Crusading to Tehran: Michael Ledeen at point

My, my, the Neocons do not cease getting crazier and crazier. Michael Ledeen's recent NRO article, "Nonnegotiable", makes first of all the world's most obtuse, theological argument for a particular, political (OK, military) action:

Only the defeat of the Islamic Republic can accomplish that goal [i.e., "taming" Iran's Islamic Revolution], because that would demonstrate that the mullahs do not have divine support for their global jihad. [H/T, Sadly, No.]

Let's return to the question of "what global jihad?" in a sec. Ledeen, it seems, is Jewish--whether secular or no-- but seems to have forgotten the history of his own people. The city of Jerusalem was destroyed twice, by the Neo-Bablylonian Empire in 586 BCE and by the Roman Empire in 70 CE. These were wrenching socio-political events, which undoubtedly tried many Jews' faith. But in neither case did they persuade people wholesale to give up on a sense of "divine support": in fact it was in the aftermath of the former event that the people of Israel most clearly and unequivocally developed a notion that their God was true and only God of the entire cosmos. (This is the monotheism shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims, and has served as the basis for various Christian and Islamic-inspired, theocratic imperialisms. Ironically and happily, Judaism seems to have spared itself this sort of madness.)

In the article as a whole (a sort of infra-neocon debate with Henry Kissinger), Ledeen claims that one must not treat Iran as a political entity, subject to diplomacy, but as a religious entity for which the Iranian state is only the means to a theocratic end (hence, "global jihad"). This could actually be part of an interesting argument. But his recipe for action, "the defeat of the Islamic Republic", does not really rise above the traditional norms of political statecraft. If "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means" (Clausewitz), then he has not truly addressed the religious dimension yet. Military defeat won't persuade them: you can defeat the nation state (which, as Ledeen points out, is not the theocrats' ultimate loyalty) , but you can't really defeat the religion that way.

Of course, Ledeen might mean "defeat" as in "nuclear annihilation": I suppose that genocide might do the trick. (Although it strikes me that a Jew should know that genocide has been tried too.)

After that, there is only the need to observe the standard neocon projection of their own militarism, imperialism and hyper-nationalism onto their enemies.

• Who is it really that is engaged in global jihad, only under the guise of "democracy" and "freedom", if not the neocon's America?
• Is it "the mullah's conviction that killing Americans is both divinely sanctioned and a winning strategy", or is this actually just Ledeen's own conviction that killing (perceived) American enemies is so sanctioned? Remember the "Ledeen doctrine": "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." [See Sadly, No again, as above. Apparently the words are Jonah Goldberg's summary of Ledeen's words and ideas.]

He concludes,

They are not like us, and they do not share our dreams. Diplomacy will not tame them. Only our victory will.

Faster, Please. Our kids are getting killed every day by these people, and we’re next on their list.

"They are not like us?" How in the world can he tell? Welcome to the neocon hall of mirrors:

• What are we "like"? ("Every ten years. . . .") If our dreams are global domination, would that mean that they are better than us, perhaps?
• But in fact, they are like us-- as he sees "us"-- because they are simply mirrored images of his "us", only with turbans.
• Iraqi kids are being killed every day by our people, too, and they (Iran) are next on our list.

Why anybody can read this tripe and take it seriously is beyond me. The combination of inanity and shamefulness is astonishing.