Well, then, shouldn't those who want the American empire to collapse WANT us to attack Iran?

David Ignatius writes in the Washington Post:

The British historian Niall Ferguson argued in his book "The Pity of War" that Britain's decision to enter World War I was a gross error of judgment that cost that nation its empire.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, makes a similar argument about Iran. "I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world," he told me this week. "Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Wasn't it Zbigniew Brzezinski who advised Jimmy Carter to sit on his thumb instead of giving the Iranians 24 hours to release the American Embassy hostages unharmed? Wasn't that pewling response exactly the galvanizing factor for Islamist attacks on America since then?

Ignatius continues:

As the United States carefully weighs its options, there is every likelihood that the strategic picture will improve.

Exactly why do you believe that, Mr Ignatius? The strategic picture will improve because Iran will have nuclear weapons? Improve for who?