Blix - US Could Work Harder On Iran Negotiations

By Cernig

Britain's Channel Four News today has an interview with iconic arms inspector Hans Blix as part of a feature on whether the kind of hyping of the threat that led to the Iraq invasion is being repeated with respect to Iran. The link to the video is here (click "watch the report").

Blix, who was scathing over US and UK fixing of the intelligence around the policy of invading Iraq, says that the Bush administration simply hasn't worked as hard at negotiations with Iran as it has with North Korea - leaving out of the Iran dialogue offers made to North Korea including security guarantees and diplomatic recognition. (He also, in a move which will infuriate American neocons, says that global warming is far more of a threat to global stability than nuclear proliferation is nowadays.) Definitely worth a watch.

But as I watched Blix's interview, I was reminded of something Matt Duss at The Wonk Room wrote today.

Why do neocons love that word, “axis” so much? Partly because the World War II allusion allows them to indulge their Churchill fetish. But mostly because it enables them to create the impression of an enemy “alliance” where there is no real evidence of any such thing, in order to conflate various extremist groups with differing, and often conflicting, goals and ideologies into a single Islamofascist Frankenstein’s monster, which they can then use to scare the simple villagers who read their magazines into voting for their preferred candidates.

There’s no denying that there are real threats out there in the world. The problem is that conservatives by and large have demonstrated over the past seven years that they are incapable of actually tackling the 21st century threats. They are stuck in a World War II mindset that is irrelevant to today’s challenges.

Global warming is a threat that requires that conservatives give something up themselves. Terrorism and the conservative framing on nuclear proliferation (one where existing arsenals aren't a problem but prospective ones are) are threats that require someone else to give things up. As an ideology, the American variety of conservativism is govererned primarily by the ethos of "I'm alright, jack." It's unsurprising, therefore, that conservatives concentrate on the latter threats while denying the first. So much for conservative pretensions to self-control and individual responsibility for the wider consequences of one's actions.