Christopher Hitchens was the only person I ever accidentally let an S-bomb slip on the air with as a talk radio producer. The guy speaks so smoothly and quietly that I never even caught it until I heard about it the next day.

 

He's also bat s*** crazy. Was a left wing extremist before 9/11 and shortly after jumped to the opposite end of the spectrum. Never really liked him in any case - but he raises a great idea in how to deal with Iran. Recognize them, eat a little crow, and watch the new Iranian revolution start.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2137560/?nav=tap3

I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of the concept, but I think it's an upgrade over the "Fund opposition groups and try to arrange the world against them" that we tried in Iraq. It clearly has the disadvantage of giving Iran's mullah's something that they can use as an enemy to direct anger away from their own government..."It's not us, it's the U.S."

 

But on the other hand, I have a bundle of worries about this sort of policy too...First of all, there's no guarantee that even if Iran westernizes some, their government will either change or fall. Look at China...they've westernized significantly, but their government remains just as oppressive as it has been for the last decade, and their added economic clout is making them stronger and stronger on the world stage.

 

Basically, you'd be hoping a number of things would happen here...one, that by removing yourself as a potential enemy for Iran's gov't to demonize, they wouldn't just resume demonizing Israel. You're also gambling that the Army won't stay loyal to the government. And here's the real big one...if Iran's government were to fall...you'd really be gambling on who winds up getting his or her hands on their nuclear program.

 

It's probably better than what we're trying now...but I just don't feel confident in saying that.

Interesting. But, at least with this current administration, it will never happen. There would be too much pride to swallow.

Or any other, for that matter. I think one of our failings in foreign policy over the last few decades was the ability to 'take some lumps' when the opportunity presented itself. Better to be seen as weak when it actually makes us stronger.

 

But sometimes we let short term perception jeopardize long term gain.

I don't think CH went through any metamorphis post 9/11. As an ardent atheist, he has always been virulently opposed to religion, or at least religious influence in the public square. Who else would have written a book against Mother Teresa?

 

He sees the Middle East as a Muslim and hyper-extreme version of what he fears in the West. He believes that it is only in dismantling these systems--and the governments that make use of them--that the world will progress.

 

(The above is not said as a commentary, just an analysis of CH's political philosophy.)

I don't think CH went through any metamorphis post 9/11.  As an ardent atheist, he has always been virulently opposed to religion, or at least religious influence in the public square.  Who else would have written a book against Mother Teresa?

I have no opinion on Hitchens. But from my own secular viewpoint I know you don't have to be virulently opposed to religion in order to be steadfast in opposition to the influence of particular religious strains on matters of the public square. Don't go nailing lifts onto the feet of the natives, as George carlin says.

I have no opinion on Hitchens.  But from my own secular viewpoint I know you don't have to be virulently opposed to religion in order to be steadfast in opposition to the influence of particular religious strains on matters of the public square.  Don't go nailing lifts onto the feet of the natives, as George carlin says.

 

I would agree that an over-dependence or control of a particular denomination's theology would not fit with American democracy; however, it is the broad values of the Judeo-Christian ethic that has helped make us who we are as Americans.

 

BTW, your avatar is hilarious.