It is dangerous to exaggerate the lessons of the last war into fixed policies that become obsolete as soon as they are uttered. Evolving technology, shifting alliances and historical changes all make devotion to rigid rules dangerous. The old shibboleth, generals are always prepared to fight the last war should not be entirely discounted. The fact that Iraq was a major blunder, at least in its consequences, does not mean that there will never be another war that should be waged. The fact that the liberation of Kuwait was a brilliant success, does not mean that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. The idea that Vietnam was a tragic experience does not mean that the liberation of Kuwait should not have been undertaken.
Rather than playing the shallow game of destroying personalities or indulging in the Supreme Court's favorite method of decision-making, working backward from a conclusion, perhaps we ought to approach the problem of Iran by trying to answer the question, what price are we willing to pay to prevent Iran getting the bomb? Or put another way, what cost will we pay as a result of permitting Iran to get the bomb? Finally, what options besides war are available to prevent Iran getting the bomb?
