Matthew Yglesias is upset that I took Nico Pitney to task for making stuff up. Matthew implies that taking a zero-tolerance approach to journalists and pundits who falsify is thin-skinned. Actually, no Matt: Believe it or not, I don’t care what you or your friends think. On principle, however, I’m loath to let a false conventional wisdom set in. Your tendency, however, to jump on any correction of your friends — often by name calling — is projection.

To the substance: I have never advocated bombing Iran, and I challenge you to show otherwise. It’s intellectual dishonesty that you would defend Nico Pitney’s lazy journalism. I await Nico Pitney’s correction.

Do not presume to read my mind. I am an analyst, not an advocate. Because I do not see evidence that the Iranian government is sincere in its diplomacy does not make me a proponent of bombing Iran. Likewise, because I do not think the prospect of a nuclear weapons-capable Islamic Republic of Iran is in U.S. strategic interests, does not make me have an itchy trigger finger. It makes me a realist. I have outlined what would need to occur for containment and deterrence. Separately, I have often written about the importance of supporting Iran’s nascent independent trade union movement as a (non-violent) way to force the Iranian government to be responsive to the Iranian people, who are more moderate. Indeed, I spoke about this yesterday at the hearing.

As for your other points, they are bizarre. Anachronism is a silly way to do journalism: I started work at the Pentagon in late September 2002. No matter how much you dislike me (strange, since we’ve never met), it is silly to blame me for (1) what happened before September 2002 or (2) what was not in my portfolio.

At somepoint you and Nico Pitney have got to stop seeing those with whom you disagree as cartoon villians or strawmen to whom you can simply assign whatever position you want. No one can accuse me of fear about taking unpopular positions. If I wanted to endorse Ahmadinejad, I would have. Rachel Weiner never bothered to ask. It’s a pity, since support of the Iranian protestors is one instance where progressives and neoconservatives should find mutual ground. For the record, I maintain U.S. focus should be on the IRGC and Office of the Supreme Leader. The reformists are not the opposition; they are a faction within the regime that remains loyal to the regime’s principles. Ultimately, it would be nice if the Iranian people can free themselves from the oppression of the regime entirely.