In light of your observation, Ken’s question could be rephrased as: Does the Iraq War hinder or assist the development of “an effective predictable representative government” in Iran? I say it assists.

Following the breakdown of the EU-3 negotiations with Iran, we are in an excellent diplomatic and military position to issue an ultimatum to the mullahcracy: enact representative, democratic government and live up to the NPT, or see your nuclear infrastructure dismantled by any means, and representative government devised for you.

If anyone needs anymore reasons to get serious with the mullahs, they should check out Captain Ed’s work at Captain’s Quarters to see what the Clinton CIA didn’t want us to know about Iran’s involvement in 9/11.
-Steve

In Iran, I think the question is can Iran institute an effective predictable representative government and select trustworthy leaders, and develope a defensive nuclear policy that its enemies and allies can tolerate?

The best thing may be to make it clear repeatedly that the nuclear development “will not be tolerated” without much further comment. This would leave future options open.

Lucky me that I’m not in charge, because I don’t see a good option here.

It’s the delicate peace-keeping and nation building in Iraq that is time consuming and tedious. GWB is a great president for taking this chance, this gamble that it wasn’t necessary to put in a strong-man regime. I took GWB at his word that it wouldn’t be quick or easy. I agree that the security this (attempt to retain civilization in the mideast) buys our country is worth the price we are paying.

Well, after about twenty minutes of laughter, I managed to pick myself up off the floor to respond.

“You’re telling me the SAME people SCREAMING…. ‘No link, no link,no link, between Saddam and Osama’ are gonna line up behind this President when he decided to go into NORTH KOREA instead of Iraq?!?!? And I’m supposed to buy this gibberish?”

Note that Cindy Sheehan herself said that Saddam did not attack us, but that if someone DID, “I’d go after him with a rolling pin myself”. Then she proceeded to explain why AFGHANISTAN was “just more US imperialism, and THEY SAY Osama was responsible for 9/11, etc…” (implying Mossad, CIA, or some crap like that.)

The fact is, 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor, and STILL in academia and the fever swamps, we see millions who flat out will not support their country in this or pretty much ANY conflict whatsoever. No matter what.

I’m not as dismayed by their unwillingness to go after any given target as much as I am by how stupid they must think I am to believe for one nanosecond that they will support ANY effort. If we are at war with A, they will say “Not A, I’d support going against B or C, but not A!!” If it’s B, same line, just switch the letters around. “Iran?!?! What about Saddam, isn’t he the REAL problem, that’s what you’ve been saying for ten years, blah blah blah blah blah.

Go ahead and oppose it, people, just stop insulting my intelligence when you do so.

We are perched on two of Iran’s doorsteps now in a perfect position to enforce the U.N.-sanctioned embargo that’s about to be announced. Yes, I predict Bolton’s going to fire up the derelict Security Council for a test-drive. And he’s going to point it at the terror-nuke-Mullahs (TNM’s).
-Steve

Now THAT is a very keen insight.

There’s also using big old cannon from obsolete “battleships”. There’s launching intercontinental missiles from silos in South Dakota. There’s bombing from aircraft older than most of the generals commanding them.

The U.S. has a whole pot of load of ammunition and equipment that’s basically going to just go to scrapyards sometime real soon now — unless we can find a productive way to put to some use.

Not that such considerations should drive policy. But that policy should be made considering the resources.

WE could, of course, wait for the next generation of weapons to enter full scale production. Remote control flying drones with HellFire missiles run by kids using joysticks, armored Segways, I dunno what all.

I don’t lie awake nights pondering the possibilities.

But I hope the leadership in Iran, does.

BTW, I did not say that Bush was stupid or wrong to order the invasion of Iraq. But forget what has aleady happened. I will tell you now that the perception is that the USA does not have the capability to invade Iran and we are not going to do so. Aint gonna happen.

Iran is a tough nut to crack, and I am wary of any suggested magic bullet. But does all the criticism seem to center on the presumption of a ground invasion and occupation?

We are still next door to Iran, after all.

Anyone else have a parnoid thought that just mebbe our “good friends and historic allies” wanted them to get the bomb? We have been and will always be their greatest enemy.

If we hadn’t invaded Afghanistan and/or Iraq the war would have progressed much differently. But it would have progressed in any event, and perhaps in ways that would have been highly unfavorable for us in the long run.

Maybe we have already done enough in the Middle East so that even if we withdraw soon we will have insured our safety for the coming future. I doubt it but it’s conceivable. But half-measures are dangerous in war (e.g., we might not be in Iraq now if we had finished the job in 1991 and gotten rid of Hussein). I suspect we will do much better to go too far now than to risk not going far enough. If we stopped the war after Iraq, everyone would know that we didn’t have what it takes to bring down the “axis of evil.” Our enemies, whose interpretation of events matters at least as much as that of American voters, would see our behavior as a capitulation. We should not let that happen.

And what do hindsight opponents of the Iraq invasion think we should have done instead of invading? “Contain” Iraq and revert to the status quo anti? As Ken suggests, if we didn’t invade Iraq we would have been unlikely to invade Iran. Sure, our military would be fresher and wouldn’t be tied up in Iraq, but any assault on Iran would require us to divert substantial resources to protecting our flanks from the Hussein regime and its allies. We are in a much stronger position now.

And don’t overlook the moral component of our strength. One of the reasons we are doing as well as we are doing is that we have followed through on our promises — unlike the past, when at various times we allowed our ally the Shah to fall, betrayed the Kurds, and failed to come to the aid of the Shiites during the 1991 uprising. By our actions since Sept. 11 we have restored some of the credibility we squandered.The fact that we are more trusted now has made it possible for Afghans and Iraqis to flout the fascists and take big steps toward representative government. This is a good time for us not only to use our military leverage to defuse the Iranian nuclear threat, but also to use our moral leverage to aid Iranian (and Syrian and Lebanese, etc.) democrats. Now is a good time for us to use our geopolitial momentum. If we don’t use it, it will dissipate.