Lefty Plan On Iran

So we now have a nuclear-enriched Iran, dedicated to getting full cascades operational as quickly as possible.

Given this breathtaking development on the world stage, what's the Left's plan for dealing with Iran? A survey of leftyblogs reveals:

Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo longs for Clinton, hates Bush, and has no plan:

I'm going to try to write in a more considered and detailed way about this tomorrow. But for the moment I'd refer back to a point I made a couple weeks ago and say that the biggest folly would be to engage the administration on the particulars of their fantasies and delusions about foreign policy in the Middle East.

They appear to have learned almost nothing from the last three years in Iraq. The only sensible expenditure of energy is to find ways to hem these guys in or constrain them before they do even more damage to this country.

Don't bother clicking that link. Here's what that post boils down to:

And that is one thing I fear in the current debate. I think a lot of people of good faith will game out the Iranian nuclear question acting on the hypothetical assumption that we have a president whose goal is to prevent a nuclearized Iran and who is acting in good faith.

That, after all, is what right-thinking, mainstream foreign policy types are supposed to do. They're not supposed entertain the possibility that the president or his advisors are dishonest in their portrayal of the entire situation or pursuing goals different from the ones they profess to be pursuing. And they're certainly not supposed to tailor their policy prescriptions to take into account that possibility. That's political. It's not policy.

But to follow that approach -- sensible under sensible circumstances -- just doesn't take into account what we've all seen in the last five years.

So, Bush-hatred trumps all. The Bush approach is not the approach for him; no other approach is given.

Georgia at Daily Kos is anti-war all the way:

Everyone pretty much agrees that any type of strike would unleash hell and endanger American troops and American civilian lives as well. Given the grave and known consequences of military action, why does the government still have the military option on the table? Is it really an effective bargaining tactic if the Iranian has demonstrated it's more than willing to call our bluff?

Isn't there a politician brave enough and logical enough to stand up and say "endangering American lives is not an option"?

In typical lefty fashion, she can only look down one path: What happens if we respond militarily. She won't (can't) play out the "What if we don't?" scenario. Could it be that an Iranian nuke would actually endanger more American troops and American lives, or is it OK with the Left if Israel is wiped off the face of the earth?

Like Marshall, William Pitt at Democratic Underground cues of Sy Hersh's Festival Of Not Attributing Quotes in the New Yorker, which speculates on an American military, possibly nuclear, response. Hersh's record of inaccuracy notwithstanding, Pitt paints a nasty picture of what the probable response would be:

I had a debate with my boss last night about Sy Hersh's terrifying New Yorker article describing Bush administration plans to attack Iran, potentially with nuclear weapons. After reading the Hersh piece, my boss was understandably worried, describing his reaction to the article in road-to-Damascus-revelation terms. They're going to do this, he said.

I told my boss that I couldn't believe it was possible the Bush administration would do this. I ran through all the reasons why an attack on Iran, especially with any kind of nuclear weaponry, would be the height of folly.

Iran, unlike Iraq, has a formidable military. They own the high ground over the Persian Gulf and have deployed missile batteries all throughout the mountains along the shore. Those missile batteries, I told him, include the Sunburn missile, which can travel in excess of Mach 2 and can spoof Aegis radar systems. Every American warship in the Gulf, including the carrier group currently deployed there, would be ducks on the pond.

The blowback in Iraq would be immediate and catastrophic, I reminded him. The Shi'ite majority that enjoys an alliance with Iran would go indiscriminately crazy and attack anyone and anything flying the stars and bars.

The Left has a nasty way of underestimating our military power and overestimating the power of others. Remember the 20,000 deaths we would suffer toppling Saddam, Pitt? And anyway, it's just criticism again ... no alternative plan is proposed.

Atrios at Eschaton says nothing. Iran's not important when you've got a Bush to bash. Ditto Talk Left, AmericaBlog and firedoglake.

Does anyone need any additional evidence of the irrelevance of the Left? They remain obsessed on Iraqi WMDs and Cheney's shotgun, and can't deal with the fact that the jihad-crazed, America-hating revolutionaries in Iran are hellbent on creating massive destruction. Uh, I think I'll write another piece on that @#$!& Scott McClellan .... yeah, that'll get 'em!

Tags: Iran, Nukes, Nuclear weapons, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, Hersh, Atrios, Talk Left, AmericaBlog, firedoglake, Left