More Iran rumblings

Updated The pathetically wacko Charles Krauthammer has turned his Project for a New American Century eyes on Iran. He said in his column for July 26:

Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons now being drawn from the 9-11 report is that Iran was the real threat. It had links to al-Qaida, allowed some of the 9-11 hijackers to transit through, and is today harboring al-Qaida leaders. The Iraq war critics have a new line of attack: We should have done Iran instead of Iraq.

Now, I don't recall hearing a single opponent of Gulf War II say that, that is, say that we should have invaded Iran, but little things like facts have never stopped the kooky Mr. K.

He argues that negotiating with Iran about its "illegal" nuclear program has been a colossal failure. But, he says,

[i]f nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the "Great Satan" will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive strike.

And a "revolution," he says, is not happening.

Which makes the question of pre-emptive attack all the more urgent. Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term.

So the choice is stark, clear, undeniable: Either we launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran or we'll see the terrorists offer "proof in a mushroom cloud," as Glorious Leader put it in pitching for war on Iraq. And who do you think will have the cojones to do that, huh? That pantywaist Kerry or Mr. "Bring-'em-on" Flightsuit? Who, hah? Who, you lefty wimps?

Weapons of mass destruction! Implacable enemies of the US! TER-ROR-ISTS!! Same arguments, new war.

And certainly we can't doubt Charlie-boy's analysis or predictions on such matters. After all, on October 30,2001, he isnsisted in print that the war on Afghanistan "is not going well." In February, 2003 he argued for the necessity of "the Americans to come ashore" in Iraq to "revolutionize the region," promising that in just 18 months Iraq could be completely "reconstituted" into a beacon for projecting American power and principles across a welcoming regional populace.

Now, at the time, I called that "more than a fantasy, it is hubris on a phenomenal scale." But I guess I have to eat my words, because just look at how well it's worked out! I'm sure an attack on another Muslim country will work out every bit as well.

Footnote: The BBC for July 27 says that

[t]he US has granted "protected status" under the Geneva Conventions to 3,800 members of an Iranian opposition group interned in Iraq. ...

The new status gives the militants access to the Red Cross and the United Nations refugee agency.

The group, called the People's Mujahideen, or Mujahideen-e Khalq, has been opposing the regime in Iran for more than two decades. After being pushed out of Iran, it set up shop in Iraq, from where it launched cross-border raids. After Gulf War II, they were disarmed and interred by US forces. Iraq wants them out and Iran wants them sent back, but human rights organizations oppose that because the returnees would face persecution - in fact they would likely be killed.

So the US, despite having labeled the People's Mujahideen a terrorist group, is "working with the Iraqi government and international organizations to find a solution." One that I'm prepared to bet will not involve either their return to Iran or some means of guaranteeing their continued disarmament.

Updated to include Krauthammer's description of the progress of the war on Afghanistan.