I'm going to say something about neoconservatism here that perhaps needs to be said amid my many swipes. There are many good faith neocons who could not be more thrilled at what is happening in Iran, and although they may still have a hankering for some of the emotionally satisfying but now discredited rhetoric of the early days, their hearts are still in the right place.

Not all neocons backed torture (many were appalled) [what Sullivan and others define as "torture" may be just as self-serving as Yoo's definitions, frankly], or the Iraq war in bad faith [Don't understand what he mains by this. Needs an editor.]. The core hope that democracy could spread in the Middle East - and that this alone would ultimately destroy Jihadism - is in some ways vindicated by this year in Iran. [What you mean "in some ways," Kimosabe? Like the end of slavery was "vindicated" by MLK?] It remains, of course, a fantastic irony that they chose Iraq to impose this result, rather than waiting for Iran to demonstrate it. [Arguably whatever is now going on in Iran owes a great deal to what has happened in Iraq since 2003, and it's fairly likely that US clandestine activity in Iran, fueled by Iraq's proximity, was critical.] And a further irony that their opponent Barack Obama helped inspire the hopes to vindicate neoconservative dreams. [Now that's also debatable, to say the least.]

But this democratic flowering follows the best version of the neoconservative inheritance, if not its recent descent into a bitter ideology of naked power. [Huh? Did a coupe happen while I was taking a nap?] And if Obama can meet it, if he can somehow be a second term Reagan in his first, then the resonance will be even deeper. [It looks to me that Obama was not only taken completely by surprise (meaning that he may not have been adequately briefed) but that he exercised undue caution about supporting the demonstrators. I'd say that history may vindicate Bush, but Obama not so much.]

Iran's green awakening may end awfully. But if it succeeds, it will be everything the neocons had hoped to achieve in Iraq - and also a demonstration of neoconservatism's core fallacy, which is that freedom can be forced on anyone; or somehow force-fed into maturity. [This is just complete BS of course. Rather, the core belief is that there's a naked impulse toward liberty but that sometimes the dams holding it back need to be forcibly removed. Which is, of course, exactly what happned in the American Revolution. If there is a fallacy to be considered it might be the idea among a few "neocons" that the process is relatively easy, but that doesn't apply to very many... and certainly not to any of the Democrat neocons, like Lipset.] It thus vindicates and refutes neoconservatism at the same time.[I'd say 90% vindicates, 5% refutes, and 5% draw.]

History is like that. It makes fools of us all in the end.