...if I thought they had paid attention to constraints or conditons for success that emerged from war-gaming Iraq. If you're convinced the threat is big enough or intolerable enough, and you think force is the only message the opponent will understand, you may focus on that and let the chips fall where they may when it comes to consequences. I'm surprised Fallows writes the conclusion as if it's a given that the Bush Admin would perceive itself as limited to diplomatic action (or inaction). And then threre's this from Tehran today via Reuters:

"If Israel or any other country attacks any site in Iran, we know no limits to threaten their interests," Deputy Revolutionary Guards Commander Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr said. "That means anywhere in the world, within their borders or outside it," he told reporters on Monday on the sidelines of an anti-U.S. conference in Tehran.