A long, but must-read piece, particularly for the White House, which seems to be going wobbly (I have to say that I've been extremely unimpressed with Dr. Rice for the last few months).

President Bush set out a series of policy changes from the weeks after 9/11 to his second Inaugural in 2005. Threats would be confronted before they arrive, the sponsors of terror would be held equally accountable for terrorist murders and America would promote democracy as an alternative to Islamic fascism, the exploitation of religion to impose a violent political utopia. Every element of the Bush doctrine was directed toward a vision: a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it.

That vision has been tested on nearly every front, by Katyusha rockets in Haifa, car bombs in Baghdad and a crackdown on dissent in Cairo. Condoleezza Rice calls this the "birth pangs" of a new Middle East, and it is a complicated birth. As this violent global conflict proceeds, and its length and costs become more obvious, Americans should keep a few things in mind.

First, the nation may be tired, but history doesn't care. It is not fair that the challenge of Iran is rising with Iraq, bloody and unresolved. But, as President Kennedy used to say, "Life is not fair."

...In foreign-policy circles, it is sometimes claimed that past nuclear proliferation—say, to India or Pakistan—has been less destabilizing than predicted. In the case of Iran, this is wishful thinking. A nuclear Iran would mean a nuclear Middle East, as traditional rivals like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey feel pressured to join the club, giving every regional conflict nuclear overtones. A nuclear Iran would also give terrorist groups something they have previously lacked and desperately want: a great-power sponsor. Over time, this is the surest way to put catastrophic technology into the hands of a murderous few. All options have dangers and drawbacks. But inaction might bring the harshest verdict of history: they knew much, and they did nothing.

Bill Quick has further thoughts.

There is another, entirely reasonable, approach to dealing with the islamic problem that is proposed by Steve Sailor. His approach is at Vdare at(www.vdare.com/sailer/060813_disconnect.htm).

Any comments or suggestions?

We didn't seek the fight with Islam, they did. In this country of free speech, Islamic leaders by and large do not speak out against Islamic terrorism. One Muslim man recently tried to hold a rally against it, but could only get his immediate family to attend. Meanwhile CAIR operates in this country with impunity.

Two issues must be addressed head on. The first is that Islamic institutions must assimilate our democratic ideals or be shut down, and non-citizens expelled from the country. We would not countenance local NAZI party offices in the US during WWII, and we should tolerate equivalents now.

Secondly, we must count the costs. Hizbollah, Al Quaida, etc., are largely proxies of Iran and Saudi Arabia, but Iran is Russia and China's proxy. We never were in a unipolar world when the Berlin Wall fell. These two historic enemies are still active world powers, and are still striving to remove the USA as a world power. When we confront Iran, either by choice or necessity, we will find ourselves facing Russia and China as well. If we fail to see and prepare for that we will lose.

Kurt, I agree with much of that article, except that while the Soviets are dead and their satellites spun off, the KGB still runs Russia more and more each year, and they are very involved in the Middle East. China is too.

I feel unfortunately like a warmonger, but it seems to me we simply cannot let Iran have nuclear capability, and we need to do whatever is necessary to stop them. Iran having nuclear weapons would make it too easy for terrorists to get a hold of a nuclear bomb and it would make Iran too immune to containment. What will we do if a nuclear bomb is set off in Denver by terrorists, and we know that the weapon came from Iran, even though they deny it? What will we do when Iran invades Iraq (or Lebanon, or Israel), knowing they have nuclear weapons and won't hesitate to use them?

Would it be possible to militarily destroy their nuclear capability (and perhaps most of their leadership structure) and not even try to occupy Iran? I thought invading Iraq was a good idea at the time, and I still think it's good that we are there now, but starting another "nation building" scenario like Iraq doesn't seem plausible. But we can't let them have Nukes either.

I feel unfortunately like a warmonger, but it seems to me we simply cannot let Iran have nuclear capability, and we need to do whatever is necessary to stop them.

Then we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. It's that simple.

The same argument holds for Iraq as well.

Then we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. It's that simple.

Mike Johnson, king of the non sequitur.

Yeah, too bad we didn't follow Mike's advice, we could have used Shangri-La as a military base for dealing with Iran, since it shares a land border with Iran and Iraq doesn't...