Gen. David Petraeus on Monday told reporters: "Attacks against American forces in Iraq, using Explosively Formed Penetrators supplied by Tehran, had risen "by a factor of two or three" in January.

The U.S. Dept of the Treasury describes Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps elite Qods Force as "the regime's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists and Islamic militants."

Speaking from the capital of the United Arab Emirates, only 150 miles from Iran, Bush accused the Islamic republic of seeking "to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric," and called on the Gulf states to stand against Tehran "before it is too late."

The same day I had written a column on Iran's Qods Force, detailing how, according to several sources, the Qods Force is tasked with carrying out terrorist activities.

All this talk about Iran prompted my friend Richard to send me the following e-mail:

"I've been reading your articles on Iran lately, as well as articles in several other newspapers and the Internet about Iranian activities in the Middle East. The one thing I don't really understand is why Iran is doing all this; I mean what does Iran really, really want? It spends billions on keeping certain parts of the Middle East unstable in order for events to work in its favor. But, none of Iran's neighbors are a threat to it.

"Is Iranian foreign policy really driven by one thing only, ... i.e. religion? Does it really want to "get even" with Sunni Islam for a perceived wrong committed over 1,000 years ago? Is it driving for dominance over Arabs and Sunnis? Are they so trapped by history that nothing else matters? It couldn't be because of the Iraq war, they were interfering long before that."

Richard is correct in saying it couldn't be because of the Iraq war. Iran's desire to dominate the region is as ancient as the history of the Persian empire. Indeed, historically Iran has always wanted to be the dominant force in the Gulf. This was true at the time when the shah was in charge, and it's true today.

The difference today, however, is that Tehran's rulers -- the clergy -- want only one thing: to export the Islamic Revolution begun by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, when the shah of Iran was overthrown and the country was transformed into an Islamic republic, to the rest of the region, as a first step, and hopefully beyond in a second step.

Since 1979 Iran has tried, but failed, to export its revolution. Iranians have spends billions of dollars and countless resources, and yet have still achieved nothing. Well, practically nothing. The ayatollahs did make some headway into Lebanon where they found a natural ally in the country's large Shiite population. It so happens that Lebanon's Shiite community is among the poorest in the country, and fate would have it that many Shiites come from villages and towns in the southern part of Lebanon, a region that has been largely abandoned by the state. This made it easier for Iran, via Hezbollah proxy, to infiltrate Lebanese society.

But this small victory in Lebanon fell far short of what the ayatollahs really wanted to achieve. They needed to turn elsewhere. The eight-year war they fought against President Saddam Hussein's Iraq left bitter memories. The logic among Iranian leaders is that had they been in possession of a nuclear bomb, Saddam would have never attacked in the first place. Just as if Saddam had a nuclear bomb, he would never have let the United States invade his country. But, that's another story altogether.

There's also the matter of pride, an essential element within Iranian society. Iranians of all political leanings do not look favorably at being bullied. When Bush threatens Iran, it only helps rally the people around the ayatollahs. Of course, if one is to believe intelligence reports regarding Iran's involvement in terrorist affairs -- and there's plenty of evidence to sustain those allegations -- then the question of how to address the problem becomes more complicated.

The Iranian Revolution is fed by perpetual upheaval. Like any revolution, if it stops, it dies. This may partially explain the regime's involvement in fomenting unrest so that it can sustain itself. The greatest danger to the Islamic Revolution are not threats of a military invasion by the United States. Quite the contrary. These threats only strengthen the regime by awakening nationalist feelings. Indeed, the biggest danger to the Iranian regime would be for the United States to normalize relations with Iran.

At the end of the day it could well be that, just like with the Soviet Union, it will not be armored divisions or nuclear missiles which bring about the demise of the Islamic Revolution, but rather blue jeans, the Beatles and MTV.