parenti's response is consequently the appropriate one, in that he mostly focuses on correcting the facts.
see, i don't believe that the rulers believe what they tell us. but, they aren't revolutionary leftists. and, i consequently don't really even care what the elite believe, or even care why they do the things they do - i care what i believe, and base my support on the projected outcome, and whether it aligns with what i believe in and want or does not.
i opposed the invasion of iraq in 2003 and i think that was the right position. there was no opposition on the ground.
but, if the american government were to present to me the same argument about iran, i might go along with it - not because i care about what the elite thinks or why they're doing it, but because i would have solidarity with the secular left on the ground, and would see it as a way to advance their causes.
this goes back to the old debate they had in spain about accepting support from stalin. they knew better, and stalin slaughtered them, in the end. but, it's not that easy.
sometimes, base pragmatism is the right choice.
while hitchens was wrong about iraq, he might not have been. and, in the long run, he may seem less wrong than he does now - which doesn't and can never excuse the error, but can only mitigate it.
---
and, yes - hitchens ripped him apart in the q & a.
he's christopher hitchens.
he'd do that to anybody.
---
the united states has convened all four.
the only other country i can think of is israel.
...& the saudis.