This is not ever going to change. Why for 30 years has no US administration recgnized a threat from Iran? I assume all the Farsi speakers in the State Department have gone native, and promote the appeasement line, bt even so shouldn't somebody get a clue?

The Saudis have completely suborned the diplomatic establishment and anybody with any influence in Washington. How come this is never mentioned? The Democrats could use this to great advantage, I'm assuming they are a little less suborned, but despite the obvious easy opportunity they ignore it year after year.

These are the real stories, but no one ever explains just how all this has happened. Money is very powerful, but it can't be that powerful, can it?

Apr 5, 2008 02:14 PM

Money is that important when you (Iran) are trying to buy protection from countries which are practically third-world and desperate for money such as Russia and a good deal of Western Europe for example.
We have to remember that, in the past, Iran was waging war on us but with no where near this level of hands-on control and brazenness. This war in Iraq should have proven to everyone that Iran is indeed at war with us and has been all along. They upped the ante considerably and they are now vigorously pursuing us and we don't appear to care.

We just don't want to accept reality. It remnds me of the time running up to 9-11 when the government didn't want to accept that al Qaeda was waging war against us. We Americans love to watch investigations into government failures and we love to show putrage and demand accountability after the fact, but I think we have a serious learning disability because we still haven't learned from the mistaken complacency of 9-11. The difference is, this time, the enemy has oil fields, nuclear ambitions, and leaders bent on our and Israel's destruction by their own admition consistently for almost 30 years.

Its disappointing that the pupeteers controlling the Iraqi parties warring against us will continue to take American lives, merely because we won't even support revolution within Iran. We have options besides war on Iran, but not using them guarantees that one day a violent showdown with Iran will come.

Apr 5, 2008 04:02 PM

Jim - Isn't that assuming that after thirty years, the State Department even still has any Farsi speakers at all?

Apr 6, 2008 12:58 AM

After perhaps a year's absence, the signature line has returned! It has always appeared atop the page, but for some time Ledeen abstained from closing his articles with it. There was a hint of this in his March 25 piece, but now it is back in full force, and will presumably be there going forward.

One problem with closing every article with this line is that at times it does not follow logically from the argument that precedes it. On some occasions it contradicts. Thus, for example, when Ledeen discusses the Supreme Leader, a dead-man-walking, an astute reader has to wonder ... if the point of this article is that this guy's days are numbered, why exactly are we the ones who must speed things up?

I am a huge, huge, huge Ledeen fan; and time and time again his views are reinforced by events unfolding. Yet on the narrow issue of timing, I have never quite understood Ledeen's impatience. Why is time on THEIR side rather than ours? What has the Bush Administration lost in the past two, three, ... five ... years by not taking the bait on Iran's obvious provocations? Why not consolidate in Iraq and wait until the mullahs are even more fragile? Obviously, the nuclear issue dictates some sort of timetable; and yet Ledeen has not argued (to my knowledge) that Iran is yet close to having that competency.

I am convinced that the confrontation is inevitable. I am clueless why it is to our advantage to have it out with Iran now rather than later. In a war of attrition, patience is a key strategic asset. It's not that I disagree with Ledeen. I just don't think he ever truly addresses the question of urgency.

After reading Ledeen for years, to me the only unresolved question has to do with timing. I am therefore fascinated and pleased ... Why does Ledeen once again think that the time is now? And by the way, Mr. Ledeen, what's up with the Supreme Leader? When can we expect his demise?

ML:

Good questions all. I am surprised, very surprised, that Khamenei is still alive. Every so often he faints and is carried off to the hospital; this happened about a month ago when he had to cancel a meeting with UAE leaders who had come to Tehran just to talk to him, for example. He could die any day. Or he could hang on...we all know people who were 'scheduled to die' years ago but are still with us. Medical science is, let's say, imperfect on these matters.

Why do I now drag out 'faster, please'? First,because i think we're in a window of opportunity. Iran is doing badly in the war against us, which encourages the regime's many enemies. Second, because the nuclear program continues apace, and we don't want this regime to have atomic bombs aplenty...

