.

On the other hand, Ahem-and-edji really has it coming to him I think, especially that crap about returning the soldiers as his personal GIFT !!! What was THAT?

On the other hand, Ahem-and-edji really has it coming to him I think, especially that crap about returning the soldiers as his personal GIFT !!! What was THAT?

Whatever it was, it appeared to bug you, which was probably part of the plan.

I have been reading about Iran stoking both the Shiia and Sunnis for some time. If this is true the I hope the US and its friends are killing the Iranians as soon as they surface in Iraq.

Then again, this may be agianst the ROE.