they are highly dvded, very effective. very well defended. they could cause all the damage that i mentioned. including the alienation of the iranian people, incidentally. where as attacking the irgc in a form of self-defense would be regarded widely as legal, legislate mate, targeted. we could pick the target we want. there are plenty of irgc targets, conveys to carry to -- we could take out a voice on the iranian side of the border and make a point. it's a more limited, targeted ay to attack us and make it more difficult, if not impossible for us to achieve our strategic purposes in places like iraq and afghanistan. >> in your book, "taking on iran," you have a chapter in here "thirty years of u.s. weakness." >> "thirty years of u.s. weakness" that's exactly right. it starts with jimmy carter. it was striking are me, as a ebb many of the reagan administration, where we were standing up to the soviet union, we said all the right things to the iran, but what did we end up doing? nothing. we allowed them to kill the marines in lebanon through h