Two major players in the Middle East are reportedly backing insurgents in Iraq, supplying them with weapons and allowing additional fighters to enter Iraq through their borders. Both are trying to gain influence over Iraq's government as a way of expanding influence over the entire region. Neither state is democratic, and both frequently violate human rights because of fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Yet the Bush administration's approach to dealing with each of these two states couldn't be more different.

The first, Saudi Arabia, has essentially been caught red-handed trying to undermine the Maliki government by supplying funding and volunteers to the Sunni insurgency. Half the foreign fighters that enter Iraq each month are estimated to come from Saudi Arabia.

After a report was released detailing this information, the Bush administration's response was to express frustration and essentially to kindly ask Saudi Arabia to cut it out. Oh, and then a few days later Saudi Arabia was offered a $20 billion high-tech weapons deal.

The second state, Iran, has also been accused of supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons and sending in operatives to gain influence over the government. Although there is less hard evidence about the extent of Iran's involvement in Iraq, there is no doubt that the Shiite theocracy is vying to take control of the "power vacuum" it expects to grow.

The Bush administration's response in this case has been to use antagonistic rhetoric that is eerily similar to what we heard in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. From a speech Bush gave yesterday to the American Legion:

Some say Iran's leaders are not aware of what members of their own regime are doing. Others say Iran's leaders are actively seeking to provoke the West. Either way, they cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces and the murder of innocent Iraqis. The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.

Catch that? Bush isn't even sure if Iran's leaders are responsible for what's going on, but he threatens war anyway. Credible reports suggest the administration has already drawn up plans for a massive attack against Iran.

I can't claim to have an answer for dealing with either of these states, Saudi Arabia or Iran. There may be no painless solution (although, there was before we invaded Iraq and threw a gallon of gasoline on what was at the time just a box of matches). I do know, however, that invading Iran may be the worst idea the Bush administration has had, and they've had some bad ones.

The plans are most likely just contingency plans, so we are prepared in the worst-case scenario. But I haven't heard any reports about how the administration plans on dealing with Iran after the attack. If we haven't been able to establish a stable society in Iraq, what makes them think invading Iran will do anything more than destabilize the region even further?