Apr 6, 2008 05:49 AM

The U.S. Treasury Department very recently put all of the banks in Iran--state owned and private--on notice as willing financiers of terrorism. This will effectively slam the door on Iran's access to the world financial markets, because none of the major banks in the industrialized world want to lose their relationships with the American banks. Left to Iran is trade financing by Venezuelan banks; even China won't want to jeopardize their banking relationships with the U.S. over Iran.

This new strategy by the American administration is going to squeeze Iran dry. Within two years, Iran is going to start looking like Cuba; ancient cars with no spare parts, unrepaired airplanes falling out of the sky, gosoline production falling from their sole obsolete refinery, and no new oil wells to increase production.

Unemployment for Iran's enormous youth population is bound to rise by the bank squeeze on international trade. As necessary goods become more scarce, inflation will have to rise above its present double-digit rates. When today's world-wide commodity boom goes bust--as it always eventually does--Iran's revenues from oil sales will plummet, choking off its ability to continue to subsidize its unemployed youth.

This somewhat duplicates Ronald Reagan's strategy: defeat the enemy by using the great strength of capitalism, the capital markets. In Reagan's case, borrow to finance a technologically superior, all but undefeatable military; in Bush's case, just deny them cash. And like the Soviet Union, Iran too will eventually fall without firing a shot.

The only question is, which is faster: a financial squeeze, or spinning centrifuges?

ML:

The strategy is a good one, so far as it goes, and i am a big fan of what treasury and DoD are doing on this front. But it does not get us to an end to the regime. Contrary to the conventional (vulgar Marxist) wisdom, regimes do not fall because of economic misery. We would never have been able to defeat the Soviet Empire without active support for the dissidents, and all that went with it.

Apr 6, 2008 04:23 PM

It would be a final irony if it finally fell to a military man, Gen. Petraeus, to make the case for supporting nonviolent revolution in Iran. Maybe he'll say something unexpected at the hearings this week.

Petraeus certainly knows how to "flip" a population against our (and its) enemies. Is there any precedent of granting a field commander like Petraeus authority over non-military actions conducted outside of theater -- in this case, in Iran? I'm thinking of a scenario where Petraeus' team, working on what it knows from Iran's role in Iraq, is charged with conducting a political psy-ops war against the regime in Tehran.

ML:

Certainly the president could authorize certain actions, and Petraeus could execute those orders. I'm not at all sure that Iran is "out of theater;" as I understand it, this is a regional war and Iran is a big part of the region, and of the war.

But if Petraeus is publicly asked to recommend a strategy on Iran he will surely say that such decisions lie with civilian leaders, not with him.

Apr 6, 2008 04:30 PM

"there are many things we can do to make the mullahs and their friends pay a steep price for attacking our people in Iraq and in Afghanistan as well. These range from operations against the terrorist training facilities and assembly plants for rockets and mines in Iran and Syria (acts of legitimate self defense) to active support for the broad-based Iranian democratic movement, which is supported by a big majority of the citizens."

This administration doesn't have the time, patience or belief that small operations or vocal support, will activate a democratic revolution or lead to an eventual upheaval of the deeeply entrenched regime in Tehran. Further, it can't assume that our next commander and chief won't have the audacity to allow the mullahs to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Initial small operations as you recommend will surely escalate into an all out assault once the mullahs have been provoked. The first sign of any Iranian action in response to 'potential operations' will likely evolve into the total decimation of the regimes military and nuclear infrastructure.

Russia, China will stand aside while the Saudi's & company address any global economic hardship's in order to keep it all flowing.

ML:

Nothing is inevitable except death and taxes. None of us can foresee the consequences of one action or another. It behooves us to be modest about such things. I do not think I know what this president, let alone 'this administration,' think about iran. Most predictions have been proven false by now. I don't think they are likely to do anything much.

And let me snarl at the idea that supporting revolution is a 'small step.' It's a mortal threat to the mullahs; they will not take it as a little thing by any means.

Apr 6, 2008 04:30 PM

To drellberg: remember that the mullahs are in a race to develop a nuclear weapon which will be their insurance policy to stay in power--regardless of whether Khamenei is alive or dead. To put all our eggs in the basket of "let's just wait for Khamenei to die since he's already got a foot in the grave" is very very risky because his death is not necesarily a guarantee that the regime would fall (it could fall but, then again, it probably will not). The regime is not Khamenei--the regime is a functioning system full of factions who are themselves waiting for power. Also, don't forget that the IRGC itself is also gaining significant strength as a force in the regime--don't count them out of your formula.

