THERE ARE few humanoids in this universe who would challenge Arnold Schwarzenneger to a one-on-one wrestling match. He may in fact be the worst fighter this side of Alfalfa, but his apparent strength and reputation would scare away even the toters of automatic weapons among us.

Actor Ronald Reagan has long known about the value of Schwarzenneger's symbolic strength. As a master of political symbolism, he has seen that rhetoric, if used often enough and backed up with occassional action, can get the job done.

Just as Arnold worked out daily to beef up, Reagan spent $1 trillion beefing up the military's hardware. And as Arnold intimidates his foes by telling them to "fuck off," so Reagan calls the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and jokes about outlawing the U.S.S.R.

Once Reagan had established a symbolic and rhetorical framework in which to function, he had only to flex his military muscles slightly to intimidate. Granada may not have been an impressive target, but it showed Reagan's apparent willingness to use U.S. military might to achieve U.S. political objectives.

Even the mighty Soviets, propped up by the most massive military buildup in world history, dared not call Terminator Ron's bluff. Instead of invading countries or increasing support for revolutionary regimes, the U.S.S.R. has kept relatively quiet during the 1980s.

BUT WHILE Reagan used symbolism to badger the Soviets into quiessence, he fell into the symbolic sand trap of selling arms to Iran. He failed to see that regardless of any strategic merits of selling arms to the Mullahs, the image of the U.S. supporting a bunch of American-hating fanatics was devastating.

And yet, even though Iran has continually proven itself a liability for Reagan, the Middle East nation can easy become a symbolic boon for the ailing president, enabling him to reestablish himself as an itchy-fingered Dirty Harry.

Iran is a target ripe for serious U.S. ass-kicking. The spectical of the U.S. pounding Iranian military targets in retaliation for any provocation would not only meet with the approval of American prime-time viewers, but would also show in a Grenada-like fashion that the U.S. is here to play ball and not just take abuse from international gnats.

What, after all, could the Iranians do in return? Well, instead, of hating us a lot, they could hate us a real, real lot.

Iran's navy consists of a few World War II frigates and perhaps a couple of small submarines. Its airforce is made up of some decrepit U.S. fighters without spare parts and missiles. Its army is tied up, using bows and arrows to fight Iraq.

The only possible threat from Iran is terrorism. It's safe to assume, however, that even now Iran is exploring all the terrorist possibilities. And our current wimpiness is likely only to encourage their schemes.

The U.S. should use its massive air and naval advantage to engage in hit-and-run tactics against this piddling power. Unlike Vietnam, the U.S. would neither have to occupy territory nor pursue any longterm strategic goals. The effort would be purely symbolic.

THE REAGAN response to the Iranian missile attack on the reflagged U.S. oil tanker lacked sufficient hardness to have any lasting symbolic effect. If anything, the action stood for overcaution and paralyzed debate within the White House.

An effective response must make Iran feel pain and, above all, give the U.S. a tough-guy, no-nonsense, Terminator image. Soon Iran will follow Libya into the trash heap of former superpower irritants, leaving the Reagan Administration free to select more symbolic butt to kick.