[...]Needless to say (or maybe not; my calls for political support for democracy have been systematically distorted by slanderous critics into advocacy of all-out military assault), this urgency does not translate into a military campaign. We certainly believe that nuclear deterrence works, as it did throughout the Cold War, and as it has, at least thus far, in the India/Pakistan confrontation. Those of us advocating support for the democratic opposition in Iran have insisted that no military power need be used against the mullahcracy. We should do the same for the Iranians as we did for the Philippinos against Marcos, the Yugoslavs against Milosevic, and the Czechs, Hungarians, and Poles against the Soviet Empire.

Nuclear weapons may protect the mullahs against an invasion, but they will not protect the Islamic Republic against their own people, which is the greatest threat to their tyrannical rule. Paradoxically, the more we believe that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough, the more we should be inclined to act in accordance with President Bush's oft-repeated (most recently last week in South Carolina) message that the United States supports the Iranian people's desire to be free.

To be sure, many of our finest Iran-watchers, including the great Bernard Lewis, believe that any future Iranian government, even a democratic one, is likely to continue the nuclear program. That may be true, although we should remember that once South Africa became a democracy it abandoned nuclear weapons. But even if it is true, a democratic Iran will not be inclined to commit hara-kiri by launching a nuclear first strike against Israel, nor will it likely brandish its bombs against the United States.

The Iranian people have shown themselves to be the most pro-American population in the Muslim world, but the Iranian regime is arguably the most anti-American on earth. Let's support the people, and help them bag the regime.[...]