Roger L. Simon

Time Out of War - The Question is Iran

Mickey Kaus explains, in response to Austin Bay and others, what he meant by taking a time out of war:

The idea is to win in Iraq and Afghanistan but stop and think calmly when it comes to what the next step should be–without automatically declaring both conflicts mere parts of a titanic lifetime global conflict, an announcement that carries the risk of self-fulfillment. If this is a war unlike other wars, the World War II analogies don’t apply in every respect. It might be a war we win by being less grandiose, righteous and excited for a period–especially if we’re already accomplishing what we want to accomplish in Iraq (i.e., giving democracy root in the Arab Middle East). …

I see what Mickey is saying and it is a sensible position, but it leaves out the most important piece in the jigsaw puzzle – Iran. Now before anyone thinks I am advocating invasion of that country, I am not! (sorry for the egregious use of bold face and exclam but we all know the time that gets wasted when you are endlessly misunderstood). But I do think the Mullahs are the central enemy (el enemigo principal, as we used to say in my marxist days) of freedom and democracy. Vastly more sophisticated than the Saudis, they will be even more dangerous and powerful when they have nuclear weapons (assuming they haven’t already).

The Mullahs are the principle supporters of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the rest and unfortunately they have been enabled for a generation by a cynical, gas-guzzling Europe. They must be confronted on all diplomatic and economic fronts. I am afraid Kerry will be like the Europeans in this, allowing the Mullahs to strengthen. And at a certain point, they reach the point of no return–a nuclear armed Iran with ICBMs. Am I an alarmist? Maybe, but read this if you haven’t already….

And, beyond our obvious self-interest, here’s a reminder of why we should care for the Iranian people.