Earlier today I attended the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative‘s conference Iran: Prospects for Regime Change. During the second panel of the day, which focused on U.S. policy options toward Iran, panelists Elliott Abrams, currently of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute both lamented the fact that the Obama administration seemed so disinclined to threaten — let alone take — preventive military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Abrams was particularly incensed that top military leaders like Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have been downplaying the possibility of military action against Iran. “Israelis I speak to can’t believe how stupid the U.S. is to take a military strike off the table,” Abrams said.

Left unmentioned, however, was the single most important factor acting to constrain U.S. policy options on Iran, specifically in regard to military force: Iraq. In numerous ways — stress on our military, regional destabilization and unrest, demonstration of the limits of U.S. power and influence, the need to shore up Iraq’s fragile government — the U.S. intervention in Iraq has made the idea of U.S. military action against Iran basically a non-starter for U.S. policymakers.

On the one hand, this oversight wasn’t surprising, as both the stage and the audience were full of people who were involved, both inside and outside of government, in getting the U.S. into a war in Iraq, none of whom have ever shown much interest in grappling honestly with the war’s negative consequences. Indeed, as I wrote in a recent article in the Nation, the close identification with the Iraq debacle is among the reasons that the Project for the New American Century shut down and rebranded as the Foreign Policy Initiative in the first place.

On the other hand, it’s simply analytically irresponsible to not consider Iraq’s impact when wondering aloud why the U.S. military isn’t gunning for a war with Iran. So I asked the panel whether they felt that the Iraq war had limited the U.S.’s options in confronting Iran. Panelist Ray Takeyh of CFR kept his answer short: “Undeniably,” he said. Abrams and Pletka — both major supporters of war with Iraq, just as they are now for strikes on Iran — declined to answer.

So, even though the costs of the Iraq war continue to far outweigh the benefits, keeping us out of war with Iran — so far — would have to be included among the latter.

Last week, Ezra Klein pointed out that tea parties haven’t focused very much on immigration and that “nativism has been, to me, the dog that didn’t bark.” Gabriel Arana responded to Klein’s piece, maintaining his original assertion that “growing nativism among members of Congress reflects a society-wide trend” that could derail immigration reform efforts. A recently released set of national surveys by the Winston Group confirms Klein’s first observation. Winston Group found that those who associate with the tea party movement are primarily motivated by economic and fiscal concerns and that cracking down on immigration ranks low on their priority list, as it does for most Americans. Noah Kristula-Green of the Frum Forum reports on the findings:

If Obama decides to tackle immigration reform next, some have wondered what the tea party response would be. Interestingly, it may not be an issue for most rank and file tea party members. When asked whether immigration was an issue that motivated how they voted, tea parties responded that it was just as low on their priority list as the average population. They also gave “cracking down on immigration” as a “best” way to create jobs nearly same weight as the average voter—which is to say, not as much weight as tax cuts or developing energy resources.

Implication: Some have argued that if the Democrats move to immigration reform, that the tea party movement will reveal itself to be driven by anti-immigrant sentiment. The data does not suggest that this should be expected.

It’s understandable why Arana would reach a different conclusion. There is undeniably a nativist strain present within the tea party movement, as evidenced by the 18% who favor cracking down on immigration as a way to create jobs. Anti-immigrant groups like NumbersUSA have been working hard to mimic the tea party movement and to foster any nativist tendencies to promote their own agenda. Americans for Legal Immigration PAC went as far as to stage a series of poorly attended copy cat tea party protests against immigration and is in the process of planning more.

Yet, according to the report, tea party followers aren’t latching on. Polling shows that they prioritize job creation, deficit, spending, and tax issues specifically because “they are seen as a means to reducing unemployment and improving the economy.” Roy Beck, director of one of the largest anti-immigrant groups, has been encouraging his members to frame their message in fiscal and economic terms. However, the fact that most tea party supporters still don’t see immigration as a hot issue suggests that Beck has, so far, been largely unconvincing. Furthermore, FreedomWorks chairman and tea party strategist Dick Armey has outright opposed letting nativists under the tea party “umbrella” and has suggested that doing so would be poisonous to the movement.

