How can 'strange bedfellows' unite to stop the Iran war?

[RZM]

26. There's a difference, though, in the way those two would make the argument against war

I'll confess I don't know much about Fred Phelps' opposition to war in Iran. But I'll go out on a limb and say that his reasons would make about as much sense as his reasons for protesting military funerals, which is none. And David Duke is pals with the Iranian regime as well as virulently anti-Semitic. I imagine his argument would rest almost entirely on anti-Semitism, which no decent person could touch.

But Paul and Buchanan's arguments against war are more in the classic RW isolationist mold. That's not entirely incompatible with LW isolationism. Actually the two have quite a bit in common, most notably the issue of money. The idea that America should not be gallivanting all over the world spending billions on war and the military is an argument quite familiar to DU, since it's expressed here many times every day. The two are more than capable of crafting anti-war arguments that the left can get behind. That's just the thing the might actually do if say, there was a powwow between them and prominent members of the anti-war left where the group came up with a joint op-ed or agreed to issue a series of them individually with a narrow and specific anti-war focus that anybody opposed to war in Iran could get behind.

This is NOT an endorsement of either one, or even a suggestion that they do this. But I do think such cooperation is possible. Remember too that the appeal of Duke and Phelps is extremely limited. They are the very definition of fringe figures. Buchanan and Paul are a different story. They reach people, notably many people that the left can't really reach at all. A full-on assault against war in Iran would need voices from the right. I'm not saying it would have to be them, but they are the 'low hanging fruit,' since they already express anti-war views that you see on the left as well.