Understanding The Neocon Position On Iran

There is only one acceptable outcome in Iran to the neocons and their wingnut blogger supporters: regime change. It doesn't matter how bloody it is or how many Iranians die to make it happen, anything that is not an active maneuver to bring down "the mad mullahs" is unacceptable to the neocons. A prime example of this mentality is "Cap'n Ed" Morrissey over at Hot Air.

But let’s say, for argument, that the mullahs suddenly got a hankering for Hope & Change and offered a sit-down between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Barack Obama. Why would we accept that offer and bolster Ahmadinejad’s prestige? How would that make the US look, sitting down publicly with a regime that bloodily suppressed peaceful demonstrations that demanded accountability for a stolen election? We would be an accessory to Iran’s oppression by giving the mullahcracy more credibility than its own people.

Is this “smart power”?

When neocons say "You can't possibly have a diplomatic relationship with Iran at this juncture" they mean "Why haven't you overthrown the regime yet?"

You see, Obama is an "accessory to Iran's oppression" if he leaves any diplomatic channels open. That kind of binary stupidity is what got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, the neocons will attack Obama until he gives the green light for a strike on Iran. In that way, the neocons are even more belligerent and predictable than the Iranian regime.