However, contrary to what Klein suggests, nativism doesn’t just bark — it also bites. While nativists represent a minority, they represent a loud minority that manages to make enough noise to motivate hateful acts of violence and scare politicians into crafting bad policy. As Klein points out, the health care debate ended quietly for the nativists, but that’s mostly because immigrants were thrown under the bus when things started to heat up. Meanwhile, hate crime statistics against immigrants and anyone who looks like an immigrant demonstrate a troubling upward trend. Research has suggested that unrestrained immigrant-bashing on behalf of nativists is largely responsible for the rise.

Ultimately, Klein aptly observes that the immigration issue has failed to incite the tea party movement as a whole. He also correctly points out that the American public has not undergone a broader shift towards a negative opinion of immigrants. (In fact, the majority of Americans, across party lines, support comprehensive immigration reform which includes a path to legalization). The Winston Group’s findings further suggest that though nativism is certainly a reality, most Americans — including many tea party supporters — are above it.

The New York Times broke the news last night that the Obama administration will release today its Nuclear Posture Review – a congressionally-mandated document put out by each administration outlining America’s approach toward its nuclear arsenal, usually for that President’s entire term in office. The NPR overall seems like a big important step in the right direction, but is one that could have gone further.

The Washington Post ran with the headline “Obama to take middle course in new nuclear policy,” noting that “The document also reflects the continuity in the nuclear establishment, with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates straddling the two administrations.” The Wall Street Journal, led with the headline “U.S. keeps first-strike strategy.” Noting that:

To many arms-control advocates, the review is likely to be a disappointment. “It’s a status quo document, I think, in virtually every respect,” said Bruce Blair, president of World Security Institute and co-coordinator of Global Zero, a disarmament group.

Yet the reaction from the far-right was immediate and revealing. The Times story was linked to on Drudge under the banner headline, “No nukes even in self-defense.” This got the vitriol pumping. Sean Hannity talked about it with his guest David Kupelian who said, “it’s signaling to the enemy. It’s giving them a huge advantage. It doesn’t make any sense.” Jennifer Rubin at Commentary, called his NPR “incomprehensible,” adding that “we are signaling to potential foes that they can take a potshot at the U.S. without risking a nuclear blowback, Obama makes crystal clear just how unserious he is about taking out Iran’s nuclear capability.” CNN’s new reputable pundit Erick Erickson asked “How many Americans are going to die because of the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of our national security?… it is capitulation and waving a white flag for our enemies.”

The right’s claim of “signaling to the enemy” conveniently leaves out mentioning who that enemy actually is. Is it Russia? If so thinking we are “enemies” with Russia is not just right wing amnesia – the Cold War ended after all – it is really dangerous. Are they talking about China? They have less than 300 nuclear weapons. We have over 9,000. Al Qaeda? Nuclear weapons obviously don’t deter a diffuse terrorist network or else terrorist attacks wouldn’t have occurred in the first place.

Claims that this leaves us exposed to Iran and others are just baseless tea-party talking points. At least read the news stories. The NPR’s assertion that the US won’t attack non-nuclear states has a huge caveat. The US pledges not to attack non-nuclear states, as long as they are compliant with the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) – considering that Iran and North Korea are NOT compliant with the NPT means the Obama administration has made a direct point of telling these two countries that we could nuke you! Furthermore, the United States has a really enormous conventional military that the Obama administration is spending more on than any other administration before him. Countries are deterred from attacking us, because, as we have shown over the last two decades, we are quite capable of destroying rogue regimes (rebuilding is another story). This is why many arms-control advocates are calling it a status quo document – this all reflects current reality.

Still, reflecting current reality, represents a massive step forward in moving beyond the legacies of the Cold War. The NPR shifts the focus of the nuclear bureaucracy toward the most acute nuclear dangers of the 21st century – terrorism and proliferation and it will importantly enable the US to significantly cut its number of nuclear weapons in the years ahead by recognizing that these weapons have little military utility. This approach also has the firm backing of the US military. Colin Powell reflected this widely shared view, when he said recently that from a military perspective “nuclear weapons are useless.”

This is hardly radical. The NPR could have gone further and declared that the United States would not use nuclear weapons unless attacked by them. It could have also said that the sole purpose of our nuclear arsenal was to deter attacks against the United States. It could have made unilateral reductions. This would have both reflected strategic realities and would have sent a huge signal to the world that we are indeed going to work to move beyond the nuclear age. It chose instead a middle course.

The right’s reaction to this middle course doesn’t just expose its extreme knee-jerk vitriol, but also demonstrates their attachment to a completely insane and imaginary approach to foreign affairs – where we need to refight the Cold War and where we need to enter a new arms race.