We've been an empire since the founding; an international empire since 1945, or perhaps 1898. Our imperial status has nothing whatever to do with whether this administration is going to make war on Iran.

An "air and missile campaign" will not be undertaken because it can't work. Please study just the publicly known facts about the dispersal of Iran's nuclear facilities. Additionally, the civillian casualties would be enormous. With our standing in the world already badly degraded, we aren't about to kill thousands of Iranians in a new war.

Buchananites (God bless 'em) and some lefties were opposed to Iraq II from the beginning; but the Congress of the United States endorsed the war, and if you consult the data from March '03, so did a good majority of the country. There was a constituency for war in '03. No such constituency exists for war with Iran today.

I say again, people are wasting their time worrying about Bush attacking Iran - can't happen; won't happen. Mark my words.

"1) We haven’t got the wherewithal to “do” Iran at this time, and won’t for the foreseeable future."

But "doing Iran" does not necessarily mean it has to entail a ground invasion, as in Iraq. The attack might just be an air and missile campaign, with the goal destroying Iran's military capability and nuclear energy facilities.

"2) There is no constituency large enough or powerful enough behind an Iran war policy."

What makes you think it matters whether there is a constituency behind him or not? Was there a constituency behind the Iraq policy? There was, that being the significant minority of Americans that automatically supports its president in any military engagement whatsoever. Given Iran's reputation in the US, and the still-fresh memories of the humiliating hostage crisis of 1979, I'd say that minority is even larger and more vocal than that which supported and continues to support the Iraq invasion.

We're an empire now, Jon. The requirement of having the people behind you before inititiating a war is a vestige of the now lost republic.

With respect, please understand that the issues you raise do not go to my two essential points:

1) We haven't got the wherewithal to "do" Iran at this time, and won't for the foreseeable future.

2) There is no constituency large enough or powerful enough behind an Iran war policy. The political firestorm that would follow our initiation of hostilities would be unprecedented. Bush would have less support among the public, in Congress, and in his party than Nixon did in August 1974.

I won't debate the moral fibre of the officer corps. It matters not. They have not got the horses to do Iran. Ever since the war on Iran idea started to tak shape back whenever Sy Hersch first raised it in the New Yorker, I have been telling my friends on the right (and those few I have on the left) that it ain't gonna happen. And it ain't. Not because Bush-Cheney wouldn't like to, but because they can't.

You can bet the farm on it.

We need to look at the practicalities. The Army and Marine Corps are woefully overstretched because of Iraq. A war against Iran would have to include a ground invasion - bombing alone can't do
the job. We just don't have the ground forces available.

Additionally, the Democrat Party, though pro-Israel, is even more beholden to its left-wing, antiwar constituency. Those folks would walk away from the Party if its leadership were to support a Bush war on Iran.

There simply is not a big enough constituency out there in favor of war against Iran. The administration is currently playing chicken with Iran, but if push came to shove, we'd back down rather than enter hostilities. (Caveat: if Iran were to attack our forces in the Gulf or in Iraq, for sure we'd fight - but the Iranians aren't that stupid.)

I have to say, this continued warning cry about a Bush war against Iran, which I hear from both right and left, serves only as a means to avoid dealing with the hard questions that need to be asked, such as:

1) How do we best wind down the Iraq misadventure?

2) What is our future relationship with Iran to be, and how should it be managed?

3) What is the best policy to follow in the Middle East generally, especially given our continued dependence on the oil resources
possessed by the Muslim world?

In my articles in Liberty Magazine over the past six months, I've tried to provide answers to these questions. Worrying ourselves silly about a Bush war against Iran - a war that cannot, as a practical matter, be launched - is just away to avoid the hard questions we should be trying to answer.