If US credibility is your #1 and/or only concern then I will admit, it looks like Iraq was a bad decision; but, many people easily forget that there was a risk in not moving against Sadam as well (unless you buy into the consiracy theory that Bush made the whole thing up). It is equally possible that leaving Sadam in place would have resulted in an even greater cost than the "damaged credibility" that resulted from pursuing Sadam's removal.

In any case, what's done is done, and now Iran has become a completely separate issue from that of Iraq.

In theory at least, the US should be in a stronger position to deal with Iraq because of our presence in Iraq; however, that proximity has its costs as well, because it also gives Iran a bit of leverage against us as well: They've got to live with us in the neighborhood, but now we also gotta live in their neighborhood. If we can't work together to find an uneasy peace, then the situation will devolve into a war which they will clearly lose. If they think they can make us leave the region through terrorism on nuclear blackmail, then they are sadly mistaken. Their pursuit of nuclear weapons is a complete mistake unless they succeed somehow in bargining it away...The mistake was compounded when they wantingly made the program public...And now, if they do bargin the public nuclear program away, who's to say that they won't decide to continue with a clandestine program anyway? And that unfortunatly, leaves the US, UN, and others on the anti-proliferation side of the fence very little, if nothing, to negotiate. In summary, the Iranians have blundered pretty badly in this "crisis" so far.

So now the unfortunate question is, are the Iranian leaders ready to continue the nuclear program and pay the ultimate consequences that are nearly certain to happen given that the Middle East is now and always has been, a powderkeg that is ready to blow up on a moment's notice? I hope not.

Scott Evil