We don’t have the luxury of sitting on our hands in the next election. We don’t have the luxury of punishing slack Republican legislators on the theory that this will somehow produce a tougher conservative line in 2008. We don’t have the luxury of all this because a nuclear Iran is bearing down on the United States, while our country stands paralyzed by its own divisions. You can blame Iraq if you like. I blame the Democrats’ Vietnam syndrome. But no matter who you blame, the sad fact of the matter is, the president’s hands are tied. The president cannot confront Iran with a credible threat of force, much less actually strike it, without greater domestic support.

A slight Republican win in the next election, or even a draw, would greatly strengthen the president’s hands in dealing with Iran. Not only would a successful election change the dynamics of our international confrontation, a Republican-controlled congress would allow for an even stronger line down the road, after America finally faces up to the reality of the threat. On the other hand, a Democratic victory now would effectively take the option of force against Iran off the table. Yet a credible threat of force is actually our only hope for settling this matter short of war.

Has Iran blocked the IAEA inspectors, thereby forcing us to take pre-emptive action? That’s what Mario Loyala argued yesterday in “Point of No Return in the Iran Nuclear Crisis…?”

Well, Mario, your logic is powerful (and your article in the latest National Review print edition is excellent), but I’m afraid the politics of the moment simply will not support your favored policy. This is a disaster for the United States. We are indeed in grave danger. And there is only one way to change things.

Politics is the answer. Politics constrains us, and politics alone will free us. The Republicans must not lose this election. Don’t mope and tell me you’re sitting on your hands at home instead of voting. There is no excuse. The only good news right now is that we have in our hands the power to protect ourselves. The voting booth is the answer. No, I am not saying Democrats are all unpatriotic pacifists (although, unfortunately, a number of them are). There are genuine policy differences here. The Democrats are far more likely to favor unverifiable grand bargains, and the need for U.N. approval. They are far less likely to approve of pre-emptive military action by a U.S. led “coalition of the willing.” So a Democratic victory will tell Iran that nothing of consequence stands between it and the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Unless something changes, Iran is going to get the bomb. In the current issue of National Review, Paul Johnson argues that, as soon as Iran manufactures nuclear weapons, it will surely use them against Israel, while handing others to terrorists for use against American cities. But don’t believe NR. Consider instead what a Democrat-leaning policy journal has to say. In an important article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Scott Sagan argues that Cold War-style deterrence won’t work with Iran. According to Sagan, the most radical element in Iran–the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps–is likely to get a hold of nuclear materials and give them to terrorists, whatever Iran’s central government wants. That’s because the Revolutionary Guards will likely have physical control over the weapons, and has enough independence from the government to distribute them to terrorists on its own.

Sagan’s solution? Believe it or not, Sagan sees the Clinton administration’s Agreed Framework with North Korea as the model for dealing with Iran. Sagan (partially) blames the U.S. for the breakdown of the Korean agreement. He (barely) acknowledges that the North Koreans broke the Agreed Framework. Sagan even concedes that the Iranians would follow the North Koreans in trying to break any negotiated agreement. I think it’s worse than that. The Iranians have a proven policy of regional destabilization and adventurism, and would likely move far more quickly than the North Koreans have against neighboring countries (not just Israel), under the shelter of their nuclear weapons. Still, Clinton’s Agreed Framework is Sagan’s model for a solution to the Iran crisis. And if the Democrats take control of congress, folks who agree with Sagan will solidify their effective check on any effort by the president to face down Iran.

So let’s review. A nuclear Iran is likely to give or lend nuclear weapons to terrorists, resulting in an undeterrable nuclear strike against an American city or cities. Only a credible threat of force can compel Iran to halt its nuclear program, or actually destroy that program, if necessary. In current political circumstances, we lack a credible threat of force. A Democratic victory this fall will solidify that situation, leaving Iran to race to nuclear capability before 2009 when a new president–especially a possible Republican president with greater political capital–accedes to power.

So don’t sit there and mope. Get out and vote. Yes, we are paralyzed right now. However important it is to keep the option of a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities on the table, America’s internal political conflict has taken it off the table. Accounts from both the left and right say we face a nuclear-armed Iran that cannot be deterred on the model of the Cold War. Either we get out and vote, or we’re left to face down this menace with both hands tied behind our back.