Gates Would Not Attack Iran

Fred Kaplan is impressed with our newest Secretary of Defense. I'm still holding out, but I agree with this:

The most eyebrow-raising moment—of many such moments—in Robert Gates' confirmation hearings today came when Sen. Robert Byrd, the stentorian Democrat of West Virginia, asked if he favored attacking Iran.
Most witnesses in Gates' position would duck the question, citing the time-honored practice of avoiding "hypotheticals." No senator would have condemned him for following precedent. But Gates plunged right in and said, basically, no.
"We have seen in Iraq," Gates replied, "that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable." The Iranians couldn't retaliate with a direct attack on the United States, he said, but they could close off the Persian Gulf to oil exports, send much more aid to anti-American insurgents in Iraq, and step up terrorist attacks worldwide.

There is always a temptation for Great Powers to overstretch, such as Napoleon and later Hitler attacking Russia, and America in Southeast Asia after WW 2. Besides, if we are victorious in Iraq with planning the seed of Democracy in the Middle East, the problem may take care of itself.