One down, two to go in the Axis of Evil. Although it's a Reuters report (and thereby a bit suspect), it still makes an interesting read: the US is accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons. The tone of the article is probably meant to be critical of the US, in the true Reuters style. (Either that or I am becoming paranoid about Reuters coverage). It's full of references of how the US used allegations of WMD programs in Iraq for the war there to depose Saddam. In Reuters-speak, this is no doubt a Horrible Thing, but in this instance they're doing us a favor. Turning up the pressure on mullahs is just what the doctor ordered, and the Reuters dispatch is doing just that.

The ultimate goal is the removal of despotic leadership in Iran, and this may not require a war as it did in Iraq. The mullahs do not have as firm a grip on the country as Saddam had, and the rumblings of discontent have been going for many years. It looks as though the Iranian people will be able to overthrow the mullahs on their own without direct intervention from the US. It's a process that's almost impossible to manage or direct from abroad, but it would be wrong to interfere too much at this stage.

An Iraq-style invasion is a costly thing to do. In Iraq's case, it was a relatively simple matter; taking on Iran in direct military confrontation would likely be less simple. Not that the final outcome would be in doubt there either, as the Iranian people are fed up with the mullahs and the Iranian armed forces are about as effective as the Iraqis. The sheer size of the country would make things more complicated though. It can be done, and will be done if necessary, but the hope is that it will not become necessary.

If a hammer is your only tool, you tend to see all problems as though they were nails. In Iraq, the hammer worked fine, but other parts of the toolkit will be brought to bear in Iran. (One of the criticisms of Bush is that he's a war monger, invading Iraq, but that he's inconsistent in not invading North Korea and Iran; i.e. being too bellicose and not bellicose enough at the same time. But Bush knows he has more tools than just a hammer at his disposal.) Turning up the pressure externally on the theocratic thugocracy in Iran is one these tools.

No option is without its drawbacks though. Doing nothing means capitulating to the Islamofascists and inviting them to have another shot at us. That's clearly not an acceptable solution, and would leave the Iranian people in the lurch. Invading Iran to remove the leadership would work, but it would take time and a considerable amount of military power, and cause civilian casualties. But the current course of turning up the pressure on the mullahs is not without cost either. Part of the calculation is that the pressure will cause the mullahs to feel more nervous and encourage opposition within Iran. The downside there is that there will be more repression in the short term, a price that will have to be paid by the people of Iran. The increased repression will lead to increased resistance and opposition to the regime, improving the chances of an overthrow of the mullahs. This calculation works in Iran because the mullahs had not gone as far as Saddam (or Kim Jong Il) in terrorizing their own people. It's a cold-hearted calculation to make, but there is no alternative in the short-term. This is one of those situations in which there is no neat, tidy answer, just a messy one. All we can do is to try to make as it mess-free as possible, and hope for a quick end to the theocracy in Iran. But at least in that we're on the same wavelength as the people of Iran.