Apparently having been wrong about free trade deals (admitting that he doesn't even read them), invading Iraq, and every other relevant policy issue in the past two decades, Friedman still doesn't find himself to be less relevant. And I'm sure that the adoring Washington Press corps, the reverse-meritocracy that it is, will continue to adore him and fawn over everything he writes, no matter how ridiculously wrong it continues to be.

His newest declaration is that we are approaching a "New Cold War" -- with Iran:

"That is the real umbrella story in the Middle East today — the struggle for influence across the region, with America and its Sunni Arab allies (and Israel) versus Iran, Syria and their non-state allies, Hamas and Hezbollah. As the May 11 editorial in the Iranian daily Kayhan put it, “In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the U.S.”

For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. Any other questions?

The outrage of the week is the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah attempt to take over Lebanon. Hezbollah thugs pushed into Sunni neighborhoods in West Beirut, focusing particular attention on crushing progressive news outlets like Future TV, so Hezbollah’s propaganda machine could dominate the airwaves. The Shiite militia Hezbollah emerged supposedly to protect Lebanon from Israel. Having done that, it has now turned around and sold Lebanon to Syria and Iran."

"Team America" is facing off with the evil Persians (who apparently have a crescent that stretches across the region in evil conspiracy)? Really, Friedman? 

Iran is "smart and ruthless"; America is "dumb and weak"; and the Sunni world is "feckless and divided." Of course, the US is the country with hundreds of thousands of troops occupying the Middle East in several countries with the most advanced army that ever existed, and Iran provides support to small guerilla forces in Lebanon. And yet Friedman finds it appropriate to cast Iran as a great evil, decontextualizing why Hezbollah may actually be doing what it is doing (because in Lebanon the Shi'a are stripped of power by an electoral system that discriminates against them). And then he assures us that Hezbollah is both:

1) Religious fundamentalist and cracking down on "progressive news sources" 2)Doing Syria's dirty work

A rational person might ask why a secular national socialist Syrian Ba'ath Party might find it advantageous to spread Islamism in Lebanon, but why stop and ask questions? Friedman's on a roll of pointless analogies and catch-phrases designed around turning the entire situation into one of good vs evil (and now the Sunni Arabs are on our side? Before the Iraq war Friedman was telling us that Saddam and his Sunni cohorts in Al Qaeda were threatening our very existence). 

Of course, Friedman finds some harsh words for the Sunnis:

"The only weaker party is the Sunni Arab world, which is either so drunk on oil it thinks it can buy its way out of any Iranian challenge or is so divided it can’t make a fist to protect its own interests — or both."

So the stupid Arabs can't see the threat right in front of their nose, and for trying to make peace instead of militarily confronting Iran, they just don't understand their own interests. That should be dictated by American pundits like Friedman who have been so right in the past.

Friedman, I have a solution to your repeated "Earth is Flatism"  problem of repeatedly destroying any chance of substantive discussion on global issues. You have nothing to add but decontextualized simplistic summations of the situation which repeatedly cast Muslims as evil and nefarious or simplistic and stupid (with American and Israelis at worst being too weak despite the overwhelming firepower they've used in the region) and avoid the kind of nuance, respect, and understanding that is required for such a complex situation. You could try using that noggin at the top of your head, or you could stop writing. 

Please just don't continue as you have, because for some reason, the elite class of pundits and intellectuals in America find you insightful. You inspire their policies. And if it's one thing we don't need anymore serving as the intellectual base for our policies, it's the idea that the world is black and white, that we can only be tough or tougher, that our enemies are absolute evil and our worst sin would be to not be standoffish and hawkish enough against them. That might not seem like a problem to you sitting in an air-conditioned Manhattan skyrise office, but to the people who will die on the ground if we continue these hawkish policies -- especially talk of a new "Cold War" with a country that has less than 10% our military spending -- your idiocy has real consequences.