I found this related post by Tigerhawk on the sidebar at Michelle Malkin’s and thought it was a an interesting analysis:

Doves — virtually all of whom have opposed the Petraeus strategy in Iraq — usually argue that even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons and destabilizing its neighbors, it can be contained and deterred. Maybe. It depends how much the leadership craves martyrdom. But if the mullahs can be contained and deterred, does it not seem likely that the successful resurrection of the Iraqi army — only possible because of the American “surge” — will be an essential part of that strategy?

Also, I find it interesting that when Iran’s government started sabre-rattling about nuclear weapons, the Left and the Democrat Party were all very critical of the Bush Administration, stating that we should have gone after Iran, not Iraq after Afghanistan. However, now that we are thinking of holding Iran accountable, they are all backing down and saying we shouldn’t DARE think of attacking Iran.

Just goes to show that the Left does not take positions on foreign policy on principle, but rather due to partisan politics. Pretty pathetic.

Plus, I bet they never thought that going into Afghanistan and Iraq were setting the stage for pressuring Iran by surrounding it. Ironically, our war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan may have been determined to work as containment without war against Iran. Granted, this didn’t really work, since Iran didn’t act like Libya and get scared by the show of America’s military might. Granted, Libya caved prior to the Democrat Party, the Left and the mass media all giving aid and comfort to our enemies in opposing our war efforts and making sure all our enemies knew they would not allow America to hold them to account.

Michael in MI on November 24, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Also see some additional reading here: Iran News Roundup

Michael in MI on November 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM