“It is not far-fetched, as Richard Butler, Australian diplomat and former UN weapons inspection chief, has posited, that Saddam Hussein could make poison gas available to suicide terrorists who would strike inside the United States without Americans ever knowing for sure the source. The US government, it seems to us, is not obliged to wait for such an attack to take action; in fact, the obligation is to do everything possible to preempt such an assault.”

“The overthrow of the Iraq regime and, at a minimum, the eradication of its weapons of mass destruction would have potentially beneficent political consequences, as well: The so-called Arab street might conclude that the negative consequences of jihad outweigh any potential benefits. It could encourage a new approach in Syria, strengthen moderate forces in Saudi Arabia, multiply pressures for a democratic evolution in Iran, demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that America is serious about overcoming corrupt tyrannies and bring about a better balance in oil policy within OPEC.”

“Arguments against a war in Iraq often revolve around the belief that an American invasion would destabilize the Middle East. According to this critique, the region is a powder keg of instability that a war, with all its inevitable unintended consequences, could well ignite . . . .  But a war with Iraq might not shake up the Middle East much at all. Most regimes in the area are too stable, strong and clever. For example, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt appears to be vastly more adept than was Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, the shah of Iran.”