When the learned Mr. Ledeen says "Faster, Please", its completely aprpopriate since time is on their side, not on our's. The longer we wait, the more progress they will have made on the nuclear plan and the WEAKER our position will be. They are waiting us out, not the other way around.

Apr 6, 2008 06:28 PM

to j green: Ledeen's 'faster, please' long preceded any sense from him that an Iranian bomb was imminent. By Ledeen's own words today, though, this threat grows nearer and comprises half of his reasoning for bringing back 'faster, please.' So you are clearly right, and I agree with you.

The thrust of my comments, though, still stands. If there ever were any doubts that Mr. Ledeen is right about Iran, they are gone from nearly every quarter. He has won that argument, I think, and with all due respect he needs to move on. The only thing that matters now is timing. There is a significant sense of urgency on both sides. So ... Who is in the greater hurry, us or them? In what sense? With what consequences? And what moves does this all imply?

I read Mr. Ledeen carefully and repeatedly, and I read his critics. And I think his critics' chief complaint is that he has not convinced others that Iran is as vulnerable as he thinks.

I think Ledeen is uniquely positioned to inform this debate over when to move, and how. It is his signature line, he asserts that we must move now, he is specific about what ought to happen, and he provides a modest amount of evidence to support his case. But he also concedes, for example, that time has made the mullahs more vulnerable. Has not Bush's patience paid off? And so I ask again: What has it cost Bush to wait a year, two years, ... as the mullahs get weaker and as the Supreme Leader gets closer to death? I read Ledeen closely, and there is ambiguity in what he writes. I mean that not as a criticism, since it would be foolish to claim that things are clear when they are not.

Ironically, his case is weakest where he puts the most emphasis ... faster, faster, faster.

My own hypothesis about Bush is that fighting in Iraq has been like shooting fish in a barrel. The last few days of fighting by the B-team Iraqi army has eliminated over 1000 insurgents, for example. I think that since 2003 the enemy body count has been HUGE. I think that's why Bush has been in no hurry. Why confront Iran when they are so efficiently setting up their own mercenaries and sending them into Iraq to be slaughtered?

But the Bush Administration is winding down; the mullahs are closer to the bomb; their own grip is more vulnerable, as Ledeen says, and so much riskier; the Supreme Leader could die any day; and the opportunity presents. So I agree that the sense of urgency is palpable. I just want to encourage Mr. Ledeen to focus his energies on just that urgency, and that timing. Others have yet to be convinced.

Apr 6, 2008 09:46 PM

You're right, it is a regional war. But I meant outside the theater Petraeus has command over. As I understand it, any action against, say, Syria or Iran would be directed from CentCom and not MNF-Iraq, specifically. But I could be wrong.

It's an interesting idea, regardless -- putting our team in Baghdad in charge of undermining the Iranian regime at home. I just wish our State Department would do the job... then we wouldn't have to be thinking of these hypotheticals.

ML:

It's the president's job, he's the commander in chief.

Apr 7, 2008 02:39 AM

lies lies lies and more lies...your claim that iran is sponsoring iraqi insurgents is only a prediction and there is no sound proof..if iran were to arm iraqi insurgents then they will provide lethal armour piercing shoulder held grenade launchers.like hizballah have.what the iraqi insurgents are using now is poor old junk artillery leftovers of sadam era.
they would provide shoulder held anti helicopter missiles like stinger types which iran now has reverse engineered and produces..

i never understand iran already has its puppet in baghdad then y would they try to destabilyse the maliki government...the mainstream media is selling another war and americans better be careful

ML:

this reads like a bad translation from the original Bulgarian, as Chief Justice Roberts once wrote about something else.

Apr 7, 2008 03:23 AM

Zarqawi operating out of Iran? Next you'll be telling us hitler is operating out a secret base on mars. Recall that back when our government was supporting al qaeda, it was those pesky shia iranians who had death warrants out for zarqawi and his ilk. Mr. ledeen, the shock of the failure of the iraq war, has apparently dislodged you from the realm of objective reality and forced you to cling to this delusion that you share with a few odd nutters. Please for your sake, and the sake of those who love you, stop drinking the kool-aid and start taking your lithium.

