Victor Davis Hanson’s piece today is a must read. He argues that a U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is “apparently inevitable.” He also thinks that despite the diplomatic, political, and military nightmares, it is necessary. I agree. None of the very bad consequences of a strike against Iran are as bad as Iran getting the bomb. Hanson’s piece is important for its analysis of our various options. But I fear he’s right that after the diplomatic options play out, there will be little choice left but to strike.

I’m not set in stone on this. I’d love to hear a convincing argument that strong economic sanctions will succeed in stopping Iran’s nuclear program. As of now, however, I can’t believe they will. In any case, this country hasn’t begun to debate the issue, and we need to.

As I recently pointed out the WMD issue was and remains the best and most important justification for the invasion of Iraq. Promoting democracy is critically important as a long-term goal, but even it does not compare to the urgency and importance of blocking nuclear proliferation in rogue states. Hanson notes that a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could provoke a Shiite revolt against the U.S. in Iraq. That would be very bad indeed. But even that is not as important as preventing Iran from getting the bomb.

And yes, I do blame much of our current dilemma on the dovish Democrats. If the country was now united behind the Iraq war, Iran would not be risking our ire on the nuclear issue. We lost 80,000 soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge. Of course, the loss of even one soldier is tragic. Yet history teaches that without a

willingness to defend ourselves, our democracy cannot survive. Now the loss of 2,000 troops has paralyzed us to the point that it is difficult imagining an attack to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes.

Hanson is right that this is an opportunity for the Democrats to shed their pacifist image. I would much rather see the Democrats lose the political disadvantage of their dovishness than see Iran get the bomb. What about The New Republic? What does TNR propose that we do about Iran? At a minimum it seems to me, Democrats need to stop carping and begin to make some tough demands on the international community.

We need loud calls from the Democrats for the toughest form of economic sanctions by the United Nations–an embargo on world-wide purchases of Iranian oil. And rhetorically, the Democrats need to focus their anger on Iran, not on president Bush. Again, I have my doubts that this will work. But if the Democrats were to energetically demand severe sanctions against Iran, the Iranians might think twice about American resolve. The best chance we have short of war is that the threat of war will scare the Iranians. By making a united call for the most severe sanctions (with an implicit “or else”), we just might be able to scare the Iranians into thinking we’re serious. But I fear that the Democrats will not come through, and that the Iranians won’t budge, even if the Democrats do.