Why Isn't the Left Applying the Heat to Iran?

It's pretty damn apparent that Iran is openly defying just about every nation in the world, and in particular using weapons to murder our soldiers. We've known for sometime that Iran has been attempting developing nuclear technology for what they say is "peaceful" purposes but if that is so, then why have they developed so many centrifuges without yet producing one single kilowatt of electricity for "peaceful" purposes. It is clear to anyone who is not a complete and total moonbat (see Sean Penn) that their true intentions are to develop nuclear weapons and as previously stated by Ahmadinejad they believe that Israel needs to be "wiped off the map." Again, the left isn't too upset about all this seeing as how if you follow the news and liberal conversations closely, they've become pretty anti-Semitic, going as far as to criticize foreign relations experts for being "pro-Israel" or "hawkish on Israel." As if defending our close ally is a bad thing. Then again, there has also been a great deal of indisputable proof that Iran is supplying weapons to Shiite militias in order to attack the United States. In fact, in a video that was captured on a raid now there is photographic evidence of such. Uber liberal newspaper New York Times reported on the smuggling of Iranian arms into Iraq back in 2005, but you know, things that show that President Bush and the Administration know what they are talking about is not allowed to be reported by the mainstream media. Now, as the Surge is in full swing, we are hitting back and going directly after the Iranian threat in precise, carefully orchestrated raids. Now politically, the Left needs the Surge to fail in order to get Harry Reid his "more Senate seats as a result of this war." Morally it's possibly the most despicable of positions. Note though the lack of any harsh words on Iran from anyone on the left. We all know how the Clintons deal with rogue states with nuclear aspirations, but hey, President Bush fixed it before they set off a nuke, but rest assured they will let it happen again if they get the White House back. So no tough talk because they won't be tough, besides, in their minds, comparing every Republican to President Bush is their only strategy. Of course what will happen if they win and pull a quick withdrawal will result in a full on genocidal bloodbath, but hey, they care at all about what happened in Rwanda. So what about the foreign jihadists who all of a sudden have no United States in Iraq anymore after they claim victory there? Why go across Iran right into Afghanistan that's what. Think Iran really cares if they cross their borders to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan if they are bringing in fighters now to train on how to kill Americans in the current situation? When this migration happens and casualties increase due to heavier fighting in Afghanistan, rest assured, Libearls will pull out there two, allowing Al Qaeda to take a huge PR boost and effectively destroy our credibility on our ability to win a war and our world standing. Talking tough on Pakistan like Barak Obama does is a nice sound bite when you know it will never happen, they would never dare attack an ally, but it sounds like you want to be tough. Between him and Tom Tancredo (a Republican) we can pretty much count on Al Qaeda being forever safe now and going forward in the tribal regions of Pakistan and a much larger influx of jihadists. Just look at their reaction. Very smart move agitating and probably turning away a former ally full of radical Islamists who have nuclear weapons. Well done. We are much safer now.
-Caomhin