It’s rarely a good idea to premise a policy debate on one huge false assumption, whether it’s Iraqis will welcome democracy or taking out Iran’s nukes means World War III. The anti-interventionists built a house of cards around the idea that Iran was so terrifying or that, as Tucker Carlson claimed, Russia and China would intervene and set off WWIII.

The overhpying of Iran’s military capabilities was a mistake that clearly both sides were guilty of. Israel’s tactics were brilliant and as a religion person the role of G-d in human affairs, especially those touching on Israel, is paramount, but Iran also proved weaker than expected when it came to maintaining air power and being able to defend against air strikes.

That backfired mostly on the anti-interventionists who had set up the myth of WWIII. The anti-interventionists kept harping on the Iraq War, but this time they were the ones who had based everything on a false assumption about how things would work out.

Once the presumption you’ve based everything on falls apart, what’s left besides furious arm waving? It didn’t work for the neocons and it’s not working for the libertarians.

When your predictions don’t match up with reality, you’ve lost the argument.