No, now Newt is focused on garnering the endorsement of The Weekly Standard in his pending run for the White House in 2008. In an interview with the once venerable Human Events, Gingrich compares Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to (take a guess now) Adolph Hitler, and says the United States must bring about regime change in Iran.
As the U.S. is on a constant war footing, it seems there is never a shortage of potential Hitlerian monsters. Hussein, Noriega, Aidid, Rauol Cedras, Castro...take your pick, there all good. But the man of moment is Ahmadinejad, who continues to provide ammunition to his enemies by saying Israel should to be "wiped off the map," calling the Holocaust a "myth," and so on.
"If we don’t have a very serious systematic program to replace the government of Iran, we’re going to live in an unbelievably dangerous world," Gingrich said. "This is 1935 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we’ve seen. We now know who they are; the question is who we are -- are we Baldwin or Churchill?"
Newt, like his neocon handlers, must spend an awful lot of time watching The History Channel. The neocons always resort to what I like to call the argumentum ad Hitlerum. Once you've accused the "fascist" regime of being governed by a Hitlerian figure, you next call forth the specter of a new Munich and toss around words like appeasement. WWII is about the only historical reference these characters yank out of the quiver, and we're always in need of soaring Churchillian leadership, which I'm sure Newt would like to provide.
Testifying before Congress, Newt raised the uuuuggggly specter of American isolationism and again hearkened back to the good old days (WWII), pulling out the dossier of "lessons learned."
"Not since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy and Germany have we seen the willful avoidance of reality which is now underway with regard to Iran," said Gingrich. "There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran."
"Our objective," says Gingrich, "should be the systematic replacement of this regime. We should start with all-out help to the forces of independence in the country -- there are trade union groups, there are student groups -- we should in every way we can get them resources. We should indicate without any question that we are going to take the steps necessary to replace the regime and we should then act accordingly. And we should say to the Europeans that there is no diplomatic solution that is imaginable that is going to solve this problem."
No diplomatic solution? Of what, exactly, are the Iranians guilty? Iran is demanding the right to enrich uranium for peaceful uses. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed but American allies Israel, India and Pakistan have not, a nation has every right to produce uranium.
If Truman and FDR could cozy up to Uncle Joe, Nixon could toast Mao, and Ike and Krushchev could get together, why on earth does Newt think we can't possibly talk to the Iranians?