Manufacturing consent is too much work

As many people have observed, the pending attack on Iran based on false pretenses is something the Trump administration can’t even be bothered to muster any serious public defense of. And when you see Bret Stephens try to step up, you can understand why they think no energy beats low energy:

Why is a military attack crucial? Look at what hasn’t worked to change the regime’s behavior.

Economic engagement hasn’t: Europeans have long sought close commercial ties with Iran, only to have Tehran repay the favor by routinely taking European citizens hostage or carrying out assassinations and terrorist attacks on European soil.

Economic sanctions haven’t: The regime has been under some form of sanction since its earliest months. But while sanctions damage economies, they have little effect on despotic rulers who are indifferent to the well-being of their own people and who can always find ways to enrich themselves through sanctions busting, bribery, cybercrime, drug dealing and other black-market transactions.

International institutions haven’t: The International Atomic Energy Agency spent decades engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with Iran as the regime repeatedly hid its nuclear capabilities and prevaricated about its intentions. Ultimately, that led to an I.A.E.A. report last year noting that the regime had failed to provide “technically credible answers regarding the nuclear material at three locations” and that it pursued a “unique and unilateral approach to its legally binding obligation.”

Ah, the perennial hawk classic “if you assume we must do something, you must acknowledge that bombing is something.” Where things get farcical is the explanation for why diplomacy allegedly failed:

And diplomacy hasn’t.

Whatever one thinks of Trump’s first-term decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (a good decision about a bad agreement, in my view, though thoughtful people differ), the Biden administration invested months in torturous negotiations trying to entice Iran back into it. They got the back of the ayatollah’s hand. Last year, Trump spent months seeking a diplomatic outcome. It, too, went nowhere, and current negotiations seem to be on a similar course.

So, if I understand correctly, 1)Iran made a deal to foreswear nuclear weapons development under Obama, 2)Trump was right to unilaterally cancel the deal, and 3)we are justified in attacking Iran because they refuse to make the deal again. Again, I think we can see why simply remaining silent is better than trying to come up with a robust propaganda campaign.

Credit where credit is due, he does save me the trouble of making the next obvious objection:

The failure of nonmilitary options does not, of course, mean that military ones are destined to succeed. Things will go wrong in any complex operation — there’s a reason the word “fubar” began life as a military acronym — and Iran possesses the means to inflict damage on American personnel and installations throughout the Middle East. 

And…I think we’re done here. There’s no remotely defensible reason for this, which isn’t going to dissuade the Quincy Institute’s president of the century for a second.