[President Bush has been violating a major theme for 3 years now: treating terror in Iraq like it is NOT caused by governments]
Of course, if Washington and NY already have Iranian nukes placed and ready to explode...then the current situation in Iraq is more explainable. As with Vietnam, where American hands were firmly handcuffed behind their backs (and our military could only kick the enemy around)...the strategy with Iraq seems to be that we allow our left wing to nag and cry (all staged with the help of the White House) so the world and the enemy can believe that it is this nagging and crying that is stopping us from simply going into Tehran and removing the enemy leaders...rather than the real nuclear threat.
A concept not often discussed on the Blogosphere: The anti-war left as a desired "safe facing" mechanism for an administration saddled with a credible nuclear threat in the homeland.
Also and adjunct to what I said above: it is possible that the very reason why only peace activists have been kidnapped in the past three years...was not only their "availability" to the enemy...but the knowledge among the terror elite that a kidnapped American soldier would elicit a line in the sand type reaction by the President against Syria or Iran or a member of the Saudi family who would be then be in danger of "dying of thirst in the desert".
[stopping us from simply going into Tehran and removing the enemy leaders...rather than the real nuclear threat.]
Thus, if we are fighting this war in the face of a credible and immediate nuclear threat to Washington or NY, our only option would be to allow a massive wave of left-wing pacifism to engulf the world like a tsunami. The wave would simply wash over the US Republican base (causing us to lose the female independents who put Bush over the top in 2004 but not hurting a solid 43% reality-based public) but it could do some serious erosion to the dictatorships in the Middle East that were using the nuke threat to prevent us from overthrowing them in the traditional fashion.
This is what I call my "backwash" theory...and it is supported by the President's continued inaction toward Iran.
A problem with this theory is that I fear that the anti-Bush liberal tsunami has only been making liberal Iranian freedom-lovers LESS INTERESTED in overthrowing their regime now that they "understand" that it would be better for them to personally suffer economically and in a new Cold War with the USA...then to let the ideologically hated Bush liberate them.
I should actually start a thread asking this question: Has our left wing in the past 3 years made the Iranian people LESS likely to want freedom from their hardliners due to the illogical religious imperative of international leftism: that of wanting to SPITE American conservatives more than better your own life?
At the risk of putting things too simply, your theory smacks of a semi-load of BS. I've smacked plenty. A clue might be the ridiculous statement that only peace activists have been kidnappped in the last three years.