It will be lost unless Iran is confronted. My claim all along is that Iran is at war with the U.S., and the U.S. is silent / disengaged. Short of an all-out land war - which I oppose - there are many things that can be done, including the targeting of Sadr / Badr leaders, political pressure on Iran (the State Department roundly opposes the GWOT), the disarming of the various Shi’a factions, and the fomenting of an insurgency inside of Iran. There are the even tougher actions, such as air strikes against known insurgent training facilities, and the Newt Gingrich proposal of targeting ports. These actions would certainly be last compared to the relatively easier actions of fomenting an insurgency in order to topple the regime (it’s already there is seed form anyway among Kurds in Iran and others). I don’t see it as possible that whatever regime comes in behind the radical Mullahs could be worse. I recommend Michael Ledeen’s book The Iranian Time Bomb.

If we decide that we do not have the political will fully to engage the GWOT, then let’s circle the wagons, close down the ports, and bring all troops home now, without so much as another drop of blood shed. Message: win it or get out!

I never said you supported the 1958 coup in Iran. I just mentioned it as an illustration of unintended consequences.

Near as I can tell, you favor some kind of bombing campaign inside Iran. Could you give me some more specifics?

For the record, I never said Iran’s armored units would make it into Iraq. Really what I’m concerned about is other unintended consequences. For example, several of our big allies in Iraq (SCIRI, Dawa) are aligned with Iran. If we bomb Iran, do we have to fight them, too? Are we then fighting elements of the Iraqi army?

Secondly … are there ways we can appeal to Iran’s rational self-interest? They don’t want chaos on their borders. They want to protect their co-religionists. They may have helped negotiate a partial cease fire over the weekend. (Note: I’m not giving them a lot of credit for good intentions).

There are a lot of unknowns in this scenario. Who knows? It might all work out fine, like you say. Personally, given the experiences of the last few years, I’m calling for restraint and diplomacy.

Next, I never said that the work to accomplish regime change in Iran last time was done well or for the right reasons or the right way. You don’t know my position on that because you never asked and I didn’t say. You’re just making that up.

Next, regarding reading. I suggest one for you: Michael Ledeen’s book “The Iranian Time Bomb.” In fact, like Ledeen, I oppose an all-out land war with Iran because I think it can be done simpler and easier. Since Iran is already at war with us, it would be prudent to reciprocate the favor. We won’t win the campaign in Iraq until and unless we do.

Finally, when I responded to Lind’s commentary, I never weighed in on whether to “escalate” the conflict, to use your words. I weighed in on one thing: whether Iran would be able to pull off the kind of thrashing Lind talks about. Conclusion? Lind is a dolt. You can side with him if you wish. Birds of a feather …

Last time we overthrew the government of Iran, in 1958, we ended up with the Ayatollah 20 years later. Pretty much every time we overthrow a government, we end up with something worse. Read some history and learn some lessons.

Look, Iran’s been living in a theocracy for 30 years. Large portions of the population are sick of it. Iranians have the best impression of Americans of anyone in the middle east.

What we need to do is contain Iran, then give the theocracy time to collapse on its own. That’s what we did with the Soviet Union.

The war on terror is a war of ideas, just like the Cold War was. The way we win is by sticking to our values and proving our way of life is better.

You guys also said Iraq and Afghanistan would be relatively easy. All things considered, I’m going to listen to William Lind.

If we get into a fight with Iran, we’ll have to be prepared to invade and occupy. We have to be prepared for attacks on the homeland. We have to be prepared for retaliation from other countries, like China. It’s not like Vietnam, when we could bomb a country and sit comfortably on our side of the ocean.

Dropping some bombs and hoping for the best is not a plan.

The U.S. wouldn’t be starting anything. Note what TCJ has advocated: responding to the already existent Iranian involvement in Iraq. Right? Understand? We are already at war with Iran, or more correctly, Iran is already at war with us (weapons, training, Badr [SIIC], Sadr, Quds, IRG).

As for the draft, I think that this is not necessary if the U.S. decides to get on a war footing and pay our warriors what they’re worth. Finally, you apparently didn’t read the commentary. This is typical for first-time readers reacting to something they read without viewing the entire context.

I didn’t say that the U.S. was going to or should send divisions into Iran. I oppose a land war with Iran for reasons too numerous to outline here. I said that any Iranian divisions sent into Iraq would die within a day if they tired a conventional land war with U.S. troops. Air power would end it within a day. This is still true despite your protests.

Finally, what I DID ADVOCATE in the commentary is the fomenting of an insurgency inside of Iran and regime change. This has been the position of TCJ since our inception.

Go back and study the commentary with this in mind. It was written off of Lind’s outlandish and ridiculous commentary, not a U.S.-initiated land war with Iran. Context is everything, so if you drop your own and adopt the one here it might help the article make more sense to you.

Sure the US military can win a straight-up fight with another army, but the scenario you’re talking about pits 150,000 guys against a whole country. Go rent Black Hawk Down if you don’t know what I mean.

We don’t have any troops for reinforcements if it comes to that. Are you willing to start up a draft, and maybe pay some taxes? Bush hasn’t seemed willing to ask for that kind of sacrifice so far.

That’s before we even get to the prospect of starting a world war right on top of the world’s oil supply. The Chinese would take away Bush’s credit card before he can threaten their oil. The US economy would crash before we got the first infantry division into Iran.

And what’s the point? If we decide we’re just going to declare war on the whole country, we’ve totally lost the idea of liberating and democratizing Iraq. Better to let the civil war burn itself out and save ourselves the blood and treasure.