ML:

That Zarqawi was operating from Tehran was documented before 9/11 in court documents in both Germany and Italy, including hundreds of intercepts proving he was in Tehran, along with testimony from couriers. I wrote about it at the time, as did Newsweek, the Corriere della Sera and Spiegel.

Apr 7, 2008 05:18 AM

Do we have the money for it? And do the American people have the lack of moral outrage enough. I don't know enough about the first question, but in answer to the second, the common man in New York, San Francisco, Columbus, or Des Moines doesn't care. They just don't care. If I were the Iranians in the wake of the attack I would do the only thing that would bring them to their knees and take to the streets...some kind of sabotage or attack with the goal of $300 a barrel. Then we're all debt-slaves to Rothschild children.

Apr 7, 2008 06:36 AM

There will be no non-violent revolution in Iran. The Iranian regime has long demonstrated its willingness to supress, imprison, and massacre any opposition. If there is any sort of attempt at revolution, there will be a lot of blood and Iranians know this. Iranians have also been fed non-stop anti US propaganda, to the point that overt US support for a new regime would be the kiss of death to that regime. There is simply no viable option for a regime to replace the current one. (NCRI fought against Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war and thus will never be accepted by Iranians as a legitimate government in Iran--despite all their lobbying, propaganda, and useful nuclear information). The end result of an attempted revolution in Iran would likely be failure and an excuse for the current regime to become even more repressive. If such a revolution were to succeed, it would likely result in either a failed state and chaos or the installation of a regime worse than the current one. Iran needs money to continue its support to terrorism and its violent meddling in Iraq. Despite UN sanctions, countries like Switzerland and China are supplying Iran that money by signing agreements and investing billions in Iran. It is disgusting. The international community should ostracize these countries for providing the money used for terrorism.

ML:

YOu could--and many did--make the same pessimistic assessment of the Soviet Union just before it fell, from the massive repression (was the KGB LESS effective than the Basiji?) to the indoctrination of the young.

And yet it fell.

Apr 7, 2008 07:06 AM

no if you take out iran you will have peace in east then there will no rilegon for the beast to feast..

Apr 7, 2008 08:33 AM

I think the Bush Administration understands perfectly the relation between the solution of the Iranian problem and the pacification of Iraq, and not only of Iraq. From the first day of the existence of Israel there was a continuous war against the Jewish State. It’s natural and unavoidable. Apart from ideological Islamic anti-Semitism, the existence of a democratic western State in the middle of oriental despotic regimes is corrosive and dangerous for them. So the war will continue while these regimes exist. I’m sure the western democratic Israel will withstand all these putrid Islamic dictatorships.
I see an analogue situation in Iraq. From one side Iraq borders on Syria and from the other it borders on Iran. The democratic State between two despotic States is something unnatural (from their point of view). So your conclusion (“the survival of the Teheran regime is threatened by progress in Iraq”) is exact, based on concrete Middle East experience. The war is unavoidable and necessary. The war stops the haemorrhage that totalitarian regimes provoke, because a totalitarian State, for its nature, is the enormous factory of Death. See History of the Soviet Union of Stalin’s period. The main Iranian industry is also a non-stop productions of dead.
The question is what margin of free decision the Bush Administration has? A radical solution isn’t possible but it doesn’t justify doing nothing. The sanctions serve only to create the illusion of “political action” when a war is necessary. “Dreadful alternatives” are alternatives that every true politician must confront. Mommsen says (about Gneus Pompeus): “even the grace of gods can help to no mortal who lacks courage”. In real History (not utopian of idiotic pacifists) one must choose between war that costs, for example, 10.000 lives and peace that will cost 1.000.000 dead. The European wanted at any price a peace with Hitler, and the peace price was 60 million dead. What would have been the cost of a peace with the Taliban and Saadam Hussein’s monstrous regimes? What price the Americans are ready to pay for the peace with Islamofascist terrorists and their protectors, that the Messiah of Hope Barak Hussein ibn Obama preaches?
The ambiguous role of Russians is obvious. The Cold War didn’t finish and never was “cold”. Putin’s politics is the same of old Soviet times: to create troubles to Americans where it’s possible. And what can be expected from the viscid ex-functionary of the KGB? I’m sure that the Russians provide to the Iranians weapons and technologies. The Russian arms are of poor but sufficient quality for terrorist attacks. So there are all reasons to eliminate mullahs’s regime depriving in the same time the Russians of their best client.
I don’t believe in simple political propaganda. The most important is ethnic composition of Iran. The main ethnic groups are Persians (51%), Azeris (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmens (2%) and others (1%). In the East the ethnic differences are much more important than in the West. So I see only one solution in this situation: strong democratic and united Iraq and military support to all ethnic groups inside Iran. The most unrest ethnic group is the Kurds that fought openly between 1979 and 1982 against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. So it’s necessary to create chaos in Iran (chaos vs. chaos) supporting rebels with arms and training, i.e., to begin the war inside of Iran. The ancient Hindu wisdom says: Be perfidious with the perfidious. From the Asian Wars of the ancient Romans many useful things can be also learned.

