His justification is that he is now president(elect), responsible to the national defense and that he has learned Iran really is not only capable but building a nuclear bomb, the NIE was a political bomb that no one believed when it was first presented, of the remaining Gitmo detainees, most can be repatriated to countries that will torture and kill them. The rest are extremely bad men who would be happy to strap a nuc onto their back and blow it up in a town near you.

My point in throwing out the Moguls and Persian cultural influence and military antagonisms east, was to address the distinct impression that you have special rules for the West and for everyone else; that Westerners occupy a special place in Adam's garden where free will exists. One wonders, for example, why the Greeks managed to get singled out, when it's less than clear that the Egyptians were big fans. Or why Persian cultural influence (imperialism?) on the West is evidence of some profound truth while its more profound influence elsewhere doesn't merit mention. Images of Mogul civic works are indelibly etched in my brain, so I ran there for anecdote. I did not claim that 'the Moguls brought Persian influence to South Asia', only that they are a particularly notable instance of said, and a particularly notable instance of concomitant resentment.

You think I'm incredibly arrogant and dismiss all theories about ancient emnities. If I got the impression that there was deep mistrust between Western cultures and those of the Iranian plateau or the steppes, it was because I read pop comic books. Check.

You, on the other hand, know more about the complexity of relationships and that they only have to do with warring enemies. Check.

You believe I was rattling about Persian influence on the West being more profound than its influence elsewhere although I believe I said the opposite. Check.

The Moguls, who claimed descent from Tamarlane, were a particularly notable instance of Persian influence on South Asia, regardless of the Aryan cultural transfers, the Sufis during the Delhi Sultanate, the Silk Road, or any of that other minor influence. Because of their public works projects. Check.

Thermopylae, the Alexandrian conquests, and the Roman dislike for Persian culture are nothing compared to the Egyptians, whose influence on Western European culture far outweighs that of the Greeks or the Romans. Check.

Crusades have nothing to do with feelings in any part of the Eurasian world, it's all just realpolitik about current warfare considerations. Check.

Did I leave anything out? I humbly apologize for thinking that the Moguls weren't the most notable Persian influence on a culture whose language is chock full of Persian words, whose Hindu and Hindu derivative religions bear many pieces in common with ancient Zoroastrianism, whose flavors of Islam are mainly due to Sufism off the Iranian plateau and central Asia, and whose cultures have been in trade and cultural contact with the Persians for thousands of years. I retreat before your expertise. By all means, let's strangle Iran. They're universally hated down at the Ayodhya temple.

You are indeed a sad case.

I just think of all this fretting is a whole lot of nothing. Obama did claim that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. He did not claim he was going to bomb them into the stone ages or release the dogs of war on Iran. He spoke of continued engagement and diplomacy. He did not label Iran a member of the axis of evil. So he basically has been saying the same things for 2 years now.

Update 2 also misstates Obama's position.

Obama said - "By reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago because of international pressure, the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy. The juxtaposition of this NIE with the president's suggestion of World War III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the President any justification to use military force."

Glenn writes: Back then, Obama was touting as authoritative the NIE's finding that "Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago." Yesterday, with no explanation, he embraced the opposite of the NIE's finding and claimed that they were still pursuing nuclear weapons.

---------------------

Holy Conflation Batman! Obama did not tout the original NIE as authorative, he just said it made a "compelling case" for more diplomacy. He didn't say he agreed with those findings, he said the NIE findings, not his own, make a compelling case and that Bush was irresponsible for his saber rattling rhetoric.

Glenn tries to cover his tracks by writing - "It should be emphasized that Obama doesn't seem to have changed his policy approach -- he continued in yesterday's interview to stress the need for "engagement" with Iran which would be a real and important change from the Bush approach. Still, at the very least, some explanation is in order as to what the basis for yesterday's claim is about Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon."

So if his policy approach hasn't changed than WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM. Maybe he is setting a high bar for the Iranians to impact negotiations and get the Right off his back. I mean isn't the crazy right a reality in this country - don't you have to talk tough on Iran before you can begin even being taken seriously on the subject in the US. Obama has to play the game - Glenn does not and gets to sit back and criticize everyone who does. There are certain rules to being taken seriously on American foreign policy. Glenn so busy speaking truth to power he has no sense of an overall strategy. And one other thing, how in the hell does Glenn know Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons. Is the NIE decreed from Mt. Sinai? Perhaps they have halted their production but still would like the weapons? Its not a justification for war, but who in the hell mentioned war anyway? Nothing has changed.

I would love to play Glenn in poker. He would start off every hand by declaring what he has in his hand and than act with complete and total anger when he found out you were bluffing.