Glenn Greenwald on the newest neoconservative-esque emissions, in today’s Washington Post:

It’s just objectively true that there is no country in the world — anywhere — that threatens to attack and bomb other countries as routinely and blithely as the U.S. does.  What rational leader wouldn’t want to obtain nuclear weapons in a world where the “superpower” is run by people like Dan Coates and Chuck Robb who threaten to attack and bomb whatever countries they want?  Even the Coats/Robb Op-Ed argues that Iranian proliferation would be so threatening to the U.S. because “the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon would effectively give Iran a nuclear deterrent“ – in other words, they’d have the ability to deter a U.S. attack on their country, and we can’t have that.

This is, of course, exactly what the neocons and their fellow travelers don’t get; it’s why the Bush Doctrine of preventative war ultimately makes the world less safe. You start announcing that we have the right to bomb whomever we want whenever we want, and those whomevers begin thinking they need a deterrent.

The guy in the house next door to you starts making noises about how if he ever finds out you’ve got a gun he’s going to set fire to your home and shoot anyone trying to escape - do you get yourself a gun or don’t you?

But it’s different on a bigger, international scale. Somehow.

In one respect I think the WaPo piece is designed solely and specifically to warn Iran against gloating too much about the U.S.’s economic crisis: We can still take you out, buddy.

But the danger is that these people are serious. At this time of economic crisis, when we’re spending $10 billion a month, on average, in Iraq - we’re going to launch another war, are we? And how much might that cost?

Oh, right. We can’t afford not to bomb whomever, whenever.

It’s called imperial overstretch. Another signpost on the way down.