Like everyone, I've been following the events unfolding in Iran. And thinking about them. Most of what I would say has already been said, likely better, by others. In sorting out my arguments for why the Neoconservatives are wrong, and why what's happened will be significant regardless of the outcome. I've been forming a kind of more generalized theory of 'moderate' revolutions.
To give the short version, the great mistake and fallacy of Neocon thinking is their hard-line approach to everything. Foreign hard-liners should be met with an even harder American line. Since we're the 'biggest and strongest', we should win. Or so the theory goes. A more nuanced, creative and pragmatic position is, in their view, not only a counter-productive sign of 'weakness', but it also wreaks havoc with the absolute moral certitude they find so appealing.
Their great mistake, illustrated by what's going on in Iran (regardless of outcome), is that in setting one extreme versus another, hence excluding the possibility of a 'moderate' revolution, i.e. one spearheaded from 'within the system'. Which is often not only possible (something neocons would prefer to deny) but also often the most probable turn of events. My arguments are under the tab..
