Iran does matter, and who wins is very important. OK, neither side in this dispute is very friendly to us. The point at issue is critical, though--is Islam compatible with a democracy?

Remember that Iran has been the shining example for Muslims around the world. (Up until the Taliban.) Maybe they were "only Shi'ites," but they succeeded in overthrowing a Western-style
regime and creating their own Islamic state, in which the Mullahs (representing God) make sure that all laws and representatives agree with Islamic law. Their compromise between democracy and Islam (give the Mullahs the veto
power) seems to be the most popular Islamic theory of democracy.

People pay attention to Iran: they were heroes. If the Iranians, without pressure from outside, spontaneously reject the Mullah veto, that says to the world that there's something wrong with either the theory or the practice of Mullah-veto government. Even if the problem is only with the "practice," that says that Muslims can't automatically trust Mullahs; that somebody needs to keep them honest.

In the current situation it doesn't look to me like a battle between Mullahs (which wouldn't help us that much), but a battle between Mullahs and everybody else. If the common Muslim has the right to judge the Mullahs, they're a long way towards a real democracy, and farther away from the Islamofacists.

That's why I get itchy when I hear people talking about invading Iran. If the revolt is spontaneous, Muslims around the world have to think seriously about how much power to give their Imams. If we have a hand in an Iranian revolt, world Muslims can ignore the serious issues and blame everything on us.