Home/Daniel Larison/We Wouldn’t Want To Be Naive

We Wouldn’t Want To Be Naive

So to recap, we have “no horse in this race,” we should do nothing, we have to negotiate with whichever government emerges, and the victory of the reformers would change nothing about Iran’s nuclear program and “would not stop the country’s rivalry with the United States,” all of which “hard-core non-interventionists” have already been saying for days and days, but it is “naive” to say that an internal Iranian political dispute is really none of our business. Okay, then. It’s not really clear what makes one the hard-headed realist position and the other the naive non-interventionist one, as the two are identical positions. One thing I have noticed in this debate is that virtually everyone has been lobbing the charge of naivete at everyone else, including people who agree with them on 99% of the policy substance, which tells me that there isn’t very much to the charge

about the author

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

leave a comment

Latest Articles