perle tells bush not to go wobbly

Archneocon and sucker at the federal tit Richard Perle asks the question, Why did Bush go wobbly on Iran and back off the imminent-attack rhetoric? The answer? Because Condi Rice, her effete cookie-pushers at the State Department, and those soft-headed Europeans prefer negotiation.

Perle asks why de facto President Bush backed off his statement early on that while he was in charge, "the worst weapons will not fall into the worst hands". Perle is clearly chomping for war against Iran. But there is another country much farther along the nuclear war that Perle conspicuously doesn't mention -- North Korea. Kim Jong Il is demonstrably loonier and more dangerous that Ahmadinejad, but Perle doesn't advocate war against the North Koreans.

Perle tries to flatter Bush into war against Iran, talking about his "soaring speeches" advocating freedom for Iranians and comparing W. to Ronald Reagan.

Perle is right on one thing -- Iran is a nation of young people, many of whom strongly dislike the rule of the mullahs, and would love to see a more liberal, more democratic government in Iran. Supporting those aspirations is fine. And to support them, we should TALK TO IRAN.

Remember in the 1980s there was another regime that featured rule by a self-selected elite, a regime that was also pursuing nuclear weapons illegally, a regime that locked up political opponents. It was South Africa. Back in the 1980s, Perle and the Reagan administration (and Thatcher in Britain) advocated engagement with the apartheid regime as a way to bring about change, rather than isolating the South Africans completely. In hindsight, that policy was helpful.

Iranians want to be closer to the US. Talking to the regime will only strengthen our position there. In contrast, there is nothing we could do to better solidify support for the regime (and for REAL international terrorism, not the anti-occupation insurgency in Iraq that the de facto adminstration calls terrorism) of the mullahs than attack Iran.