japan is another issue, and i suppose the best example to answer your question … going in with atomic weapons and wiping out a quarter million people in two brief swipes can ensure a defeated populace will be amenable to whatever terms the victor outlines. note, though, hiroshima and nagasaki were the final efforts to end a protracted war, not a preemptive move to democratize a country out of the blue.

the bottom line is, historically, political change is most meaningful and most viable when developed from within rather than imposed from without.

hence, and i reiterate, saber-rattling and posturing will not do much to effect positive steps towards a more democratic iran.

“going in with a preemptive military strike, forcing ‘regime change’ …”

Italy, Germany and Japan might disagree with you on that point.

iran has the best chance to build a long-lasting democracy because of its youth, its high educational attainment, and its relatively diversified economy (though, the non-traded sector is still underdeveloped due to reliance on oil).

but democracy isn’t built by going in militarily and forcing “regime change” … it has to come internally … saber-rattling doesn’t work, either … information dissemination, education, diplomacy … those are effective tools … so are covert activities …

think mossadegh … the u.s. successfully made iran what it is today via a cia-orchestrated coup … utilizing some of those tools to rail against the theocracy might be in order …

i think we should think about iran’s move toward freedom as similar to poland’s story … i understand the obvious differences, and i understand the violence delivered by the mullahs is very real … but i also see the potential for a charismatic leader to arise … and why not a nobel-peace-prize winner, even if she is a woman …