Five years ago, David Frum penned a rather brutal essay for National Review on “Unpatriotic Conservatives”.
From the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves “conservatives.”
These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world — the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine — in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.
Since then, the targets of Mr. Frum’s accusation have pilloried him vociferously, particularly on the pages of that ill-named journal, The American Conservative. The paleocons shout to the world that they are the true conservatives, the only guardians of America’s real national interests. Now and then, however, they let their disguises slip, revealing an anti-American animus scarcely distinguishable from Moveon.org or Daily Kos.
Last week, Pat Buchanan, The American Conservative’s founder and guru, published a piece titled “Who’s Behind the Proxy Wars?”. Taking note of “what [General] Petraeus and [Ambassador] Crocker allege” about how “Iran is conducting a proxy war against the United States”, and not bothering to dispute the truth of their allegations, Pitchfork Pat goes on to ask,
What is Tehran’s motive?
Iran, after all, is the principal beneficiary of the U.S. invasion that dethroned its enemy Saddam, ended the Sunni Baath Party’s monopoly of power and opened the door to Shia politicians with strong ties to Tehran. The regime in the Green Zone is the same regime that rolled out a red carpet for President Ahmadinejad.
Why, then, would Iran bloody it up? Why, when things are going Iran’s way in Iraq, would it risk war with the United States over Iraq?
Because a precipitous American exit from Iraq is a necessary condition to Iranian hegemony over that country, and eventually, in Ahmadinejad’s dreams, over the Middle East? Because the Iranian regime has been conducting a war against the United States since 1979 and is taking the opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible on the “Great Satan”? Because the mullarchy in Tehran is fanatically anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-Western?
If any of those explanations occurred to the dean of the paleoconservatives, he left them unexpressed. No, it is all America’s fault.
The April 16 Los Angeles Times offers an answer. Iran’s proxy war against us in Iraq may be Tehran’s response to a U.S. proxy war being waged against Iran. Ahmadinejad may be exacting blood for blood.
According to Times’ writer Borzou Daragahi, Iran believes the United States is behind groups that are systematically killing Iranians along the border.
Buchanan goes on to insinuate that the Bush Administration is aiding anti-Iranian operations by two groups that it has designated as terrorists, the PEJAK and the Mujahedin Khalq. He add, “Iranians also believe the United States is behind attacks in the oil-rich and Arab Khuzestan region of southwest Iran.”
Is there a scintilla of evidence for these charges? Not unless one regards Tehran as a credible source. Buchanan evidently does:
Needed now are congressional hearings to determine if President Bush has authorized a proxy war against Iran – by funding or arming guerrillas to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and if that is what is behind the IRG-backed attacks on U.S. forces.
Back in December 1941, not even the most fervent isolationists called for Congress to consider whether Pearl Harbor had been provoked by U.S. actions. Pat Buchanan no doubt would have. Like one of the Krazy Kos Kidz, he sees no evil in the world – except among the leaders of his own country. About his patriotism, David Frum was right.
Comments