"If we do not quickly expose the vulnerability of mullahs and empower the Iranian people," Michael Ledeen writes in today's National Review Online. "I believe the next few months in Iraq will, if Tehran has its way, be bloodier than anything we have seen to date. Not to mention the planned attacks against us here at home."

Since when is it the American military's job to "empower" whole nations of people? Ledeen's "empower" rhetoric makes it sound as if the U.S. military is one giant motivational speaker or a welfare to work program. And if Ledeen has evidence that Iran is planning attacks on American soil, please share it with the rest of us. Like a lot of people, I'm afraid I'd like to see the actual evidence this time around before going to war.

Iran is a greater state-sponsor of terrorism than Iraq, and they should be stopped before creating a nuclear weapon. But the danger of taking on Iraq after Afghanistan is that it necessarily eroded support for future campaigns--no matter how much more desirable. The American people have a tolerance level for wars of aggression, and I'm happy to report we've met our limit with Iraq. Iranian state-sponsorship of future acts of terrorism against the U.S. can and will change things. For one, it will make a war of choice into perhaps a war of necessity. But to simply invade a country in order to remake it in our image is a utopian delusion destined to fail. Transforming nations overnight is what many war hawks fantasize about regarding Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, and despotisms beyond. They want Iraqs as far as the eye can see. Michael Ledeen's fantasy is our nightmare.

Dan,

After reading your condemnation of Michael Leeden's NRO article about the need to take on Iran, I found I had to go back to his entry to see if you and I were reading the same article. While you seem to believe Leeden is advocating another military solution - I found just the opposite - I quote: " And precisely because the regimes are unstable, our most potent weapon against them is political, not military." No where do I see Leeden advocating a military solution to the problem. It seems to me you significantly jumped the gun on this one.

David MacKinnon
Raymond, Maine

David, the NRO link to the title is "There can be no victory in Iraq without regime change in Iran." When the article, and just about all of Ledeen's articles on NRO, is obsessed with the Bush administration's Iran policies ("Faster, please" is his familiar refrain), who do you suppose it is that Leeden is criticizing for failing to perform the "regime change"? The answer is the same guys who performed regime change in Iraq. Your quote of Ledeen suggests he's against a military solution. Read the very next line after your quote, in which Leeden says: "I do not believe we can win the war by force of arms alone." Doesn't that negate your point: "No where do I see Leeden advocating a military solution to the problem"?

Leaving the text of this article aside momentarily, most of Ledeen's recent writings would lead anyone to believe he supports a U.S. overthrow of the Iranian government. He recently proclaimed: "the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon." To be fair, his writings suggest that he would prefer that that Iranians free themselves. I wish for that too, but in the same manner in which I wish to find a suitcase filled with money. I don't wish for that at the expense of U.S. blood and treasure.

Dan,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. My point was not that Michael Leeden was not advocating the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy in his article. He most certainly was. My point was that he suggested that it could be accomplished with a combination of political, and yes, military pressure. Military pressure however, need not require a commitment of U.S. troops to combat. Our very presence in Iraq is military pressure enough. Evidence of Iran's desperation is seen in their commitment of significant resources to oppose us there. I believe that Leeden is advocating undermining the regime in Teheran via support of the fledgling democracy movement there. A view I share and support.

Further, I interpret Leeden's statement, "I do not believe we can win the war by force of arms alone.", to be a reference to the wider war on terror, and not specific to Iran. When I say that no where does Leeden advocate a military solution to the problem, I'm refering specifically to Iran. So it hardly negates my point - quite the contrary.

You are right to believe that a military solution to the Iran problem is no solution at all. A military confrontation would very likey weaken the democracy movement that we should be supporting, and we as a people do not have it in us to do. It would take another 9/11 - laid firmly at Teheran's door - for it even to be discussed. Even then it is questionable whether we could overcome our national self-doubt long enough to commit to such an undertaking as war with Iran.

Having said that, I do earnestly believe that the war on terror cannot be won without regime change in Iran and perhaps Syria as well. Otherwise we can only hope for, at best, a kind of perpetual, nerve-wracking stalemate. A stalemate far more dangerous than that of the Cold War. Thanks for listening.

David

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, David. We agree that the current crowd governing Iran is not in America's interests. It sounds like we also agree that a war with Iran would not be in America's, or Iran's, interests. I'll continue to read Ledeen to see where he comes down on these issues. I've found some of his stuff almost a mirror image of the Left's critique of America. For instance, two years ago he wrote: "These deaths, from Israeli hotel dining rooms and public markets, to the Arab and Iranian streets, are our responsibility." Basically, he sees an all-powerful America capable of infinite good and responsible for all the bad.

Reforming the world's oppresive governments is a laudable goal. But not only is millitary intervention the wrong way to go about it, the United States wouldn't even win if it tried in many of those nations. Iraq was a weak and crubling nation, that's why we choose to attack it instead our much more dangerous enemy of North Korea. Or Iran. Or Pakistan. Or China. Or even Saudi Arabia. The fact is Iran would kick our ass. North Korea would destroy one of our largest trading partners, and severly harm another. And we couldn't even come close to doing anything in China. So we decided to go after little old Iraq. Whatever the administration's desires, Iraq was an anomoly. Our millitary simplly can't take the strain of regime change over and over again.