Given the P-I editorial board's fervent and bizarre position on Iran, including defense of the Revolutionary Guards, a review of this Christian Science Monitor article summarizing the Guards' role in Iran is in order.

In short, they're much akin to the SS of Nazi Germany: a vehicle of the regime itself, not a branch of the military, who along with its interwoven role in the society, which it helps rule, also happen to have its own elite armed forces, separate from the nation's army, used for the purpose of advancing the regime both within and without of the nation's border. That's hardly the benign instrument of national defense described by the P-I.

Taking a step back from the details of the argument, the analogous role of the Guards in Iran touches on the stakes of the issue. While the current liberal mantra is to deny such threats through the lens of their loathing of the Iraq War and all that is the Bush Administration, grave matters such as Iran and its role in the Middle East deserve more serious consideration.

This writer was reminded of the consequences of the kind of denial demonstrated by the P-I while recently watching just part of the PBS series "The War." As a history major and World War II buff the cost of the war itself is well known to me. But Ken Burns's series captures the depth of the horrifying human cost in a way much more profound than the typical modern, anecdotal examples we usually get in Saving Private Ryan or Flags of our Fathers. Moving as they are, they simply can't capture the scope of the carnage quite the same way as a 15-hour documentary.

That dreadful butcher's bill is almost beyond our comprehension in the era of the smart bomb, delivered on TV for our viewing in the convenience of one's living room. The leading nations of the world paid such a fearful price in the middle of last century in no small part because they didn't take seriously the efforts of a leader of questionable sanity, earnestly arming his country to become a dominant power in a strategic region of the world, who believed the only good Jew was a dead Jew.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not quite Adolf Hitler, but the similarities in behavior as an aggressive head of an ill-intentioned regime have more than enough historical examples in modern history as well as the distant past. As much as some liberals would take their anti-Bush zeal so far as to claim alarm with Iran is simply a function of nefarious neoconservative plots - and Halliburton, of course - the historical perspective is much more serious.

National security hawks who favor more aggressive handling of Iran - and who quite honestly pray it won't come down to armed hostilities - are not the zealous warmongers some liberals would like to think. They're quite often individuals with an understanding of history, who want to make sure the true zealots who have been the cause of so much bloodshed over the course of history are not given the free chance to wreak such havoc again. Allowing such bad actors to obtain the worst weapons known to man is particularly galling in that context.

The costs of failure to act before it's too late to stop a madman, armed to the teeth, in an unstable region have been proven before. Given Iran's track record, along with that of its ally in Syria, the probability of violent catastrophe if its current regime proceeds unchecked in the Middle East is high. Should efforts at containment fail; we would be fortunate indeed if the only cost to our nation is the profound shame of allowing it come to fruition. That sort of luck, however, would be foolish to presume.

UPDATE: 2nd paragraph fixed.

Sunday AM Update: In related news, D. Parvaz's weekend Snark Attack wonders if anyone in the West will condemn a relatively recent airstrike by Israel deep into Syria. The more interesting answer is that to the question of why no one else in the Arab world is condemning the attack, given that such Israeli activity is generally greeted with vociferous denunciations. Moreover it's troublesome D. seems so miffed about the matter, it's not as if there's not any news coverage out there on the topic. Some of the most helpful I've come across have been articles in the Washington Post, The Sunday Times, and a column in the Wall Street Journal. They paint a clearer picture than Parvaz's befuddlement.