Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

The Sane Voice of the GOP – Pat Buchanan? (Open Thread)

Human Events, of all places, has a remarkably sane summation of the Iranian situation written by, of all people, Pat Buchanan.

“Ten Days That Shook Tehran” asks the question:

Where do the ayatollah and Ahmadinejad go from here?

As one of the most easily reviled and visibly hard-right conservatives on the planet, Pat Buchanan continues to give me pause.  Unlike many of his ideological birds of a feather, Buchanan seems to have a grasp of the possible that allows him to identify when there is nothing to be gained by arguing against something his opposition has done.  When others see nothing but opportunity in opposing every word and motion by President Obama, Buchanan has repeatedly gained my shocked admiration by acknowledging when candidate and President Obama is dead-on correct.

While lesser pundits on the Right such as Hannity try to find a way of assaulting the President on his stance towards Iran, Mr. Buchanan launches his arguments at the common enemy: the theocratic regime in Iran.

If they adopt a harder line, defy Barack Obama and refuse to negotiate their nuclear program, they can continue to enrich uranium, as harsher sanctions are imposed. But to what end adding 1,000 more kilograms?

If they do not intend to build a bomb, why enrich more? And if they do intend to build a bomb, what exactly would that achieve?

For an Iranian bomb would trigger a regional arms race with Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia seeking nuclear weapons. Israel would put its nuclear arsenal on a hair trigger. America would retarget missiles on Tehran. And if a terrorist anywhere detonated a nuclear bomb, Iran would risk annihilation, for everyone would assume Tehran was behind it.

He even manages to acknowledge that the President’s approach to Hamas is working, and it not only doesn’t cost him anything it makes him sound more rational than most of his counterparts.

Hamas is laser-focused on Gaza, the West Bank and a Palestinian state, and showing interest in working with the Obama administration.

And he ends by lining up the sides clearly and accurately – the Ayatollahs against Obama, iow the Ayatollahs against US:

Iran under the mullahs has gone sideways or backward. Now, with this suspect election and millions having shown their revulsion of the regime, the legitimacy and integrity of the ayatollahs have been called into question.

Obama offers the regime a way out.

They may exercise their right to peaceful nuclear power, have sanctions lifted and receive security guarantees, if they can prove they have no nuclear weapons program and will cease subverting through their Hezbollah-Hamas proxies the peace process Obama is pursuing between Israel and Palestine.

If Iran refuses Obama’s offer, she will start down a road at the end of which are severe sanctions, escalation and a war that Obama does not want and Iran cannot want — for the winner will not be Iran.

I try not to shy from applying praise where it is appropriate, and today Mr. Buchanan you have mine.  Here’s hoping you can bring more people in your party into the Conversation of the Sane as well.


  1. Can I be the first to comment on it?


    Pat Buchanan gets something right (again). He got Obama’s oratory right too.

    He’s still an a**hole though, no?

  2. but his article was about Iran and was in support of Obama so I thought it would be interesting to see how it would go over in this context.

    The simple fact that he (and so many other leading conservatives) even write for that sub-tabloid rag Human Events does add a flavor of the bizarre to the whole thing.

  3. Benito Malito

    Pat is actually really good on foreign policy. His non-interventionist stance is pretty consistent and rational.

    He used to do some pretty good segments in Al Franken’s old show. Its a shame that he is often such a tool on the MSNBC.    

    He isn’t GOP for some time afaik.  

  4. Benito Malito

    He says some pretty messed up stuff no doubt. When people try to disregard someone entirely with a label like “Racist” “bigot” “anti-Semite” without engaging at all… it should set off the BS detector.

    PB has a stance on Israel that basically our uncritical unconditional support over the past several decades has hurt both the US and Israel and is a loser strategy. I personally am very pro-Israel but am often derided for suggesting that maybe we should examine PBs writing on this subject at all.  The same thing you run into when you even whisper “Noam Chomsky” in polite company. Its intellectual laziness at its worst.  

    I’ll leave you with this; When Hunter Thompson and Pat Buchanan both think/thought the great sin of the US is decadence it should give one pause.  

Comments are closed.