How else to read these passages from their new editorial?
To designate the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist entity, then, is to acknowledge reality. Yet there is something decidedly unrealistic in the idea that the Revolutionary Guard can be separated from the Iranian government as a whole. [...] For a variety of reasons — economic interest, anti-Americanism, and reflexive pacifism chief among them — it would prefer to avoid any bad blood with the Islamic Republic. Most of the U.S. State Department feels likewise. But the simple truth is that, unless Iran’s regime gives up both its terrorist ideology and its weapons, we will never be safe. The president has taken an important — albeit partial and overdue — step toward facing that unpleasant reality.
I doubt Iran's regime is going to just abandon it's ideology if George Bush asks them too, so I guess this counts as a call for us to invade Iran, overthrow its regime, and install in its place one that's both more ideological acceptable and also prone to abandon the nuclear program that the Shah started and the Ayatollahs have continued. Strangely, though, the editorial doesn't actually say any of those things, continuing the weird pattern of dissembling and doublespeak that's characterized the Iran debate for years now. But if we can't be safe without regime change, then surely we should invade and change the regime, right?
| 
Heads in the Sand
I also liked this bit, equating the terrorist Revolutionary Guards and the State Department:
"For a variety of reasons — economic interest, anti-Americanism, and reflexive pacifism chief among them — it would prefer to avoid any bad blood with the Islamic Republic. Most of the U.S. State Department feels likewise."
So, if bombing Iran is too much for you, how about bombing Foggy Bottom? The NRO people are simply nuts.
Posted by Charlie Robb | August 20, 2007 11:45 AM