Apr 7, 2008 02:44 PM

I'm also very happy to see the return of "faster, please." However, I think people who don't want to believe simply won't believe. The case should continue to be made, and as you rightly say the urgency should be highlighted, but I don't think it will make people like James admit the truth to themselves. They'll continue to trick themselves into skeptism despite direct threats from the regime, confessions, admissions, evidence of weaponry proven to be from Iran, and they don't even know why they do the denying. When cornered, people like that start making fun of Petraeus rather than accepting him for the non-partisan militaryman and patriot that he is.

That's why its important for leaders to lead--because you cannot always convince all the skeptics. Bush has, so far, not led well on this issue and its a shame because as far as American security is concerned Iran is one of the most dangerous problems most in need of leadership.

As for Leila, what she says is precisely the mentality that the mullahs want to spread. They are trying to terrorize people into complacency with the regime and she is spreading that same fear. But its not hopeless at all.

Apr 7, 2008 03:13 PM

It is about time that our top military leaders came in with the truth-of-it on Iranian regime's murderous evilness in Iraq (and Afghanistan.)

Long overdue, but it will be a breath of fresh air if Gen. Patreus can muster saying it like it is on Iran to the panel on Tuesday and Wednsday. Remember B.Hussein Al-Obama is going to be sitting there in the panel, too. And he has a warm place in his heart for the Iranian regime as well as all Islamist-Fascists worldwide. It will be interesting, to say the least.

On Leila's point; although I concur that that is the general feeling of Iranians, but one thing the western observer should know about Iranian intellectuals in particular is their literary and cultural tendencies not to succumb to, but to utilize 'pining and regret'(deeply embeded and pervasive in Persian poetry) as a tool to mobilize others for revolution. The same feelings of apathy was strongly present in pre-revolution years under the Shah in second half of 70s. So, we are in similar territory in Iran now.

Apr 7, 2008 05:21 PM

I think the Iran is a really crazy.
the Iranian people think the God is with them and they can do anything.

If The United States attack to Iran, Iran will attack to US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and will attack to Israel.

The all violence in Iraq is from Iran.

Good luck!

Apr 7, 2008 05:29 PM

Dear misguided Mr. Ledeen surely you are aware that Zarqawi was endeavoring to incite a war between the u.s. & iran: [www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq...]
[www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq...]
Further you must also be aware of his declaration of all out war of extermination against the shia:
[english.aljazeera.net/English/ar...]

No doubt articles alleging a link between zarqawi and iran should be added to the vast pile of articles alleging wmd's in iraq, connections between the 911 hijackers and iraq, etc., neo-con cough, etc..

ML:

Zarqawi was not trying to incite a war between Iran and the United States; he was part of it.

Do try to stick to the subject in the future, Mr. Check. You had said that only a fool could believe that Zarqawi had Iranian support. I provided the evidence, which had convinced both a German and an Italian court, as well as Newsweek. Now you move on to other insults. I don't play that game.

