Iran Must Be Dealt With. Is the US (Or Anyone) Up To The Task?

I was debating a liberal friend of mine last night, while slogging through his beliefs in many conspiracy theories and abject hatred of George W. Bush, which makes cogent argument difficult at best, I realized that he actually made one good point. What are we going to do about Iran?

An article by Michael J. Hurd in Capitalism Magazine discusses this subject. While I still believe that we were justified to take out Sadaam Hussein, I wonder if doing so has resulted in a lack of focus in the general war on terror. We seem to be ignoring two other hotspots that need immediate and concentrated attention: Iran and North Korea.
______________________________________________________

Israel knows how to deal with terrorism better than the United States. Back in the early 1980's, Israel bombed one of Saddam Hussein's facilities known to be producing weapons of mass destruction; perhaps this is one reason the U.S. never found such weapons when invading the country 25 years later. It weakened Hussein beyond repair--not just the bombing, but the threat of another one down the road.

______________________________________________________

I definitely agree with his assessment. I think a premptive bombing of known nuclear sites in Iran is long overdue. Our goal should not be the impossible task of trying to destroy their entire program - it's too well hidden and scattered for that - but merely to deal them a setback and send a firm message that force can and will be used.
______________________________________________________

I reluctantly voted for the Bush Administration to return to office last year because I was worried about terrorism. I don't like that the Bush Administration weakens the separation between church and state, and I don't like that their domestic spending exceeds that of the Clinton Administration and rivals LBJ. I voted for Bush anyway, because of terrorism. What am I getting for my vote? The same kind of foreign policy I could have expected from a Democratic administration, with the added problem of being unable to do anything about Iraq. I don't regret my vote, because I did want to send a message to terrorists that I supported my government using military responses to known terrorist threats. But it doesn't look like this government, nor any to follow in the coming years, is going to really do anything about Iran or North Korea or any other dangerous terrorist training camp that the U.N. refers to as a "nation." At least, not until something really, really big happens.

______________________________________________________

I'm not as harsh a critic of the Bush administration as Mr. Hurd, though I do agree that it loves spending money as much as any democrat and is far too concerned about what is going on in my bedroom. Like Mr. Hurd I worry about what happens in 2009 after the next president is sworn in. Will we be able to continue this necessary fight against theofascism? Will we respond strongley when our security is threatened? I guess the only thing to do until then is hope Iraq gains some stability, and that the US and Europe are able to send a strong message to Iran that nuclear weapons will not part of its future arsenal - no matter what it takes to stop them. Cross your fingers (and toes).