Franklin Foer discusses in TNR why a neocon consensus has not yet emerged on Iran, and suggests that is because of the tension between the idealist and realist schools of neocon philosophy:
All their apparent agreement on the great issues of the day, however, obscured important internal disagreements and inconsistencies. The neoconservative mind has always had two lobes. One side drives neocons toward idealistic language about America’s ability to spread human rights and democracy. … The colder, more analytic lobe of the neocon brain endorses all this talk about democracy. But it couches these goals in a more realist context.
But what Foer’s article actually describes is not an ideological debate, but rather an unwillingness to commit to any course of action:
By all measures, the Bush doctrine should fit snugly onto Iran–the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism on a quest for weapons of mass destruction, a country where the masses demonstrably yearn to breathe free.
But, when I called May to learn his policy prescription for Iran, he provided a surprising answer, one that I soon found echoed that of many other Bush doctrine adherents. “I’ve got no sense of where this should ultimately go.”
So I don’t think this is really about ideological conflict. There are two much simpler explanations:
1. After the fiasco that was Iraq, no one can suggest with a straight face that we even have the capacity to invade another country right now.
2. Bush hasn’t spoken. The entire conservative commentariat united behind the war in Iraq because it was a key part of Bush’s agenda. If Bush does announce a policy on Iran, you can bet that the Republican ideological machine–including the ‘independent’ think tanks–will be squarely behind it. In the meantime, however, they’re leary of committing themselves lest they have to reverse course when the C-in-C makes up his mind.
I can’t wait for the day when the message discipline breaks down. But I doubt that will happen until the Republicans lose a national election.
