My desire to write about the new campaign with respect to Iran is minimal. It's a very painful topic and I have little expertise in war politics. But not writing about it conveys the image that I don't care and so I need to put in the occasional doom-and-gloom post, for the sake of my conscience.
A good way to begin is with this quote:
Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey write for Newsweek: "For weeks now, Iran has eclipsed Iraq as the subject of the biggest parlor game in Washington. Is the president heading to war or committed to peace? It turns out the answer is something in between. The practice of sending mixed messages -- about whether the government of Iran is involved or not, whether the proper response should be military or not, whether the intel on the country is good or not -- seems to be an intentional policy."
I agree, based on my far-distant and humble point of observations. But such an intentional policy also has a name. It's called the Game of Chicken, and the success in such a game depends very much on how crazy the opponent is. This should make you sweat a little, given what we know about the current Iran leadership.
Or put another way, you don't poke at the wasps' nest unless you have a good plan for a retreat.