If Mr. Peace Prize were to wage war on Iran, it would amount to a natural outgrowth of an established policy he inherited and which both political parties endorse. If a shooting war resulted, it would be stupid and counterproductive just like Iraq. The policy has been ill informed, morally bankrupt, and cynical from the start. Thanks to America’s malfeasant leadership, we are already engaged in a de facto war with Iran. All of which begs the question: Why?

The policy is predicated upon the fiction, voiced by Broder, that “Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century.” Does Broder actually believe that absurdity? Who cares? It only matters that this false premise”€”part of the “clash of civilizations” bilge”€”is being used to justify U.S. foreign policy. The premise is generally accepted as true. It certainly is what Tel Aviv and its U.S. acolytes want everyone to believe, especially a gullible American public that is sitting back, swallowing it, and paying for it. The Israel lobby’s agitprop is relentless, brazen, and goes publicly unchallenged in official Washington.

The fact that Iran possesses no nuclear weapons and has not embarked on a nuclear-weapons program matters no more than it mattered that Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction were a fabrication of American neocons working for Ariel Sharon and Likud. Iran’s nuclear weapons and Iraq’s WMD are cover stories to mask a hidden agenda. Our Peace Prize President and Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and John Boehner, et al., pretend that Iran is a serious threat because it is good, inside-the-Beltway politics to do so. To act otherwise”€”to advocate that Iran not be embargoed, not be harassed, and not be bombed”€”would be a big mistake. The aforementioned individuals”€™ livelihood and standing depends to a great extent upon the largesse, influence, good will, and tolerance of Washington’s most powerful lobby. Why take a chance? The next election is always right around the corner.

And this is where Walt and Buchanan are slightly off target. Broder is a political junkie. He does not claim to be an expert on business or the economy. With this in mind, the Broder postulate is entirely understandable and unremarkable. He is not advocating that Obama start a war to entrench and advance his own career, even though such a strategy worked like a dream for Roosevelt. Rather, Broder is stating the obvious. He has a habit of doing this. (I have written about Broder before. See The Long Climbdown.) The warpath option against Iran is open and would be advantageous, based upon prevailing realities and attitudes in Washington. Simply stated, it will help Obama politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. Does anyone disagree? The Republicans will have been co-opted.

This says more about Washington’s deplorable state of affairs than it does about David Broder. Didn”€™t something along these lines do the trick for co-Presidents G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney in 2004, even after it had become clear that the WMD fabrication they used to justify their Iraq adventure was bogus? Senator John Kerry, who ran against the dubious duo in 2004, did not dare to question that premise or even to express doubt about the Iraq invasion itself. How could he? His own Democratic Party was in on the same vote-getting, campaign-funding scheme as the Republicans. The Democrats had been co-opted.

Upon announcing his retirement from the U.S. Senate, Ernest Hollings wrote pointedly about G. W. Bush in May 2004:

He came to office imbued with one thought”€”reelection. Bush felt…spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don’t come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq.

No, you don’t. You wave the flag and sound the alarm. Can Samuel Johnson be wrong? He can’t. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. In certain cases, it may even be the first choice. Why? Because it works.