With the situation in Iraq coming under control, it’s well past time to begin to consider our next target: Iran.  North Korea, for all of its threats, remains relatively contained by the combination of South Korea, Japan, and China.  Additionally, North Korea already has nuclear weapons, whereas Iran is merely closing in on them.  However, we have more reasons for war with Iran than its rapidly-advancing nuclear program.
 
Iran is sheltering al-Qaeda and, by most accounts, has been doing so for quite some time.  At this very moment, Saad Bin Laden, Osama’s eldest son and a senior member of the terror network, is in the country.  So are many other senior leaders of the group.  The 9-11 Commission is even set to report that, in the year prior to 9-11, eight to ten of the 9-11 hijackers were allowed to pass through Iran and that, after the bombing of the USS Cole, that nation offered to form an alliance with al-Qaeda in order to attack America.   
 
Worse still (and largely unknown to the American people), Iran is one of the prime movers behind the “insurgency” which has caused the United States so much trouble in Iraq.  Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric who caused the Coalition so much trouble, is an Iranian stooge.  Various other radical Shiite groups have been aided by Iran.  In short, Iran has American blood on its hands.
 
The Iranians are getting uppity.  They think (possibly correctly) that once they get nuclear weapons the West will be unwilling to challenge them.  Perhaps even they think that we are already too frightened to do anything about their flagrant support for terrorism.  The recent seizure of eight British sailors was quite clearly a test on the part of the regime.  A nuclear Iran will begin making demands of the West very quickly and the more craven of our leaders, as we have already seen, will be inclined to grant them.  If the Phillipines can be persuaded to withdraw from Iraq by the threat of a single beheading (and the Spaniards by one bombing), how do you think the limp-wristed democracies will respond to the actual live threat of nuclear terror?  Faced with an Iranian bomb, chances are the Democratic Party will finally come to support a policy of pre-emption.  Pre-emptive surrender, that is.
 
So what, then, is to be done?  Frankly, an invasion of Iran is probably out of the question for the time being.  To do so would require the full mobilization of the reserves and the National Guard, a step which would denude the rest of the world of American troops and leave the United States unable to respond to challenges which might arise elsewhere.  This does not mean, however, that the United States is incapable of action short of an invasion.
 
We would do well to recall that the real rulers of Iran are not its puppet Parliament and President.  The Ayatollahs still run the country and, upon the whole, they are hated by the people.  Massive protests against the regime have been stopped only with the use of extreme force.  The moment the first American bomb falls upon Iran, you’re going to have massive civil unrest in that country.  I’m not saying that the people will overthrow their oppressors overnight.  However, with the right sort of incentive they just might.
 
What’s needed is something like this.  Park two or three heavy divisions somewhere near Iraq’s border with Iran (just in case Iran tries to respond to any attack with an incursion into Iraq) and then use the US Air Force and Navy to hammer every Iranian target of any worth while, at the same time, US Special Forces move about the country distributing cash and weapons.  If necessary, send the Corps in Eastern Iraq across the border into Iran in order to secure Iraq against rocket attack and the like.  Do not advance into the heart of Iran, however.  Let the Iranian Army come and meet the United States Army and Marine Corps in fortified positions. 
 
Sink the entire Iranian Navy and blow up every other site of military significance.  After the first few days of heavy fighting the Iranian Air Force will be effectively destroyed and the United States ought to possess near-total air supremacy over the entire nation.  Commence heavy bombing and keep it up for weeks or even, if necessary, months.  Specifically target clerics and other leaders of the regime for assassination.  Simply keep up the pressure until the regime cracks up. 
 
Iran must be dealt with.  It is the central point of this War on Terrorism.  While many nations sponsor our enemies, virtually all of them are tied in one way or another to Iran.  Al-Qaeda?  Yep.  Hezbollah?  Uh-huh.  Hamas?  Sure thing.  Deal a devastating blow to Iran and you will hurt the terrorists very badly by removing their leading patron. 
 
Time is of the essence.  The clock is ticking on the Iranian nuclear program.  Remember this: while some of our intelligence about Iraq may have been flawed, our intelligence services are far more inclined to under-estimate our enemies than they are to over-estimate them.  Their failure in Iraq was largely the result of a very successful Iraqi program of strategic deception and, in all probability, extremely effective concealment.
 
Until the Libyans handed the materials over to us, we had no idea that they had anything more than a small program in the earliest stage.  It turned out that they were probably no more than a year or so from finished weapons.  This is an intelligence failure which ought to be considered far more alarming than that in Iraq.  After all, we’re far more likely to be hurt by underestimation than overestimation.  In one case, a dangerous regime turned out to be (perhaps) slightly less dangerous than thought.  In the other a seemingly benign regime turned out to be a deadly threat of which we were almost totally unaware.
 
To me the lessons of the aftermath of the intelligence failures in regard to both 9-11 and Iraq are perfectly clear.  First of all, intelligence is unreliable and cannot be reasonably expected to predict the unpredictable.  Second, that it’s far better to act against perceived threats than it is to await them.  We forget this now, but with a little more luck on September 11th it’s entirely possible that al-Qaeda could have killed many more people.  But for a few brave passengers, there’s a good chance that the Capitol would have been destroyed.  With slightly different timing and different impact points, it’s entirely possible that the death count in New York City could have been many thousands (or even tens of thousands) higher. 
 
There is no guaranteed way to stop terror, but there is one way to guarantee that it will come: to sit idle and await the next blow.  Our only option is to continue to take this fight to the enemy, wherever we might find him and however hard it may be.