Former Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum spent much of his last year in office talking about Iran, then was defeated in his 2006 bid for re-election. Now out of office and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, he has been writing a series of short articles under the heading "The Gathering Storm," paying homage to the first volume of Winston Churchill's history of the Second World War. (In one of those odd coincidences of politics and history, Santorum's birthday, May 10, is the anniversary of Churchill's acceptance of the prime ministership in 1940.)

In his first volume, Churchill recounts his warnings during the 1930s about the dangers ahead, delivered mostly to a public and a British government that did not want to hear. Santorum, who served two terms in the House before twice being elected to the Senate, argues that we face a similar situation today. He calls it a "gathering storm of the 21st century," in which "radical Islamic fascism and its growing alliances around the world" threaten the West, and Europe and too many in the United States are once again not taking the threat seriously enough.

In a telephone interview, he talked about Iran, Islam, the new National Intelligence Estimate, and why Europe is the way it is.

Q. In light of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, what are the options for the United States now in dealing with Iran?

A. The NIE doesn't change my view for dealing with Iran, whatsoever. Having seen a lot intelligence in my years in Congress, I always take intelligence with a grain of salt. I've seen far too often overhyped intelligence. We need to look at the totality of the intelligence. Iran is still a very severe threat. It's a funder of terrorist activities. It has played a huge role in the battle against democracy in Iraq. It has made it clear it wants to dominate the region and beyond. The ayatollahs have made it clear they have a divine right to nuclear weapons. We need to continue to put pressure on them diplomatically.

Q. You have written that "a military strike aimed at Iran's nuclear research facilities . . . should clearly be a last resort." So, what should be the interim resorts, following up on the sanctions against the Revolutionary Guard?

A. Money for pro-democracy efforts, terrorism divestment, both public and private funds, with a focus on the European and Chinese, primarily. We need to squeeze them as much as possible. The bottom line is a lot of Iranians are not happy with their economic situation. The country's not teetering, but it's under a lot of pressure. To the extent that we can cause a bottom up change in Iran, we should be doing that, and that would be a good thing.

Q. One idea that has been suggested is to use the Fifth Fleet to block imports of refined gasoline to Iran. What do you think of that proposal?

A. I'd have to think about that. That would be a very serious concern. They do refine some of their own gasoline. All things being equal, that would be a next logical step, but you would be concerned how that would play out in Iraq.

Q. You've written recently about growing strategic ties between Iran and Venezuela. This is much more a marriage of convenience than the ideological union we saw with the Soviets and Cuba. Can it be sustained long term, and how much of a threat is it to U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere?

A. There is a strain of leftist populism in [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's regime, but it doesn't get along very well with the jihadi influence. So it's a matter of convenience for the jihadis even more than Chavez. It's certainly a case of the enemy of the enemy is my friend. There is no great design for Chavez to spread his ideology in the Middle East, clearly, but Ahmadinejad sees possible puppets in Latin America, where they do see the ability to cause harm to the United States.

Q. You pay homage to Churchill with your series of articles titled The Gathering Storm. What has happened to Europe over the past six decades that has made it forget what Churchill was telling it in the 1930s?

A. A lack of faith. If you look at Western Europe, it's a secular society. A society that has become a materialist society, focused on the here and now, and focused on worldliness. That has in impact on the number of children you have. Birthrates are well below replacement rates. The consequences are an aging society, a self-centeredness, a lack of vision, and no concern for what goes on half way around the world. They have no sense that they have a role in the world, that God provides for you. They have a mundane and isolationist view of things. I use the phrase 'Europe is dead' because they have no vision. As a result of that, I don't expect Europe ever to be part of this endeavor. A little spark lately came from France with [President Nicolas] Sarkozy. A little hope from Germany. But the U.K. is going the other way, although they were not as bad as France and Germany to begin with. They have been confronted with the realities of all this emigration from North Africa, and their world is changing. Jobs are filled not by Austrians or Dutch or Frenchmen or Englishmen or Italians. It's possible this might cause a revival, not of faith, a political revival, an awakening to this threat. But I'm not hopeful.

Q. History has not been kind to those who argued for appeasement in the 1930s. Yet we have many people making many of the same type of arguments today, and public opinion even in this country seems to be with them. Why is that?

A. A sense that man is evolved, that man is more enlightened. Not every threat is comparable to what we dealt with in World War II. I'll give people the benefit of the doubt. I simply make the argument that this threat is. Look, I voted against going into Bosnia in the '90s. I didn't see it as that serious a threat to U.S. national interests. Some made the analogy to World War I then, talking about how the Balkans were a dangerous place, where European wars often began. I didn't see it that way. Now some people don't accept the analogy to the 1930s. They say the threat is not the same as it was then or it's different from communism. I disagree.

Q. Why?

A. The strain of radical Islam is very powerful, and it holds great sway in the Islamic world. It's not the majority opinion, but it has great appeal across the board, even among moderate Muslims. Sympathy for that exclusive ideology is very broadly shared. They may not agree with the tactics, but they share the some of the aims. Combine that with the resources of that region and the willingness to sacrifice. And that's just the Sunnis. Throw in the Shia element, with the apocalyptic vision of the 12th Imam, and you get a more threatening scene. All you have to do is read what they say.

Q. The second volume in Churchill's history of the Second World War, after "The Gathering Storm," was "Their Finest Hour." What will our finest hour be in this struggle?

A. The wonderful thing is that we're at a time when heroic sacrifice is not being called for. Heroic courage of our convictions is all that we need right now.

John Bicknell, editor of CQ Homeland Security, can be reached at jbicknell@cq.com.