Rex wrote:

To be provocative, I would even argue that there is an interesting parallel between Iran's support for Sadr and US support for the al-Anbar Salvation Council or cooperation with the 1920 Revolution Brigades: its all very "the enemy of my enemy is my friend (for now, at least)" stuff. In the case of Sadr, that marriage of convenience could go on for some time, perhaps as long as there are US forces in Iraq (and no doubt he's using the "look, the Americans are rearming the Ba'thists!" argument with Tehran).

With all due respect, this is being short sighted. Iran (leadership) cares nothing about Iran, and protecting their borders or thinking 'friends' and 'marriages' and so forth, short circuits the mindset of the Iranian leaders. You need to see the world through their glasses for a moment. The Mullah's want to export radical Shi'a ideology. If they see Sadr as a willing dupe or participant in such an endeavor, they will never jettison him as an ally. There is nothing temporal about Iranian designs, except that each move is seen as a stepping stone to the other in their world conquest. The very reason that Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus sang such different songs concerning Iran is one of presuppositions. Petraeus sees what Iran is doing. Crocker works for the State Department, who believes that Iran is simply a nation-state like any other nation-state -- problematic, but still a nation-state.

So what's the solution? Michael Ledeen hits the nail on the head. War would be ugly. Regime change through insurgency and revolution to topple the Mullahs is the best solution. I'm all for letting the fly boys do what they need to do if it comes to that, but if we believe that an air war with Iran wouldn't have disastrous consequences (worse Shi'a insurgency in Iraq, attacks on U.S. embassies around the world, price of crude oil skyrockets, U.S. and possibly world economy tanks as the markets crash, some pilots shot down and captured, tortured and paraded on TV, etc.), we are kidding ourselves. An air war with Iran would give some of the AF pilots a chance to test out the value of their SERE training. And an air war is in the planning stages:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

We are also kidding ourselves if we believe that the Mullahs can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Without regime change, all options are bad. Leaving things as is, I would also point out, does not comport with the warnings Petraeus gave to congress. Later, Brit Hume asked him if he had the latitude to do what he needed in Iraq, and he hedged, saying something to the extent that he had what he needed for Iraq, but outside Iraq was another issue.

We cannot behave as if Iran is not a problem. David Petraeus will not let us.

Don't listen to me. Listen to Petraeus.