Iraq and Iran and consensus

When you read what our nation's leaders have been saying about Iran's continuing effort to develop nuclear weapons, you have to think there is a pretty good chance that our war in Iraq could soon shift east to Tehran.

Here is a sampling:

-"Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse."

-"A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies."

-"We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons,"

-"The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike."

No one likes the prospect of another front in the war on terror, but Iran has thumbed its nose at the international community and insisted on the right to carry out its nuclear program without oversight, which means ensuring the opportunity to create enriched uranium for use in nuclear bombs.

And an Iran with the capacity to deliver nuclear bombs through either its missiles or its terrorist friends is enough to make even the most devout atheist wake up with visions of Armageddon dancing through his head.

So it's easy to see why President Bush might be considering a military option against Iran.

Nonetheless, in order to expand the war on terror to yet another country, the president would need a national consensus, wouldn't he? And getting the Democratic Party to support military action against Iran would be impossible, wouldn't it?

Maybe not.

You see, all those quotes at the beginning of this column are not from members of the Bush administration as you might have suspected, but from Democratic sources.

The attribution for the four quotes is as follows: Sen. Barack Obama, D.-Ill.; the national platform of the Democratic Party in 2004; Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the party's presidential candidate in 2004.

So it's obvious that there already is an emerging consensus about the necessity for action if Iran turns belligerent.

The problem, of course, will be maintaining national unity if such a war goes from theoretical to actual. We all saw what happened when President Bush took our country to war against Iraq. Almost everyone, including most Democratic leaders, was on the record supporting the invasion as an appropriate response to Saddam Hussein's stonewalling tactics as the world tried to find out about his weaponry programs.

But then a few days after we were in Baghdad, the united front collapsed and Democrats started looking for political opportunities in the chaos of battle. They even had the audacity to claim they were misled into war, even though Democrats like Kerry, Clinton (senator and ex-president both) and Sen. Joe Biden were among the biggest supporters of taking out Saddam.

Could that happen again?

Probably not, and here's why.

You probably recall many of President Bush's critics complaining that the war in Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." A lot of them went so far as to say that the war was just about oil, not about terrorism or security. Why, they asked, didn't we fight even more dangerous countries such as Iran and North Korea - countries that already had or were developing nuclear technology?

The implication was that as long as there was a real threat to world peace and national security, such as a nuclear Iran, then Democrats would be happy to join the fight.

Well, Kerry, Clinton and the gang may just get their wish for a "just" war.

Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken the gloves off. No more Mr. Nice Iran! This guy went to the Osama bin Laden School of Charm and Bombmaking, and he is clearly looking for an invitation to be Saddam's dance partner the next time the band strikes up the "Paranoia Polka."

For instance, in October, Ahmadinejad declared that the state of Israel should be "wiped off the map." He later revised that statement somewhat to allow that he could support relocation of Israel to somewhere in Eastern Europe, where (by the way) he also doesn't think a Holocaust ever took place.

In addition, he has announced that, "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny … a historic war between the oppressor [Christians] and the world of Islam" and he has said that he is awaiting the return of the messianic Shiite "Twelfth Imam" to rescue the world from "terrible and unprecedented calamities and misfortunes" (remember Armageddon?) and to establish Islam throughout the world.

The fact that this man rules a large and powerful country is worrisome in itself, but not unique. We certainly can't fight wars with all the irrational loudmouths who run countries. But what makes the chance of war with Iran more likely is the combination of Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric with a nascent nuclear weapons program (remember the bombmaking school?) that has the capacity to not just inflame but to incinerate.

So as the war in Iraq winds down and the Iraqis go about their business of setting up a constitutional democracy, the war on terror may very well have to turn its sights to Iran. After all, a world where rogue nations possess atomic weapons is a world with no security at all.

Who knows? If such a "just" war becomes necessary, perhaps the United States could even count on support from its allies.

Surely, with Iran arming missiles to destroy Israel and concealing nuclear reactors in hardened bunkers, the civilized world would have to come together in one united front to demand that Ahmadinejad and his cleric cronies give up their bombs or become the victims of ours.

Don't believe it?

Well, we started with quotes from Democrats, so let's end with a quote from a Frenchman:

"Everyone recognizes that Iran … [has] a right to peacefully use nuclear energy. But it is imperative for the international community to ensure that the commitments reached for everyone's security are respected. [The Iranians] would be committing a grave error if they do not grasp the hand that we are extending to them." -Jacques Chirac, president of France.

Considering the stakes, Germany, France, the Soviet Union and other countries may very well join with us and Great Britain to build an international coalition to prevent Iran from following through on its nuclear threats.

Heck, if the Democrats and Republicans can come together to agree to use America's military might in defense of our national security, then anything is possible, right?