Replies

I supported and still support the Iraq war. We need to win it and not look like paper tigers. What's done is done, and failure is not an option. We live in the world of the indicative mood, not the subjunctive mood.

However, if a time machine was invented and we could go back in time to Summer 2002, I would argue until I was blue in the face that war with Iraq would deplete our resources and resolve to fight the greater threat--Iran. All the post 9-11 GWOT capital should have been invested in arguing for the overthrow of the Iranian mullahs. I know all the arguments about how Iran was going to fall ASAP because of their pro-American youth and how it was just a matter of time before we had a sea of liberty between Afghanistan and Iraq...hasn't happened, won't happen. Now, in 2006, the doctrine of preemption is for the most part dead, because of the struggles in Iraq--more specifically, the intelligence failures which will haunt our credibility both inside and outside our borders for decades to come. Iran would have been easier to manage, with one friendly border (Afghanistan) and a unified populace ethnically. You can make better arguments to the skeptical and the weak-kneed that Iran fits in w/ the GWOT than Iraq, mostly because it would be a delayed response to Iran's sponsored attack on U.S. Marines in 1984 that killed 250 soldiers in Lebanon and of course the gross seizure of hostages when the mullah state was founded. Iran's long deserved a massive butt-kicking.

Iran's the problem, and its problems dwarfed those presented by Saddam's Iraq. Let's pray something happens that doesn't make us rue choosing Iraq over Iran.

I dont think we have a particularly clear picture of what Iran's strategic intentions are. Obviously they're on the road to being a nuclear power but to what end? Iranians are always quick to point out that they are not Arabs or Sunnis, they are Persians and Shiites and thus what we usually think of as the "middle east" doesnt apply to them. Unlike Iraq, which is essentially 3 different groups trapped in a failed state, Iranians have a strong sense of national identity. These factors alone mean that Iran must be treated with a different strategy than the rest of the gulf states which are largely Arab. If Iraq has taught us anything its that these distinctions mean a great deal on the ground.

Iran's relations with the world have largely been defined by other powers attacking them and not the other way around. Iran spent most of the last century being swatted around by the British and Russians, before being invaded by Iraq. Essentially the Iranian posture is more defensive than aggressive and the nuclear game could be seen as an extension of that. Iran surely sees the American forces in its neighbors as a threat and considering the tone of American leaders (axis of evil) its not hard to see their point.

The Israeli question is interesting because its hard to tell what is bluster and what is intent. Iran must know it can never hope to defeat Israel with or without nuclear arms so much of it must be seen as posturing. Its also worth remembering that the current leader was elected chiefly because the moderates fractured their support over too many parties. He is essentially a populist street preacher type who is now in way over his head. Most Iranians do not have the seemingly suicidal rancor he displays and our best hope is that they will take power before its too late. We cannot hope to encourage the moderate by taking broad swipes at the nation though, nothing unites a people like an outside threat.