Bill Kristol Has An Opinion Re: The Iranian Situation!

Oh boy look at this, a midday blog post about Iran from ever-smiling warfapper and on/off Washington Post "lightning rod conservative" Bill Kristol! He is mad at Barack Obama for keeping his silence over the weekend, instead of immersing himself in Iran's politics (declaring war on Iran). Let's see if he opens with a nuanced historical antecedent to defend his argument: "On September 2, 1939, in the wake of Hitler’s invasion of Poland..." NEVERMIND.

But to be fair, as always, Kristol notes in the following paragraph that this situation is not exactly like the Nazis starting World War II by invading a sovereign nation.

This isn’t September 1939. But the developments in Tehran are a potentially big moment, signaling the possible transformation or at least reformation of the Iranian regime. American principles and American interests argue for support of the Iranian people in this crisis.

And where is the American president? Silent.

Blah blah liberal sneer hypocrisy blah cheapshot invade:

Some argue that the brave Iranians demonstrating for freedom and democracy would be better off if the American president somehow stayed out of the fight. Really? But Barack Obama is president. His statement wouldn’t be crafted by those dreaded neocons who vulgarly thought all people would like a chance to govern themselves and deserved some modicum of U.S. support in that endeavor. It would be written by subtle liberal internationalists, who would get the pitch and tone just right. And the statement wouldn’t be delivered by the notorious George Bush (who did, however, weigh in usefully in somewhat similar situations in Ukraine and Lebanon). It would be delivered by the popular and credible speaker-to-the-Muslim-world, Barack Obama. Does anyone really think that a strong Obama statement of solidarity with the Iranian people, and a strong rebuke to those who steal elections and shoot demonstrators, wouldn’t help the dissidents in Iran?

Jesus, who knows? Maybe if the "dissidents" actually declare war on the government and organize themselves into a formidable opponent seeking Western alliances, then Obama could say, "Yeah sure, go for it fellas." Or maybe not. Foreign policy is very hard! But it's not unreasonable to suggest that publicly siding with those protesters in a big, bold way and renouncing the "sham government" would (a) get all of those protesters labeled as American spies somehow and slaughtered en masse and (b) screw up potential U.S.-Iran negotiations in the future. Which is what Bill Kristol would want, because then "he" would get to invade a non-responsive Iran FREAKING FINALLY, for whatever reason, after decades of begging.

Also: the specificWashington Postblog on which Bill Kristol posted this snippy rant is called "PostPartisan," and we get the pun, ha, yes, puns are clever, but still: Bill Kristol. PostPartisan. Weird ass blog.

 Speak for America, President Obama [Washington Post]