■"Bush Confronts New Challenge On Issue of Iran: Ominous Disclosures on a Nuclear Program," by Steven R. Weisman, , 19 November 2004, p. A1.

■"Powell Presses for Nuclear Talks With North Korea," by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 19 November 2004, p. A10.

Here's where the lack of competing outlooks within the second Bush Administration may get dangerous. Are we so locked in on Iran that we can't imagine any possibility other than going to the mattresses? The mullahs aren't dropping any time soon, and no amount of huffing and puffing is going to blow their house down. We go all the way on Iran during this term and who exactly is going to be with us on that one? We've got no local ownership on the situation in Iraq and we're losing our out-of-area friends on the subject. Eventually, somebody other than the House of Saud has to become part of our imagined solution set in the Middle East.

"You can't call yourself a revolutionary regime and also negotiate with the Great Satan," said an administration official.

Yes, exactly. So which part is more distasteful and which part is more desired: holding our nose for the negotiations or ending Iran's claim to being a revolutionary regime?

Think about that one.

Meanwhile, out in Asia there may be a truly wobbly regime (where are all those official portraits going?) surrounded by a load of countries that either are already our friends or should logically be our friends. What's our answer there?

Explain the logic to me on this one Ö