If David Brooks ever decides that the whole journalism thing's not working out, he could have a fine second career as a White House mouthpiece.

In his most recent New York Times column [sub. req.], the poet laureate of glib social commentary identifies the culprits responsible for ongoing tensions in the Middle East: liberal American academics.

By Brooks's account, 9/11 brought about a "general recognition" among Arabs that their countries were in need of reform and modernization (evidence to support this observation is not specified). But he says that historic moment of self-awareness was forgotten after Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, in March 2006, published a paper criticizing the American pro-Israel lobby's outsize influence.

Their paper "has had a profound influence on Arab elites," Brooks writes. "It has encouraged them not to be introspective, not to think about their own problems, but to blame everything on the villainous Israeli network." And Brooks knows that, because he was just at a conference in Jordan where some Arab participants—the same sorts of moderates who sounded so conciliatory after 9/11—mentioned the Walt-Mearsheimer paper. (He apparently failed to consider whether the American-instigated civil war raging in the country next door might be responsible for the moderates' more militant tone.)

"And so we enter a more intractable phase in the conflict," concludes Brooks.

Wait, is the Bobos in Paradise author really saying an essay by a couple of American college professors is responsible for putting peace in the Middle East out of reach? Brooks hasn't gotten back to us yet to clarify his intent, but we suspect that Ari "Americans need to watch what they say" Fleischer would strongly agree with his implied point.