You know, I had the same thought last night as I was going to bed: Iraq is still a difficult task, but a straightforward one that really won't require a lot more high-level oversight now that the Iraqis are close to an elected government. The Iran situation, on the other hand, is fraught with all kinds of complexities and terrible choices. If true, it speaks well of W. that he'd take this step -- it shows that he's not just shooting from the hip.

Christ, I hope so. Every time I start worrying Bush has gone wobbly, he turns out to have meant what he said after all. And yet, although this is like the fifth time, I still have doubts ...

I too thought that it was a misprint. Dealing with Iran is the biggest issue we have facing us this year and I could see the President asking former SECDEF's and SECSTATE's for their input. I don't see a meeting with these individual's in regard to Iraq getting much done. Iraq is pretty straightforward unless you listen to the MSM.

I hope he listens carefully to whatever Zbigniew Brzezeinskkzzi has to say. That guy is smrt.

Ummmm. Actually, if we invaded Iran and Syria simultaneously we wouldn't need anyone in Iraq.

Scot,

Forget about invasion. We don't have the troops in-theater to invade both countries, and (barring some catastrophe like a nuclear attack) the US is not likely to get authorization to send more troops to the theater. Currently, we have something like 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. We'd probably need at least triple that for simultaneous strikes against Syria and Iran -- where would we get them?

I think invasion is the least likely of any military alternative -- our experience in Iraq has illustrated with brutal clarity the immense manpower requirements of such a move. That's not to say that we might not land brigade-strength teams in one or both countries (including armor) to attrit their military forces, but it would be in the interests of force-reduction, not taking and holding geographical regions.

I fail to see the wisdom in taking advice from the administrations who helped create the problems we have in N. Korea and Iran. Should we follow another path of appeasement as Clinton did in N. Korea? It was Clinton lest we forget who sent Carter to "negotiate" with Kim Jong-il and ending up giving him a nuclear reactor among other things. In return we got a nuclear armed N. Korea. Wonderful.

These two self-proclaimed geniuses believe you can and should negotiate with murdering dictators and do the whole UN, multi-multi thing. Their whole strategy is to appease and leave the problem for someone else to deal with. I don't see them getting on board with any Bush plan unless it is to do nothing but talk.

Surely he'd have to involve Bill and Hill in the discussions if he really wanted to press that big red button with bipartisan support.

Iran has been a thorn in my side since I was 16 years old. The "hostage crisis" and my disgust with Carter were important to my becoming (instrumentally) Republican. Iran became just the first of the reasons I hate Islam. If we're lucky enough to see Iran plunged into anarchy without benefit of American colonial administration and reconstruction, it'll be deeply, deeply satisfying.

Steve J. I know just what you mean and I do believe Bush knows what he's doing, but sometimes the road he takes has so many unexpected turns, I start to get wobbly too.

This is why you should be worried about Iran.

Iran is acquiring the capability to strike at intercontinental ranges. This only makes sense if their ultimate aim is power projection -- Ahmadinejad is clearly trying to position Iran as the premier regional power, and project it beyond "client state" status. He has seen what the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan, India, and the DPRK has done -- essentially hamstring any military response to provocation.

The Iranians aren't just passing the time of day here. They are clearly trying to build a strategic strking force to project power beyond their own borders. Couple this is militant Islamism and a virulent anti-Israel policy, and you've got a very scary cocktail indeed.

So, if we're going to do it, how are we going to do it? Conventional bombs? Bunker busters? Nukes? Special forces? Seems to me whatever we do has to be quick and decisive, or we'll just get bogged down in a second bloody front in the region.