I think it is also worth noting that the need to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions, given its overt hostility to the West and its unfailing support for various terror movements, would be altogether easier if our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were marginally successful, thus applying further pressure on Iran, and more localized positive reenforcement for a more secular and less hostile regime in the aftermath of any military actions we take there. One way or another, we will have to confront the impending Iranian nuclear threat and defeat it, or ultimately surrender our sovereignty and and that of the rest of the West, to Islam. It is patently, suicidal foolishness to think otherwise.

Yes, absolutely. I think we've done remarkably well in Afghanistan, and I think we are doing well in Iraq. But the perception is that we are doing poorly in Iraq, and that perception will constrain public opinion. It seems to me that it will be 12-18 months before we're so far along in Iraq that the progress in undeniable, and that will probably be the time to hit Iran if they have not backed down sooner. The problem, of course, is that we don't know if that's waiting too long from the standpoint of their nuclear program, and we do know that Iran and Syria are interfering in Iraq now.

Were I the President, I'd be seriously tempted to announce that since Syria and Iran are violating Iraq's borders to interfere in the war, the US will similarly refuse to use those borders as demarcation lines, and will attack any Iranian or Iraqi facilities, units or personnel interfering in Iraq, or supporting the terrorists or insurgents in Iraq. Further, if interference continued past that point, I would consider blockading Iran and possibly Syria. If they want to fight, let's fight. If we can't invade immediately, we can still hurt them quite badly.

You're on the right track, Jeff. The solutions to both the Iran and North Korea situation are similar. First, neighbors like Israel in the case of Iran and Japan in the case of NK need robust missile defense. We're not talking about defense against hundreds of missiles from the Soviet Union here. We're talking about defense against a half dozen or so missiles and that sounds doable to me.

Then we need to do serious interdiction and searching of departing naval and air traffic from both places. Blockade? Maybe not necessary. But we need to know that they're not exporting nuclear or missile technology.

Neither they nor our alleged allies will like the situation much but we have a distinct lack of non-violent alternatives and this is the least violent solution that I can come up with.

Dave, the idea behind a blockade was not to prevent nuclear export (they could do that overland through Pakistan or Russia), but to cripple the Iranian economy, making revolution more likely.

I do concur on the robust missile defense, and we should be prepared to provide it to our regional allies along with training and other support, if not for free than for a marginal cost.

Speaking of Syria, I have long been of the opinion that some selective US SpecOps incursions into the Bekaa Valley are long overdue. Not to mention the fact that a thorough cleansing there would probably do more than just about anything else to improve the security situation both in Iraq and Israel.

I would hazard a guess that Syria garners quite nearly as much commercial revenue through that Valley as it does any other venue. Disrupting the smugglers and heroin processors, and cut off the Syrian cash flow, not to mention the terrorist camps there, and Syria either falls in line as did Libya, or the boy optometrist heads to Geneva for a brand new, life-long prescription.