Anne Applebaum

Anne Applebaum is a columnist for the Washington Post and Slate. She was formerly a member of the Washington Post editorial board, she has also worked as the Foreign and Deputy Editor of the Spectator magazine in London, as the Political Editor of the Evening Standard, and as a columnist at several British newspapers, including the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph. She is married to Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign minister, also known to be a neocon member of the AEI and she lives in Poland.

Pro-war hawk
Anne Applebaum is a pro-war hawk and argues in favor of either a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran. Some of her arguments are disingenous, and analyzed by Philip Giraldi, a former CIA analyst. Giraldi comments:
 * But possibly the most bizarre commentary supporting war with Iran was penned by Anne Applebaum for the Washington Post on February 23rd. Applebaum is married to the reliably conservative Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, who is himself an American Enterprise Institute alumnus. She is an Obama supporter but generally has been described as a conservative who adheres to a hard line on foreign policy issues, perhaps not too surprising a triangulation as Obama himself has betrayed a goodly percentage of his flock by moving in the same direction. She sometimes confuses her personal agenda with her public advocacy, writing, for example, several articles calling on Roman Polanski to be freed while her husband in his official capacity was garnering support from the European diplomatic community to the same end. Applebaum's "Ready for an Iran war?" is not particularly subtle but it is interesting how she frames her argument.  The first three quarters of the piece could almost be considered an antiwar statement. It details just how bad a war with Iran could be in terms of the possible consequences. She notes that the US does not want to attack Iran because no one knows where all the nuclear sites are, because an attack would only set back the alleged weapons program by a few months, and because Iran could easily engage in serious retaliation both against US troops in the region and against Israel. Applebaum also recognizes that oil prices would surge as soon as military action started. And she then goes on to argue that the Israelis likely have the same reservations about the efficacy of an attack on Iran. So far so good.  But then she shifts gears, warning "At some point, that calculation could change" because "the Israelis regard the Iranian nuclear program as a matter of life and death" due to the "Iranian president's provocative attacks on Israel's right to exist." Per Applebaum, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports "historians who deny the Holocaust" and suggests that Israelis might become "the target of an attempted mass murder." Applebaum then posits that there might well be a 2 a.m. phone call to the White House from the Israeli Prime Minister announcing the completion of a bombing attack on Iran. "I don't want this to happen – but I do want us to be prepared if it does," concluding that "I do hope that this administration is ready, militarily and psychologically, not for a war of choice but for an unwanted war of necessity. This is real life, after all, not Hollywood." Actually Applebaum's analysis is itself more like Hollywood than real life and its claim of "necessity" is little more than an appreciation that someone you have just struck might attempt to hit you back. A little fact checking for her article might have also proven useful. Iran is a military midget compared to Israel. It has no nuclear weapons and is apparently far away from obtaining them even if it makes a decision to do so and can master the necessary enrichment technology. Israel has a large secret nuclear arsenal together with missiles and submarines to deliver the weapons on target. Iran, far from a nation bent on a genocidal suicide mission, has never threatened to destroy or attack Israel while Israel has repeatedly threatened to use force against Iran. Many reported Iranian government "statements" to the contrary are deliberate mistranslations. Applebaum cleverly dresses her scenario in a cloak of inevitability, suggesting to the reader that "this is what is going to happen." Her dire forecast is intended to increase American acceptance of the likelihood of a preemptive war with Iran, but war is by no means certain if everyone involved makes a serious effort to avoid it. As Israel knows its air force cannot cripple Iran, its government has had to devise a scheme to get the US to do it instead, which is precisely what is being promoted by Anne Applebaum, Daniel Pipes, and all the other usual suspects who have already brought America fun and games in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin used to describe people like Applebaum as "useful idiots," journalists who advance a cause in the belief that they are supporting something worthwhile, not understanding that they have been manipulated.

Justin Raimondo provides further proof of Applebaum's neoconservative penchant for pushing for US wars against, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and [fill in the blank].

Affilations

 * Legatum Institute – Director of Political Studies at the Legatum Institute
 * Spectator magazine (London) – former Foreign and Deputy Editor

External resources

 * NeoCon Europe: Anne Applebaum: Profile
 * RightWeb: Anne Applebaum: Profile

External articles

 * Anne Applebaum's posts, Washington Post
 * Anne Applebaum, "Reply to Dalrymple", Cato Unbound, Cato Institute, February 12, 2006.