No, nobody has a plan for Iran now. We're flying this by the seat of our pants - and in my view, thats preferable. I'd rather face Iran like the Soviet Union than like Iraq.

I've written this before, so I apologize for repeating myself... But presidents don't make statements that include countries in an "Axis of Evil" (right after invading a neighbording country) unless they are getting ready to duke it out. That was the plan - Afghanistan first, then Iraq and Iran - we remake the middle east as a US occupation zone in response to terrorism and Islamic extremism. This looked great on paper, and I have no doubt that such literal papers did indeed cross Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice's desks.

Why is anyone surprised that Iran is more radicalized now than in 2002, when they offered to help us counter Iraq? Did the adminstration think that, after invading its neighbors and actively calling for the destruction of their government that Iran wouldn't send weapons to insurgents? That they wouldn't increase their support for Hezbollah? That they wouldn't become more defensive and belligerent?

No, of course not. This was obvious even to Bush. The solution was that by 2007, we would be in Tehran. Right now, the question within the administration is whether this is still a possibility. Petraeus' plan is to hold fast in Iraq, and see if he gets the order to act on the congressional authorization to use military force against Iran that was authorized earlier this year.

<link>

Use military force against Iran? With what? We have no troops. Even if we had some troops, Iran is far larger and more populous than Iraq, so we still wouldn't have enough to secure the country--at least not without a draft, which would see a quick end to Republican hopes for maintaining even enough congressional representatives to sustain a veto should a Republican be lucky enough to win the presidency.

Since we can't realistically invade, would we just bomb them? Not only would bombing not produce regime change, it would entrench the regime that we're trying to change. Nor would it end Iran's nuclear ambitions, since many of its facilities are far underground; at most, it might delay the process a bit.

There's nothing we can do militarily that's productive for us regarding Iran. Iranians knows it. And if Petreus doesn't know it, he's drinking the same Kool-Aide that the administration is. Even this administration can't invade with troops that we don't have.

That we can't is irrelevant. The original post merely mentioned that Bush wanted to.

I agree that invading Iran would be an even worse mistake than invading Iraq, but it's just the kind of thing Bush would do, if things in Iraq hadn't gone south.