I’ll give you one hint what it has to do with: IRAN.

If all options were exhausted in the attempt to stop the Iranian nuclear project, and US military involvement was needed for a successful strike on Tehran, US President George Bush would give the green light for the operation, former director of the US Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, Richard Perle, told the Herzliya Conference on Sunday evening.

“The worst outcome is a failed military option,” Perle said. Discussing a possible US involvement in a strike on Iran , he added: “Would this president do it? I think that until the day he leaves office, this is a president that, if he is told, ‘Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,’ I have very little doubt that this president would order the necessary military action.”

Isn’t that a cheery thought?

I must say, I agree with Mr. Perle. I have NO DOUBT Bush would give that order. None whatsoever. For all I know he’s already given it. However, the prospect of Bush attacking Iran just doesn’t seem to fill me with as much glee as it does Mr. Perle. Nor does it appeal to a lot of other people in the Persian Gulf region, despite the current charm offensive by Bush’s minions to convince them otherwise:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) – A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington’s way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday. Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was “not possible” until Iran halts uranium enrichment.

“The Middle East isn’t a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn’t a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That’s why we’ve seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region,” Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.

“Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us,” Burns continued. […]

Some among the audience of Dubai-based diplomats and analysts complained that American wars in the Middle East were already threatening the region’s stability and asked Burns to sort out Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian conflict before turning attention to Iran.

“What we are not interested in is another war in the region,” Mohammed al-Naqbi, who heads the Gulf Negotiations Center, told Burns. “Iraq is your problem, not the problem of the Arabs. You destroyed a country that had institutions. You handed that country to Iran. Now you are crying to Europe and the Arabs to help you out of this mess.”

Just once I’d like to hear Bush officials use the phrase “not possible” when discussing going to war, rather than, as they usually do, to describe how they regard diplomacy as a means to address our concerns regarding Syria or Iran. But as the song says, “That’ll be the day …”

Oh, and Mr. Mohammed al-Naqbi, good luck getting anyone in the Bush administration to listen to your eminently good advice on what America should be doing in the region. Certainly no one here has been able to accomplish that feat.