It occurred to me after posting the above that Ledeen may be missing something important. During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan took substantial criticism from the Polish community in America, and from staunch anti-Communists, for giving little but give lip service to Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement. All the public saw at the time was Reagan asking people to "pray for Poland." Some resented all the money and military aid that went to Israel and to Nicaraguan freedom fighters while the Poles apparently got nothing but words and prayers. The administration said little in response to such criticisms.

Then, during the Clinton era, it was publicly revealed for the first time that the Reagan administration had, in fact, given Welesa and the Solidarity movement millions in cash, as well as radios, xerox machines, intelligence, and other assistance in their efforts to throw off the oppressive Communist regime of General Jaruzelski. Walesa later made it clear that his efforts to attain freedom for his people could never have happened without Ronald Reagan; the poles recently renamed one of the four main streets that surround the Belvedere (their version of the White House) after Reagan.

Point being, the State Department's silence does not necessarily indicate that we are doing nothing to help the resistance in Iran. In fact, it may be that the administration doesn't want to harm the resistance's chances of success by speaking out publicly. Ledeen isn't wrong to suggest that the resistors deserve support, but we should not assume no such support is forthcoming. Indeed, it may well already be in place.

This matches with a suspicion I've carried since last winter.

I must confess I was more than a tad concerned when the first few weeks after 9/11 passed with no apparent action. But that's the point: the action was _not_ apparent. In fact Dubya's administration seems to be as nimble as Bush Sr's showed itself to be upon occasion in the foreign sphere. Your revelation about Reagan & Poland are a pleasant surprise to me; perhaps Daddy Bush learned something at the Gipper's knee?

Anyway. For at least since (say) February the greek chorus has been that Bush's administration has flip-flopped back & forth about Israel/Palestine, Pakistan/India, etc, etc.

My postulate is this: Bush has been working very hard behind the scenes to set certain things up to ensure strategic success.

For example see my comments about Pakistan & India in my other post on the gang-rape article. I'm sure Musharraf would like to defuse the religious radicals in his country. That would be a good first step to establish a stable secular Islamic state as in Turkey.

Speaking of Turkey, that's a major stumbling block that most major commentators (read: most famous mainstream talking heads) have missed.
If Iraq crashes & burns, what about the Kurds? Oh, yes, they get to form their own state; self-determination and all that; wonderful stuff dontcher'know. But... What about Turkey? They have a significan Kurd minority too. And just what do you think _those_ Kurds will be thinking "The fall of Iraq" Day+1, hmmm?

Very tricky business, eh, whot?

I suspect the Turks will be even happier to see Saddam Hussein gone than the Saudis, whatever their Kurd issues. I would be surprised if their help in the coming conflict were not key.

tremendous site