It is an old cliche, the argument against compromise. Someone wants to rob you, you don't want to be robbed, so you compromise on giving him half of your possessions. It is and is not true. In some cases compromise is possible, even with the outright evil. For example, our support of Iraq against Iran at the time was a viable compromise. We knew of the evils of Iraq, but Iran was a bigger threat, and so tolerating Iraq, made sense. In fact, playing both sides made even more sense, as neither was as bad as the Soviets, and by keeping both embroiled in war with one another, we prevented any serious Soviet expansion in the area.

But negotiating with Iran today does not make sense. At the moment Iran is the top threat. And they are clear that we are their target. This truly is a case of compromising with a murderer. He wants to kill us Tuesday, we want to live, we compromise on him killing us a week from Friday.

I know the left has limitless faith in the power of talk, but in this case it just isn't going to work. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and any talks will just be used to keep us from acting while they pursue that goal. They might even agree to some sort of toothless inspection regime if they feel they can circumvent it easily enough, and Iraq has shown how truly toothless inspection can be in even a crippled, defeated power, much less a strong nation.

Nor will we be able to reach a Soviet style policy of mutually assured destruction. Not just for the reason usually cited, that religious fanatics are prone to suicidal actions. Even if we discount that and imagine the Iranians are unwilling to die,t hey still have something the Soviets did not, strong ties to terrorists, as well as the ability to deny their guilt. Should terrorists detonate a device in Tel Aviv or Washington, it could have come from Iran, but it could also have been obtained by terrorists from North Korea, or maybe rogue Pakistanis. There is no way we could retaliate against Iran without proof, and they would be sure no such proof existed. There are simply too many terrorist groups and too many rogue sources of nuclear weapons. They know they can deny their guilt and we will not be able to prove to "world opinion", which is almost uniformly anti-US, that Iran is to blame.

All of which means we will gain nothing by negotiating with Iran.

So, what to do?

Well, we should have struck already. There is a massive discontented body of people in Iran who could be induced to revolt with just minor support. A small cadre of trainers, some special forces support, some weapons and promises of recognition for any interim government, and we could likely see the fall of the ayatollahs without any major US military action. We should have started this already, but Democratic obstructionism sapped Bush's nerve.

Barring that, we should make it clear to Iran and Syria that we are next door to them for the duration, and that we are one angry neighbor. Rather than talk of leaving when the Iraqis are ready¹, we should start talks with the Iraqi government about leasing large permanent bases in Iraq, if only to terrify Iran. Perhaps we should also make clear that a responsible nation would open up its "civilian" nuclear program for international inspections, and that unfriendly nations often get invaded without notice. Or perhaps we should remind them of all the natural gas in their nation and suggest that nuclear power may be the wrong approach altogether.

In short, we should do everything that the Democrats us accuse of doing. We should be a bully, prove we are the toughest kid on the block. It sounds horrible to some, but it is also the only thing some nations respect. There is a lot of history which shows how nice nations, unless perched on inaccessible mountains or remote islands, tend to get stomped on by their neighbors. We lack the natural defenses of Venice or Switzerland, and technology has made our ocean barrier meaningless (and even Venice maintained spies everywhere to protect their interests). We need to make sure that nations fear getting on our bad side, as anything less will only guarantee that hostile regimes and terrorists will continue to test our resolve.

It is not nice, it is not PC, but it is the truth. When you are the target of terrorists, and are living in a world with rogue regimes plotting to expand their influence, you must sometimes take actions which upset the world. Sometimes we need to put our own interests above the goal of being everyone's friend.

But that is the Democrats' proposal. That we talk, that we make friends, that we back off and let the world go its own way. Watch North Korea exert its influence over the South, and traffic weapons to the highest bidder. Watch China take Taiwan and expand into Southeast Asia. Watch Iran gain influence over Iraq, Afghanistan, probably the whole Middle East. Watch Israel slowly sink beneath the weight of terrorists funded by Syria and Iran. Watch Chavez export the revolution to South America, Central America and the Caribbean. And watch Putin, or his puppet, try to restore Russia to its former glory, and old borders. All while doing nothing more decisive than offering objection in the UN, if that.

That is the world the Democrats are offering for the next four years, or more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For those who complain and ask how long we are going to "occupy" Iraq, I would ask when we are going to stop "occupying" Japan and Germany? Or when those troops that were going to leave Bosnia by Christmas are going to come home? Why is it so urgent we need to end this one deployment when we have troops deployed all over the world in regions where the mission is long since complete?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I just noticed this is the second post in two days to mention Venice. Normally that would indicate that I am reading a book on the subject, but in this case I can't explain it. I read a history of Venice well over a year ago, and the only other book on Italy I have read more recent is Runciman's Sicilian Vespers, and that was many months ago as well. So I have no idea why Venice has appeared twice, except that it provided  ideal examples of both a hugely complex, yet effective, electoral scheme, and an ostensibly peaceful nation protected by physical barriers (and supplemented with espionage, negotiations and bribes).