Here’s an exercise in comparative politics. First, read the key takes on the British sailor incident highlighted on NRO’s homepage: Victor Davis Hanson, David Pryce-Jones, David Frum, and the NR Editorial. Then read the incredible piece by Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh highlighted on today’s New York Times Op-Ed page. First, this piece shows that VDH trips up in one respect, when he says, “Those ‘realists,’ like former Secretary of State James Baker, who insisted that we talk to Iran are now silent.” Nope, they’re shouting from the most prominent editorial podium in the nation.
I can’t think of a sharper contrast than the collective NRO take on the British sailor incident and the NYT take. (True, this is only an Op-Ed, not an NYT editorial, but it’s timing and prominence are highly suggestive.) Is this the argument of the future? If Mario is right, and the Iranians are about to eject the U.N. inspectors, this debate is likely to focus the upcoming (“upcoming”? Sorry, I mean current) presidential campaign. I would like to believe it’s an argument that NR will surely win, and NYT surely lose. Unfortunately, I don’t think the outcome is in any way certain. So read NRO, then read Nasr and Takeyh. Oh, and by the way, I’m with the folks at NRO on this one.