President Bush announced that the countries in the axis of evil – the axis of countries that pose a threat to the United States – are Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Of those three countries, the biggest threat to the United States in the war of terrorism is the first. (Even top officials in the Bush administration have come out and said there is no clear direct link between Iraq and Al Queda). From the beginning of the war, many people, including myself, were of the belief that Iran, not Iraq, was the most appropriate target in the war on terror.

However, there was promise that the Iranian people themselves would overthrow their government, which was also a hope the Bush administration openly says it was banking on. Hence, I was sold on going to war with Iraq with the promise that overthrowing Saddam may encourage the Iranians to overthrow their government. (Saddam may have been putting together a nuclear weapon, anyway, which is a good enough reason).

This hope, however, was completely shot to smither-enes by awarding Shirin Ebadi the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.

To re-cap, on the verge of complete rebellion by the Iranian people, a pseudo-reformist movement popped up in the Iranian government, led by President Khatami. Lo and behold, ever since this promiser of “reform” has gotten into government – in which he was elected by overwhelming popular vote – no effective change has been made.

Now comes along Shirin Ebadi – also an advocate of “reform” – who recently was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Iranians are hopeful Ebadi will lead them to democracy, and the revolutionaries have since been effectively pacified. (And, to be sure, immediately upon receiving the award, Ebadi spoke out against US involvement in Iran.)

President Bush, the man hopeful the revolutionaries would overthrow their government, came out in support of Ebadi. Indeed, people all over are lauding Ebadi as being able to bring the country into the sunshiny bliss of freedom through “non violent” means. Not just leftists, but articles have been featured on frontpagemag.com and in the Wall Street Journal, which praise Shirin Ebadi.

The articles in favor of Ebadi, however, on frontpagemag.com and in the WSJ, were from Iranians themselves. From my most recent article on mensnewsdaily.com, I have received emails from Iranians who believe Ebadi is going to take their country to freedom. All of these Iranians also make heavy note of their disapproval of Khatami, who promised reform, but produced no results.

Of course, it is relatively clear why the Iranian people support her. No sane person wants a war. I suppose is it is very easy to get starry-eyed over a person who is promising to lead you, non-violently, to the sunshiny bliss of democracy.

But, my basic question is: what makes you think Ebadi will be any different? Khatami also had overwhelming popularity as he was elected into the Iranian government. It is clear he has had no intentions of bringing any kind of “reform” to Iran.

Regardless of whether Ebadi is good or ill-intentioned, or whether or not she has been jailed and martyred in her quest for freedom in Iran, there is one thing certain in my mind: her tactic won’t work. Could awarding a “reformist” Soviet woman the Nobel Peace Prize during the Cold War have toppled the Evil Empire? There is only one way to deal with thugs, especially fanatical religious thugs: violence or the threat of violence.

Another pressing question I have is: why doesn’t Ebadi welcome US military help in overthrowing the Iranian government? Of course, it is because she advocates supposed reform. But it can be speculated that the Iranian people would be forever grateful if the US were to overthrow their government.

Awarding Ebadi the Nobel Peace Prize was nothing more than a tactic used by socialist Europe to sway the public. A poster from www.msmagazine.com sums it up well “[S]he is a great choice, and like last year, I think the Nobel committee is sending a signal to Bush too: No attack on Iran!” That’s exactly what it was. Socialist Europe likes her because of her starry-eyed hope for bringing peace without violence, and also her stance against US military involvement in Iran. The award wasn’t so much in favor of helping the Iranian people as it was to snub George W Bush, yet again.

This is why we should reject giving the Nobel Prize to Ebadi as having any kind of political weight. The author of the frontpagemag.com article supporting Ebadi announced that the Nobel Prize gave Ebadi “moral authority.” Considering the Nobel committee has given the Nobel Prize to Yasser Arafat, one thing we don’t want the prize to have is “moral authority.” We should run from the notion that the Nobel Prize committee has any moral or political weight, especially in current pressing situations. The Nobel Prize should be a feel good award, given to people who did good work, and that’s it.

If Ebadi was going to lead the Iranians to freedom, it should have happened regardless the nudge from the Nobel Prize committee. Indeed, that her potential success depends on receiving the Nobel Prize shows how fragile and unpromising she is.

But, regardless of the shenanigans of socialist Europe and the Iranian people, Iran still poses a threat to the United States. Now what?

On Fox News, a former CIA operative named Wayne Simmons announced he believed military action was needed in Iran. This happened after Ebadi was given the award. He explicitly said they were hopeful that the revolutionaries would rebel, but that this was not a realistic hope anymore. Of course, it is clear why he said that. He, like I, seems rather pessimistic about Ebadi’s ability to remove the threat that the Islamic fundamentalists of the Ayatollah poses to the United States. President Bush’s dopey support of Ebadi is only going to shoot him in the foot.

I seriously wonder, sometimes, what would happen if the United States were to fall off the face of the earth. What would happen if peaceniks the world over – who cry in self righteous hysteria about the ugliness of war – weren’t comforted by the notion that the United States will clean up the mess?

There is a pink elephant in the room. And it looks like the US is going to have to shoot it.