Now that we are set to have our great debate on the war against terrorism, it seems it will be the wrong debate.

By all indications, the discussion will be about using our irresistible military might against a single country in order to bring down its leader. We should instead be talking about using all our political, moral and military genius to support a vast democratic revolution to liberate all the peoples of the Middle East from tyranny. That is our real mission, the essence of the war in which we are engaged, and the proper subject of our national debate.

Saddam Hussein is a terrible evil, and President Bush is entirely right in vowing to end his reign of terror. But this is not just a war against Iraq, it is a war against terrorist organizations and against the regimes that foster, support, arm, train, indoctrinate and command the terrorist legions who are clamoring for our destruction. There are four such regimes: in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

These are the true terror masters and they have two common denominators: All actively support terrorism and all are tyrannies. They do not all rest on religious fanaticism; Saddam, for example, has quite low religious standing, having come to power as a secular socialist, and the Assad family dictatorship has similar origins. Nor are they all Arabs; The Iranians still call themselves Persians. They share a common hatred for the Western world and unconcealed contempt for their own peoples. It's no accident that they work together in places like the Syrian-dominated Bekaa Valley in Lebanon with the terrorists of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Contrary to much of the conventional wisdom, this war is not new in any meaningful sense. Indeed, it is a very traditional sort of war, one at which the U.S. has always excelled: It is a war against tyrants and in the name of freedom. Our greatest weapon in this war is the people oppressed by tyrannical regimes. They constitute a lethal dagger aimed at the hearts of their rulers. And knowing this, the tyrants fear us.

Despite all the talk about growing anti-Americanism in the Middle East, we inspire their people. We inspired the Iraqis at the end of the Gulf War to rise up against Saddam, only to be abandoned by the American leaders of that unhappy time. We inspired the Iraqis again when we supported the democratic Iraqi National Congress in Northern Iraq until the mid-1990s, only to abandon them again. We inspire the Iranian people today--there have been nearly constant demonstrations against the Tehran regime over the past year. There were also deeply moving pro-American demonstrations on Sept. 11, and again on July 4 of this year.

If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put it well the other day when he encouraged his media questioners to think about the people in such places as prisoners, not as free men and women. They will join us if they believe we are serious, and they will only believe we are serious when they see us winning. Our first move must therefore show both our power and our liberating intent.

Of the four terrorist tyrannies, Iran seems the easiest to liberate. The president has eloquently described the circumstances there: The Iranian people have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated their desire to be rid of their self-appointed rulers. They deserve our support just as did the Yugoslavs in their desire to be rid of the Milosevic tyranny. We must support them as we supported the Solidarity free trade union in Poland in their desire to be rid of communist tyranny and as we supported the Filipino people in their desire to be rid of the Marcos tyranny.

We know how to do it: broadcasting the truth and funding others who do the same, denouncing the oppression, defending the political prisoners by name, encouraging private American and international organizations to provide money, communications and guidance to the people on the ground. As serious political thinkers like Peter Ackerman keep reminding us, politically savvy and nonviolent internal resistance movements have brought down several tyrannical regimes in the recent past. There is every reason to believe the same can be accomplished quite rapidly in Iran, where such a movement already exists.

The fall of the mullahs in Tehran would dramatically change the Middle East and give us an extremely potent political weapon against the surviving terror masters. We could then address the Muslims of the world: Islamic extremism has now been attempted in both its versions, the Sunni in Afghanistan and the Shiite in Iran. Both failed on all counts. They wrecked the countries, earned the hatred of the people, and fell to the West. Such will be the destiny of all those who emulate them. It is exactly the message we want to send to those tempted by the likes of Hezbollah and al Qaeda.

With a triumph in Iran, the democratic revolution would quickly gain allies in Syria and Iraq, and transform our war against Saddam Hussein from a primarily military operation to a war of national liberation against a hated regime. We should first recognize the democratic Iraqi opposition as the legitimate government of the country, and call upon the Iraqi people to leave Saddam's territory to find freedom in the zones we control in the north and south of the country. It is hard to imagine that Saddam could long resist such a massive challenge to his authority, and our military power would do the rest.

This strategy, or something like it, should be adopted even if we decide to begin the war with Saddam Hussein. And just as a successful democratic revolution in Iran would inspire the Iraqis to join us to remove Saddam, it is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order. (Bashar Assad's fear of his own people was once again demonstrated last week, when he rounded up three of his muted critics on the usual charges of unpatriotic behavior.)

Once the terror regimes are brought down, we will be obliged to play an active role to ensure that we do not simply replace one dictator with another, as the CIA has so often proposed. We must remember that the defeat of the fascists in World War II was only half the mission of that great American generation. The other half was purging Germany and Japan of those still loyal to, or tempted by, the old order and training, defending and supporting the fledgling democrats until the rules of a free society were assimilated into the national cultures.

The Saudi terror masters are somewhat different from the others, for there are pro-Western, antiterrorist elements within the royal family who will almost certainly gain strength once the tyrants fall in Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran. The destruction of the tyrants will also gravely weaken the attraction of the wildly extremist Wahhabi doctrines now in vogue, and the liberation of Iran, Iraq and Syria will greatly encourage liberal forces within the kingdom, some of whom, like the son of the former oil czar, Sheikh Yamani, are even now openly calling for a considerable democratization of the kingdom's politics.

It will be objected that this mission is too ambitious, and that prudence requires us to move carefully, one case at a time, all the while mending our diplomatic fences with friends, allies and undecideds. But the prudent strategy is actually more dangerous and thoroughly unrealistic. Moving step by step gives the surviving terror masters time to mount a counterattack--time they would use to develop the weapons of mass destruction that rightly concern us, and give urgency to our cause.

Thus the greater danger. And the long period of dawdling since the fall of the Taliban has given the terror masters the opportunity to develop a collective strategy. Military leaders, intelligence chieftains and wily diplomats have flown incessantly between the three capitals. They have exchanged plans, weapons, communications gear and many promises. Iran, Iraq and Syria are now bundled; an armed attack against any one of them will provoke them all, which is yet another reason to begin with Iran. There is little that Saddam or Assad can do to defend the mullahs against the righteous wrath of the Iranian people.

This war cannot be limited to national theaters; we face a regional challenge and must respond accordingly. But it is both a just war and one for which we are marvelously well suited.

We are the one truly revolutionary country on earth, which is both the reason for which we were attacked in the first place and the reason we will successfully transform the lives of hundreds of millions of people throughout the Middle East. God willing, our national debate will drive home the true dimensions of this mission, and strengthen our resolve to see it through to victory.