> In the White House, we are not dealing with people
> who're smart geopoliticians or clever military
> strategists; they've left the building.
===============================
This is common coin on the left, but the Bush administration consists of
more than its simple-minded figurehead, and it can be misleading and
disarming to think of the power structure or most any other institution this
way, even when they are divided or seem confused or to have acted against
their interests.
When circumstances are desperate and those in power feel control slipping away from them - as the Bush administration does in relation to its foreign policy and military credibility - they will resort to extreme measures when necessary and in recognition of the risks associated with these. It stands to reason, though, they will first try to obtain their objectives without the risk by prior threats. This seems to be what is currently going in relation to Iran within the Bush administration, among people who are ideologically predisposed to the threat of force and the use of force rather than "soft power" to secure compliance, which is why the points being made about the political rather than military rationale for air strikes against Iran, including with tactical nuclear weapons, seems plausible to me. Who knows whether they will or will not prove to be "smart geopoliticians"? In order to secure Iranian compliance for international supervision to delay and constrain the development of its nuclear program, the threat has to be seen seriously, no? That's not to condone the US policy, but to understand it.
I also think it's mistaken to consider the invasion of Iraq an act of "stupidity" so much as of miscalculation - about the welcome the US occupiers and their puppets like Chalibi would receive from the oppressed Shia majority, the scale and effectiveness of Sunni guerrilla resistance they would encounter, and the economic and military resources which would be required to secure and rebuild the country. These things are always easier to see as "stupid" in retrospect, but it obscures the fact that the decision to use armed force is not always or even mostly irrational, even when things don't turn out as planned.