CHURCHILL ADVOCATED WAR ON LENIN IN 1917; MURAVCHIK SAYS "BOMB IRAN" NOW

In the Los Angeles Times today, Joshua Muravchik has an op-ed calling for a military strike on the Iranian nuclear program:

The reality is that we cannot live safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man, Saif Adel, to become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?

Muravchik points out What Winston Would Have Done:

After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.

The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him.

Hat tip Glenn. UPDATE: Reliapundit adds: Proposals like this are why Winston was decried as a warmonger, and also why years later - after Hitler had already gobbled up half of Europe - Churchill was brought back into power. The entire world would've lost a thousand times fewer lives if his "warmongering" policies had been followed EARLIER. Ditto now. The choice is clear: We can attack and fight Iran now, or we can wait and have a nuclear war with them later. YOUR PICK!