In conjunction with the publicity campaign for Norman Podhoretz's latest book, "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism," (Why didn't anyone tell me about World War III?) comes word that President Bush and Karl Rove recently held a forty-five-minute meeting with Norman Podhoretz (I wonder who leaked?). Podhoretz, whose bad judgment while a leftist led him to facilitate the publication of Paul Goodman's "Growing Up Absurd," now exibits similar bad judgment in telling the president that we should bomb Iran. Why take counsel from people who have offered such bad advice in the past?

Don't get me wrong. Podhoretz's "Know-Nothing Bohemians" from Partisan Review's Spring 1958 issue is must reading for anyone interested in the Beats, and as a memoirist he provides readers with the flavor of the New York intellectual scene in the '50s and '60s. But since when did that guy become Norman Podhoretz, foreign policy advisor to presidents?

Podhoretz is one of the most vociferous supporters of war in Iraq among intellectuals. The conflict didn't turn out the way he envisioned it. He wrote in the summer of 2002, "When Saddam Hussein goes, the Iranian domino might also fall, toppled not by American military force but by the internal revolution already brewing there against the rule of the mullahs." It's a nice dream, but there was no "internal revolution already brewing" in Iran in 2002. Instead of Iraq influencing Iran, the invasion of Iraq has led to Iran influencing Iraq. Podhoretz's intentions were good but the results left something to be desired.

Podhoretz also pushed the baseless claim that Iraq was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He wrote that "smoking-gun evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11...existed, even if it might not have been enough to secure a conviction in an American court of law." Alas, he did not share the "smoking-gun evidence." Nor did he share on what basis he made the claim that Iraq was close to obtaining nuclear weapons. These were the kinds of falsehoods that scared people into supporting a foolish military campaign.

Regime change in Iraq was not enough. Podhoretz added the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Palestine as ones he wished to see toppled. Now he wants us to bomb Iran. On what grounds? Preemption, that doctrine that worked so horribly in Iraq. He writes: "Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States. Even then, we would probably be unable to get at all the underground facilities, which means that, if Iran were still intent on going nuclear, it would not have to start over again from scratch. But a bombing campaign would without question set back its nuclear program for years to come, and might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs."

More likely, given America's current unpopularity in the region, the strike would make the mullahs more popular. I wish mere airstrikes could set back Iran's nuclear program, but given our intelligence blunders in bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan, the Chinese embassy in Serbia, and non-existent chemical weapons depots in Iraq, I don't share Podhoretz's confidence. I didn't share his confidence about Iraq either, but I wasn't privy to his "smoking-gun" information implicating Iraq in 9/11 or his intelligence that bombing Iraq would somehow lead to the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy.

Unfortunately for Podhoretz, and maybe for the rest of us as well, crying wolf dissipates fervor for going after real wolves.