Again I feel the need to bring up the incessant need for NIAC to cuck to the centrist wing of the democratic party. Now yes, I will acknowledge from experience that many democrats will pay lip service to NIAC. Although this narrative is overblown, lip service is better than nothing. That being said, there have been points that NIAC does not need to engage in apologetics on. The death of Qassem Soleimani is not one of them. Soleimani was a beloved figure in Iran and in the rest of the world. Even the Western media acknowledged his instrumental role in fighting Daesh. Why these people find a need to undermine their own talking points is baffling. Perhaps it’s the mental disease of the Washington Beltway wherein some of the worst pro-war people’s ideas are cannibalized until the internal brain rot leads us to this crackpot realist world where being pro-war is both realistic and idealistic. It’s realistic in that it’s more politically feasible to capitulate to the impulses of insane liberal „idealists“ like Madeline Albright, Samantha Power and Ben Rhodes I suppose.

Let’s start with their release on the death of Haj Qassem and the escalating ‚Iran War‘.

News just broke that the United States has unilaterally assassinated IRGC Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani without Congressional approval—a profoundly reckless move that could have deadly consequences and result in a war with Iran.

Now this isn’t the worst start in the world, but it seems to take a page from the book of ‚overstepping‘ political bounds rather than the act itself. No you need to have some manufactured legal excuse and THEN it might be ok. Frankly any opposition to US unilateralism has lost all meaning. The idea that Congressional approval still means anything has been gone for years. The Congress itself is a slave to AIPAC even if they don’t necessarily embrace taking the political risk in supporting war. If there was a more „level-headed“ president, I imagine this point would be moot in their minds.

The last thing the world needs is another disastrous American military adventure in the Middle East. Yet, the Trump administration has just empowered the most aggressive hardline elements inside Iran to consolidate influence internally and respond violently externally.

Now here is where the problem really starts. It becomes about empowering ‚those bad guys‘ in Iran. From a conservative standpoint, this point is laughable. From a liberal standpoint this point leads to a „Weeeeell what can you do.“ sort of attitude. After all the people who are the ‚hawks‘ on this have all the cards and there’s no real benefit to putting a stop to them when it’s just as easy to drag your feet when you have no skin in this game.

The only people this MIGHT have some traction with is the barely influential people who are anti-war anyway such as leftists and libertarians who would like Iranians to embrace their ideals without any force. This is ridiculous however because the people making the arguments for force are rarely acting in good faith. Right at this moment they have legitimized half the neoconservative talking points on Iran. That they’re a „malign influence“ and are generally ‚bad‘. The average boomer brain does not handle nuance well so it doesn’t really go beyond that. At the end of the day, it legitimizes the idea that ’something‘ needs to be done about Iran. This means funding the State Department propaganda. WAIT. Propaganda? I’m sorry. They call it ‚public diplomacy‘ and ‚democracy support‘ now. So yes it will lead to some protests and when there is a crackdown because it will inevitably be supported by intelligence agencies who would prefer that the most forceful opposition prevail so they can show their boss results; there will be another outcry and another call for violence so the cycle will continue.

This legitimizes the neocon talking points. Liberals will always cuck to neoconservatism anyway because they share ideologies and are funded by the same people. Furthermore, the Liberals will have no ‚way out‘ or better ideas so they will support the same agenda due to a lack of desirable alternatives. After all it goes against the American love of ‚action‘ and ‚results‘. You can’t just sit around and hope Iran becomes a democracy™ over night. That would go against everything their profession is contingent on.

The hardliners in Iran are always right because the hardliners in America can always be relied on to get their way eventually. Such is the issue of the US being an open society where corporations can be people, where opposing genocide is bad manners, and escalation is sane. Zionism and the military industrial complex have a powerful hold on US politics as evidenced by the bipartisan support for these forces. Even a president with hawkish or isolationists interests will find themselves surrounded by the kind of people who have never seen a war they didn’t love. From the staffers to the think tank dorks to the ethno-supremacists that have turned themselves in America’s high priests, there is no escape from this predicament without an awful lot of people being purged.

Iran, a nation of 80 million people, does not want war and opposes the actions of their own government . This unwise decision, however, edges us even closer to war.

One more they play defense for the mandarins of US foreign policy. Not only this, but they actually prop up the myth that Iran will EASILY collapse internally. I can hear John Bolton’s mind shattering orgasm right now. It’s not pleasant. Yes they oppose war, however NIAC obfuscates the US government’s blame in all of this. In fact, the idea that the Iranian government does not oppose war can it be avoided, means that they are in fact irrational. Now an irrational and violent government should not be dealt with forcefully? Why? They seem to not make this argument. Even the argument that they would ‚consolidate power‘ in contradicted in this paragraph due to the inherent belief that this government is illegitimate and ergo ‚bad‘. If this is nuance, it’s probably the most sloppy attempt of it that I’ve seen in a long time. This brand of nuance comes from a culture in the Beltway Press where the feelings of American and Israeli elites matter more than Iranian lives. This is why they would even entertain equivocating like this. Then they go to cite a handful of bad takes to once again poorly make their case.

Wow look at this ally hm? We can’t question that Soleimani is an ‚enemy‘ of the United States? We have no say in what the US should consider their enemies? It’s just passed down from their elites without our input? That certainly doesn’t sound very democratic. Again this is contingent on the President not getting the rubber stamp from a compromised congress. The real concern however is that we’re not allowed to question US foreign policy orthodoxy and this is the caliber of ally the Iranian American community seems keen to promote. After all, anyone actually in Iran might have some ties to the IRGC through little fault of their own. Is NIAC legitimizing the branding of young Iranian men who may have even been simply supporting the war against ISIS as ‚enemy combatants‘ to the American public? The answer to all these questions is yes apparently.

Finally we have this poor well-intentioned person. She cites that she does not want the US to bomb of her family. Most Boomers probably don’t care but compared to the others, good effort. She hits all the propaganda points which activate the pleasure centers of the liberal interventionist brain and will serve to convince them they are such good people once the bombs start flying. Then there’s the narrative of the hardliners, the narrative of ‚if you fight your enemies they win, that Trudeau line that was mocked by everyone to his right. Nobody is arguing this point in good faith. Why give these abject monsters the benefit of the doubt? Would the stakes be too high? Would it be too difficult to justify this technocratic bubble wherein if you vote Democrat and validate the talking points of these covert narcissists, you’ll somehow be fine? This pushback against war is only raising more questions without any satisfactory answers.