That John McCain now feels he should be telling easily debunked, bald-faced lies about Iraq really does make you wonder. Which seems like as good a time as any to note that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano came by The American Prospect‘s offices on Friday afternoon. In talking about her state, she noted how much of the local economy is driven by defense contractors. And, indeed, as you’ll see here in The Arizona Republic, “The escalating cost of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is eroding funding for some longer-term defense projects, but contractors in Arizona continue to benefit from government spending to support troops in the field.”

War, in short, is good for business in Arizona. And yet, Saint John McCain’s strident militarism never gets discussed on these terms — is never seen as something on a par with how Carl Levin loves cars and Joe Biden loves credits cards.

I have in my inbox a speech Nancy Pelosi delivered to the Knesset. This is the part about Iran. It pointedly doesn’t include any silly “all options are on the table” posturing:

And together, we must have a simple message for Tehran, whose support of Hezbollah is well known. Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. The time to leverage all our power is now, and the way to do it is through diplomacy – with stronger sanctions and smarter policy choices.

Under Chairman Tom Lantos’ leadership, the U.S. Congress is moving to put additional pressure on Iran by expanding and tightening our sanctions regime. I am certain that our Administration will use all of its influence with Security Council members and states in the region to see that they do the same.

Iran is not just an Israeli problem or a regional problem. Iran is a problem for the world.

I don’t think that’s that hard to do. It’s also not all I would have to say about Iran policy, but considering the audience Pelosi seems to me to be getting this right.

“MY . . . had a couple months where ‘imminent war with Iran’ in every other post, and now that there’s an actual crisis with Iran that may involve a war starting in less than a week, there’s nothing,” thus Sprach Mr. Noah. There’s not much to say. I think I’ve made it clear where I stand on the merits of unilateral military strikes as an approach to Iran’s nuclear program (short version: don’t do it) and I haven’t seen any big new arguments out there worth talking about. The British hostage crisis is actually making me less worried that strikes will actually be forthcoming.

Precisely the sort of thing I was worried about was that having ratched-up the confrontation level, Bush would seize on the inevitable Iranian countermeasures as a casus belli. Even with his stepped-up rhetoric that really doesn’t seem to me to be what’s happening. News that “Blair’s government appeared to be settling in for a long-term crisis but was still seeking a way to defuse it diplomatically, according to reports out of London,” seems reassuring. The fly in the ointment is things like how Bush “rejected any ‘quid pro quo’ trade of Iranians held by U.S. forces in Iraq and ducked a question about whether military force would be justified to free the captured sailors” where we see once again that the president isn’t interested in a serious diplomatic effort to resolve the outstanding bilateral issues in the US-Iranian relationship.

The White House seems to me to have decided to opt for paralysis, raising the confrontation level without intending to launch a war, attempting the “diplomatic option” but not attempting serious diplomacy. One is sometimes tempted to call this “the worst of both worlds” but it’s actually quite a bit better than launching a war. One major problem with the Bush strategy is that it all-but-ensures that if the next president decides to strike a deal, he or she will have to do so from a weaker position. The other, of course, is that a policy of confrontation is going to breed these periodic crises and you never know when things might go too far.