Bush isn't yet going along with his naivete - or dishonesty.
The problem with the Ledeen strategy (helping dissidents to overthrow the Iranian and Syrian governments) is that there is a good chance that the revolution will either fail, or in Syria's case will put jihadists rather than the current secular bad guys into power. Unless we make certain that a friendly regime is the one that replaces the Iranian and Syrian regimes, we might not accomplish anything. (And I am skeptical that the Iranian opposition is as pro-American as the neocons say they are as they probably remember that we overthrew their democratically elected president in 1953).
Of course, Joseph Farah assumes that the Shah was the epitome of Iranian freedom and that the Iranians long for him, and hope to once again be ruled by a US puppet.
"Iran had a taste of limited freedom under the rule of the shah. Yes, he was an authoritarian. But the mullahs are totalitarian. There's a big difference. Iranians have seen that difference and are nostalgic for the good old days.
Further, as hard as Tehran has tried to close its society to the influence of the West, today's young people love America and yearn for freedom."
In any case, I think that despite Mr. Ledeen's claims to the contrary, if we were to try to use the internal opposition to the rulers of Syria and Iran in order to overthrow them, we would get sucked into a full-blown war.
So do I think that Michael Ledeen is naive and doesn't realize this? No, as I have said before, Michael Ledeen is a liar.
That is all.