In allegedly supporting some elements of the Iraqi insurgency against the U.S., how is Iran doing anything that the U.S. didn’t do in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there? The U.S.S.R. was our avowed enemy, and so we did everything we could do—indirectly and secretly—to thwart their attempts to prop up the Afghani communist regime. We supplied weapons, training and funding to the mujahedeen—including people like Osama bin Laden—and were therefore morally responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of Soviet soldiers.

I’m not saying that that was necessarily a bad thing if looked at in the most brutal terms of cold-war strategy, but it seems easy enough nowadays to make the case that we ended up being hoist by our own petard on 9/11. But the thing is, we did it, and there’s no denying it. Even Jimmy Carter, who was president at the time (the support continued into Reagan’s term), seems to gloat about it to this day. Therefore, would the Soviets, had they known about our involvement at the time, have been justified in declaring war against us?

One of the big problems with the Bush administration’s approach to matters like Iraq and Iran has been that their actions are not based on the idea of a “just cause,” but rather, “just 'cause we can.” Even leaving aside questions about the efficacy of invading countries like Iraq without really knowing what to do in the aftermath (this would likely be an even bigger question in the case of Iran), how can we, as the supposed “beacon of democracy,” claim to be a righteous force for good when we can’t even be bothered to base our actions on honest or consistent principles?

If the Bush administration can’t come up with reasons for attacking Iran that are different from things that we’ve done ourselves, then maybe they need to go back to the drawing board on this one. Either that or blatantly flaunt the fact that they’ve essentially become an outlaw regime. In other words, please skip the public hypocrisy.