"Bush is Planning Nuclear Strikes on Iran's Secret Sites" is the headline coming out of the Hersh story I linked to yesterday. That particular headline is from a Telegraph story in the U.K., via the Drudge Report, but apparently there are similar headlines from the AP and others. If you read the whole Hersh story, as I did, you'll recognize the sensational aspect of the headline and the reporting. The nuclear discussion is only a small part of the article and one that I would expect would be part of a comprehensive exercise in war-planning. The military has planned on the use of nuclear weapons many times under many different scenarios. Each time they, or their civilian leaders, have opted to eschew their use. That this discussion is happening again is not surprising. If they eschew their use once again, it will also not be surprising.

Ralph Peters wonders in today's New York Post if the Iranians really want war.

IN recent weeks, Tehran has anxiously publicized its tests of surface-to-surface missiles, of air-to-ground missiles and even of torpedoes. The intended point is that, if the shooting starts, Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers - disrupting the global economy - while striking any other target between Israel and Afghanistan.

The crucial question is whether the Iranians are still playing at brinksmanship, hoping to spook us into passivity as they build nuclear weapons, or if they've already convinced themselves that a conflict with the United States is inevitable.

Given the closed nature of Iran's ruling clique, it's impossible to know. The most-probable situation is that differing factions within the leadership are at different stages of willingness for war, with some ready to fight and others fearful. Cooler heads may prevail - but "cooler heads" is a relative term in Tehran.

Have the inner-circle Iranian leaders replicated yesteryear's decision-making process of Osama bin Laden and his deputies in their Afghan camps - a hothouse atmosphere in which limited evidence was processed selectively and mutual-enablers convinced each other that a few attacks on American landmarks would drive Washington into a global retreat?

Have the Iranians failed to understand the real implications of 9/11? Do they believe that sinking a few oil tankers or even a U.S. Navy ship or two would drive us from the region? Has flawed, impassioned faith led to faulty geo-strategic calculations?

The most worrisome possibility is that they may have convinced themselves they can win.

Read the whole thing. Peters concludes that if the Iranians do opt for war, they should, as General Sherman once said, be given "a dose of it".

On the domestic front, this article in the Boston Globe lays out the political problem facing the GOP, which is that there appears to be a building wave for the Democrats which could sweep the Republicans out of power in Congress in November.

Meanwhile, George Will points out how John McCain is positioning himself to win the GOP nomination in '08, which is making him far less of a media darling. Helen Thomas reaches the right conclusion, which is that if you elect McCain, you'll get four more years of Bush. Sounds good to me (at least when it comes to waging this war on to victory).