Part of what’s keeping “the insurgency” going is an unending supply of free weapons from outside sources. There is now proof that Iran is engaging in its own Iran-Contra affair by manufacturing weapons directly for the use of Shiite militias in Iraq. Honestly, I should have suspected as much. How can you keep a guerrilla war on when you run out of ammo? Somebody has to supply. And if that supply is gone, the warfare has to cease. Or at least descend to a more manageable level.
Cox and Forkum are proponents of an all-out war with the entire region. They think we should invade Iran immediately. And frankly, they have good arguments for it. A lot of people think that if we had been serious about holding nations accountable for the terrorists they harbor, we would have invaded Iran instead of Iraq anyway, since they are the premier exporters of terrorism. We invaded Iraq instead because it was more politically expedient: Iraq was a terrorist supporter, plus it was run by a brutal dictator who was seeking weapons of mass destruction and was already at war with the United States. And you see how politically difficult it was to get ourselves in the war we have.
Cox and Forkum think that even now, lives could be saved by going to war directly with Iran, rather than letting delegates fight it out in the streets of Baghdad. I’m leery about the idea, and I’m sure you are too, mostly because the idea itself is repulsive, regardless of its merits. We don’t particularly like the war we’re in now, let alone want another one.
That said, I can see the value, in terms of saving lives, of a few selected air-strikes on weapons factories in Iran.