i'm not saying that blowing up the mullahs is necessarily the right answer. i understand that if the united states wants to win in iran, it's going to be a difficult process - and the chances are higher that it will lose. this will harm the united states, certainly.

but, i'm not an american. i don't really care if you win.

so, what i'm saying is that i'm not going to oppose a strike on iran in the same way that i opposed a strike on iraq. i was absolutely opposed to iraq - it was based on false pretexts, and it was not a smart move for anybody, except maybe the saudis. iran is really a different animal, and if a very specific kind of scenario plays out, it could be of a large benefit to real democracy in the region.

i mean, if there's a country in the region that we can build a real democracy in, that country is iran. and, if you really want stability, what you want in the region is actually democracy.

i nailed hitchens on iraq at the time, and i'd nail him again. but, his problem wasn't his logic; his arguments made sense. he just had very, very bad information. it's an open question whether he took all these wrong facts at face value disingenuously or not; you'd think he'd have been smart enough to work it through, so accusations of dishonesty are pretty relevant. but, if his facts weren't wrong, his argument would have been solid. i know; this is circuitous and awkward, but it's true, nonetheless.

the relevant facts to make a right choice will come out in the course of a debate, if we're lucky enough to get one. i may still oppose it, but my mind is not as made up now as it was in 2003.

http://www.socialismtoday.org/215/iran.html