Apr 7, 2008 07:32 PM

To Leila:
Your comment is pessimistic but it doesn’t lack some truth (absolute truth is not the property of mortal men). As a Russian political emigrant (1973) I can understand you. I was also pessimistic and didn’t believe in the possibility of the end in the near future of the Soviet communist Empire that I hated. But all communist regimes fell in Europe. It was a democratic revolution or, as J.-F. Revel, said “Le Regain démocratique”. I see an intimate relation between the democratic renewal and the Islamic reaction against it. It is natural: terrorism, like communism and fascism, is a reaction against liberal democracy, against History as such. The Islamic Revolution was the rise of the most reactionary and obscurantist forces. I remember very well this damned “revolution” (the Italian fascists, like the German Nazis, called their dirty putsch “revolution”). It seemed that the Spirit of Evil Ahriman returned to the land of Iran in the repugnant image of Khomeini coming out of a diabolic bottle. I don’t believe that this Evil Spirit is eternal and unbeatable. I don’t seek a consolation but that doesn’t liberate me from the duty of fighting the Evil in any form.
P.S. I think the Iranian non-stop anti US propaganda must have the same effect of the Soviet obsessive anti West propaganda. A good example is the Communist Party’s official newspaper “Pravda” (The “Truth”): if “Pravda” wrote “bad”, we read “good” and vice versa. I suppose the Iranians read their newspapers in the same way. It is curious that the famous “New York Times” adopted the style of the ill-famed Soviet communist paper.

ML:

I am quite certain that the Russians are 'helping' the mullahs in many areas, including propaganda.

Apr 8, 2008 02:05 PM

As an Iranian, I am just perplexed to see how our administration after administration has been unwilling to confront Iranian regime directly.

We had so many reasons and opportunities to engage them directly but we keep talking about their atomic ambitions, but isn't killing Americans the only reason we need to attack them?

And then we have Obama who has the audacity wanting us to talk to Iranians as if no one has tried that approach before. (can someone remind Mr. Obama that Clinton administration even offered apology to iranian mullahs? and nothing happened! )

I am not a conspiracy type, but more and more , I am convinced that we must have too many Iranian agents in our government! how else can we explain the inaction by our government?

ML:

Well, it's been going on since 1979, with all administrations, left or right, republican or democrat. I think we've done it to ourselves.

Apr 8, 2008 10:21 PM

Well, even as Gen. Patreus and Amb. Crocker testified this week that Iranian regime is killing Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq, B. Hussein Al-Obama still questioned: "How certain are we that Iraq(note: he made a Freudian slip and said 'Iraq' isntead of 'Iran') is responisble for the violence in Iraq?"

With presidential candidates like Hussein Obama, who needs enemies overseas anymore? Seems like he is doing the Iranian regime's job for them.

Apr 9, 2008 11:18 AM

It’s very instructive to read the comments of persons like Leila, Frieda and Ira Zad who had traumatic experience to live under the despotic regime. For all of them and also for me Obama presents a serious problem. This man has expressed clearly his sympathy for the most hateful and reactionary regimes protesting against Iraqi War, defending a criminal organisation like Iranian Revolutionary Guard that can be compared only to Waffen-SS. His “spiritual” (if not direct) relation with Islamofascist Louis Farrakhan, intimate friendship with anti-Semite and racist Rev. Wright and a support from similar sinister personages leave no doubt about the dangerous qualities of this new “Saviour” of America. The “enthusiasm” for Obama has something pathological: it seems that the great American Nation longs for suicide. I would like to hear your opinion, Dr. Ledeen, about the Obama phenomenon, that disquiets all of us who see in American Democracy the only guarantee of freedom and human dignity.

ML:

His pastor scares me to death, and I can't possibly vote for someone who considers such a man his spiritual adviser.

Apr 9, 2008 04:28 PM

Slower, more accurate, please. You continually reference Shadi Abdallah trial in deutchland, yet you fail to mention he never once said he worked for or had any dealings with iran. The only objective reality that bleeds out from both the deutch and italian investigations into zarqawi's outfit is the fact that iran is a regional transportation, communication and finance hub. This in itself is not a crime nor even a sin. The reality finds that zarqawi was bitterly anti-shia and anti-iranian, he attempted to instigate conflict between teheran and washington to serve his radical wahabist goals and the only people naive enough to have been suckered by his malarky are the same naive fellows who bought chalabi's stale malarky.

