Fareed Zakaria posted his most recent piece on Iran this last Saturday for Newsweek. The piece, "Containing a Nuclear Iran" provides a fairly accurate run-down of recent developments, and the range of opinion that is out there. The article contains a great many quotable lines, and some reasonable objective analysis. One does not have to go all the way with Zakaria's conclusion, but much of his work goes a long way in re-establishing sanity after another week or so of hyperbole.
You can see the article here: Fareed Zakaria
Quotable Quips
From the opening paragraph:
The critics are eager to denounce the administration from the sidelines for being weak but rarely detail what they would do to be "tough." Would they attack Iran today? If not, then what should we do? It is time to put up or shut up on Iran.
Indeed, anyone who blusters about military options or Obama not being tough enough needs to be forced on record with exactly what they suggest be done instead. Put up or shut up indeed.
On the military option:
Whatever the explanations offered by Washington, this would be the third Muslim country that America would have invaded in the eight years since 9/11, something that could easily be construed as a pattern.
Gee, you think? A pattern? I'm pretty sure that many people around the world already see the pattern, but I don't think those in the US who support military options will ever see the US as anything but Captain America or Superman, with all the attendant pure intentions. You know, "Truth, Justice and the American Way."
I love this little dig at the grand gasbag Thomas Friedman who floated the idea that the US could pretend that they supported an attack by Israel in the NYT over a week ago:
And pretending that we are going to attack, when it is not a real option, is a hollow threat. You can posture as a columnist but not as the president of the United States.
Friedman's idea smacked of the old Nixon "madman theory" that he wanted Henry the K to put out there about nuclear weapons in an attempt to make the Vietnamese more tractable at the negotiating table. Something like, "You know my boss, Mr. Nixon, he's crazy. He may actually use nuclear weapons." I don't have full access to the NYT, but you can get the gist of what the idiot Friedman said here: Give Threats a Chance. Hooman Majd wrote more significantly about it here: Iran Mania Friedman really is such a tiresome and small-minded man.
Lastly there is this little gem toward the end:
The Iranian regime has amply demonstrated over the past four months that it is interested in hanging on to power at all costs, jailing mullahs and ignoring its own clerical elite. These are not the actions of religious rulers about to commit mass suicide.
I concur. The whole "crazy mullahs" theory needs a serious rest. Many of these ruling elites and Revolutionary Guard types have piled up quite a load of treasure in Dubai and other places, I think they fully intend to hang around and enjoy it. Incidentally, they would also stand to gain a great deal in their black market dealings with an increased sanctions routine. Read it here from The Economist.
In any case, Zakaria certainly proved once again that he's one of the more thoughtful journalists out there. Although there are parts of article that I take issue with, I'll leave that for tomorrow. In the meantime, read through the piece and be happy that someone in the media can still be measured and rational.