Michael Ledeen has been right about Iran at every turn ever since the 1970s. He's the foremost U.S. expert (in my book at least, along with many others) on Iran. Today, he praises Rick Santorum's record on Iran and Syria. Great column in the Wall Street Journal. Note that Santorum's approach is NOT a militar-first, interventionist approach. It focuses on sanctions that might actually work, combined with the Reagan tactic of funding local democracy movements so they can win their own freedom. Such democracy movements were especially strong in Iran until Barack Obama betrayed them. Ledeen rightly rejects the assertion that Santorum is a "neocon." What he is, is a Reaganite. When I interviewed him a couple of weeks ago, he didn't explicitly embrace the "Weinberger Doctrine" that was usually followed by Reagan (e.g. go in only with force overwhelmingly strong for the particular mission, with a clearly defined objection, etcetera, but use military force only when no other avenues seem available), but he said he agreed with what he understood as its basic thrust. If you read his foreign/defense policy speeches and papers over the years, you see a rather subtle, carefully contextual approach. I would describe it as strongly pro-defense (peace through strength) and strongly in favor of force projection -- but NOT necessarily equating "force" with military action. Maybe "force" is the wrong word. It's more like "strength projection." It's as close to Reaganite as anybody on the scene today.