So David Ignatius' column is pretty standard chin-scratchery, full of official-line half-truths about Iranian involvement in Iraq, which would of course be otherwise free of foreign influence, along the standard American op-ed line that views killing thousands of people in military action as a domestic political issue along the lines of a gas-tax holiday or a crazy negro preacher, as you can see here:
How would a U.S.-Iran confrontation play out in the campaign? Obviously, that depends on how you read the American political mood. Usually, we assume that the nation rallies around the party of war, but that's less certain in this case. America is war-weary, and it mistrusts President Bush. So a military skirmish with Iran might backfire, adding to public dissent -- much as happened with the Nixon administration's attack on Viet Cong sanctuaries in Cambodia in 1970.How would it play out in the campaign? How about how would it play out in Iran? The problem with Nixon's "attack on Viet Cong sanctuaries"--and, really? is that still the line in Washington?--wasn't that it "backfired" politically for the Trickster; the problem with Nixon's bombing campaign in Cambodia was that we carpet-bombed a half-million peasants into flaming oblivion. But look, a nigger said America engages in terrorism! Get him!