Today's New Yorker carries a story that Bush is planning an invasion into Iran, and using tactical nukes if he has to (via The Guardian). Here's the thing. It's daft. It's stupid. It's reckless. 'Bush Accused of 'Messianic' Mission', proclaims The Guardian in the same piece.
There are so many reasons why he shouldn't - the real vs. perceived threat level; the relative threat level (once again, remember Iraq vs. North Korea); the legacy issue - what will George be remembered for?; the logistics - how many troops do you need now?; the International support, or lack of it; the abject failure in Iraq - hello?. But one has got to think that, well, that he might do it anyway. And maybe that's the key. The threat (from the US, as opposed to Iran) needs to be perceived as real if it is to have any impact on the international position.
Which brings me to another question. Why did the New Yorker get this story? Not how, but why? One suspects that following the Valerie Plame stuff, the WH would be furious with an uncontrolled leak like this, unless it was controlled. And therefore the New Yorker is actually acting as a mouthpiece, positioning the WH where is wants to be. Am I cynical, or are things getting really scary?