Iran, #1 foreign policy concern

Amir Taheri has written a good roundup of Iran-U.S. history and the current state of the conflict between America and the mullahs. His concluding paragraph:

With the mullahs determined to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, the stakes in this 25-year war are certain to rise. Regardless of who wins the U.S. presidential election, Iran is likely to emerge as the No. 1 foreign policy preoccupation in Washington next year.

I agree completely. I am alarmed that our presidential candidates and the majority of voters are largely ignoring this issue. When President Bush included Iran as a part of the Axis of evil, it wasn't a joke and it wasn't a mistake. In fact, recent events have shown Iran both more dangerous and more intractable to change than it appeared to many at the time. While President Bush hasn't made a big deal of Iran in recent months, possible to give the Europeans an open field in which to resolve the current nuclear crisis, we can from his past actions in other theaters and his previous words on the subject develop a pretty good picture of what Bush will do over the next year or two if he is re-elected. I expect him to continue to strongly condemn Iran, try and get support from international organizations, issue an ultimatum, and then, if all of those options have failed to cause serious behavioral changes on Iran's part to use military force. At this point, I cannot guess if the force will be precision raids or a general invasion. That will depend largely on two factors, one, the estimation of how effective precision strikes will be, and two the availability of the needed forces for an full invasion and regime change in Iran. As for Senator Kerry, it is very hard to say what he will do. I can with confidence say a few things though. Any ultimatum issued by John Kerry to Iran will have a greater likelihood of being ignored than the same ultimatum by President Bush. Bush has proved that he isn't bluffing when he says that sort of thing and that he is willing to bring it on. Kerry will have less credibility on that matter. Second, if military action against Iran does become in the best interest of the United States, Kerry will have a more difficult time pulling it off. If he is elected, it will be on the basis of him not being George Bush, rather than as a mandate for Kerry as he is. Further, a significant portion of his own party will likely oppose any war in the region. Lastly (and unfortunately in my mind) many Republicans will oppose him on partisan grounds. I fear that these factors may conspire to weaken Kerry's ability to respond to Iran effectively even if one gives him the benefit of the doubt on his personal abilities and motivations. If Senator Kerry were to speak out strongly on his perceptions and plans for Iran now that would lessen some of his weaknesses in this regard. The more he can make his policies and issues a part of the political campaign the more he will be viewed as a candidate in his own right rather than just a non-Bush. It will also probably lessen any partisan wrangling if the time comes to act if he has clearly stated his position in the past, rather than having it appear opportunistic.