Let's face facts, war with iran would be disastrous for the u.s. military, economy and global position. Saddam , rather than being hitler, was nothing more than another noreiga with oil to finance an army, we built up both to serve our national interests and when they ran their lifecycle we discarded them like last years trophy wife. No harm , no foul, the cost of doing business in the global arena. I object to the manner in which saddam was shown the door but not with the general suggestion of an early and unnatural retirement for him.

Iran is a whole 'nother ball game; they're not our creature, we didn't build them , we don't how they tick and we've shown no ability to predict their actions. When their proxies in lebanon humbled our proxies, the israelis, that was a pretty loud wake up call that the persian gulf could be deeper then we imagine. We've spent billions over decades building up the israelis, it's unfathomable for them to humiliated by an iranian militia on a shoestring budget. That conflict gave us a window to how the current iranian military fights and operates, they are perhaps the most secretive armed forces on the planet. Any decent analysis of the state of affairs would suggest the best course of action is not to risk direct conflict with the iranians, but rather build up the israelis and prod them into a conflict with iran. This will minimize the chance for the iranians pulling a strategic surprise and of course it will minimize u.s. casualties. Afterall, as an americn, i'd rather let the israelis play cannon-fodder for u.s. interests than the other way 'round, don't you concur?

ML:

There were hundreds of intercepts and confessions from couriers in both Germany and Italy.

Kind of you to be so generous with Israeli lives...but I'm sure you could care less.

Obviously we disagree on policy, enough said.

Apr 9, 2008 06:23 PM

To Reality Check:

“For a liar who has violated the one law of truthfulness, who holds in scorn the hereafter, there is no evil that he cannot do.”

Dhammapada. XIII, 176.

Apr 10, 2008 12:27 PM

In a previous comment, I frame a hypothesis that in fact insurgent casualties have been huge and steady. In this morning's NY Post, Amir Taheri says that in Basra, "The Iran-backed side lost more than 600 men, with more than 1,000 injured. The ISF lost 88 dead and 122 wounded." Is there any doubt but that an American-led offensive would have inflicted many more than 1600 casualties with many fewer than 88 dead? And that the US is inflicting casualties without ever risking a soldier (e.g., with unmanned aircraft)? I will assert again and again that the Bush Administration is under-reporting the damages we are inflicting on the enemy. Bush does not rise to the Iranians' provocations mostly because he does not need to do so. The mullahs are volunteering their men in huge numbers to be slaughtered in Iraq. In such circumstances, we need not move faster; we must simply stay the course.

ML:

Thanks. I agree that we (and, increasingly, our Iraqi buddies) are inflicting terrible damage on the mullahs and their terrorist cadres. I was of course delighted that Amir Taheri echoed what I wrote here earlier, namely that Khamenei was shooting craps in Iraq and would lose. The one disagreement we have is over "stay the course" or "faster, please." Now is precisely the time to press our advantage and bring them down. Just playing defense in Iraq is not good enough. We have to go after the regime. Politically, in Iran (and Syria, for that matter).

Apr 10, 2008 03:43 PM

Iranian regime is playing with fire in Iraq now. I liked what Pres. Bush finally said today about Iran: We'll do necessary things to protect US interests. A bit late but it s still good.

Apr 11, 2008 12:20 AM

winston -- Unfortunately, there have been many such rhetorical 'talking points' on Iran regime for 7 years now out of the White House; but none resulted in any meaningful confrontation with this despised regime. Our so far ineffective, hot again/cold again Iran policy (thanks to Sec. Rice's appeasing overtures towards Iranian regime) is known only too well by the mullahs in power in Tehran. The mullahs respond to action, not words.

By now, Tehran is emboldened and totally immune to any rhetoric coming out of our mouths, since our weakness and inaction speak louder to them. In Tehran, regime media outlets slogan America as a Paper Tiger, as they tout their consolidated status as a regional Super Power.

I agree that the time to act against Iran regime and to take it out is now, but sadly, this president and this Sec. of State (Iran Appeaser Condi and crew) will not, more likely than not, have the gumption to do it.

Apr 11, 2008 07:15 PM