Regarding Iran, Kevin Drum recently wrote:

....Quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran....If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?

According to Michael Crowley, it's very likely all about GW's legacy:

I don't pretend to know how to solve the Iran problem (although, as a practical matter, military action sounds fairly nightmarish to me). What worries me is that Bush's thinking here might be clouded by this legacy stuff. Right now Bush knows he's likely to be remembered primarily for a failed adventure in Iraq. (Yes, Iraq may yet turn around; but it doesn't seem too likely.) Yet he may feel that Iran promises him a fresh opportunity to get a Big Thing right and win redemption in the history books. In other words, attacking Iran--as opposed to pursuing a slower diplomatic route which could stretch into a successor's term--would be a way for Bush to double down, so to speak, on his legacy. I'd like to think such a simplistic psychological calculus wouldn't carry the day. But I can't say it's completely unbelievable.

So let's reiterate, it's what's thought to be good for GW first, what's good policy for our country and the world a distant second.

But also it begs the question, what are we to think when they say we're making a premature judgment about Iraq, that all such ventures take time before you see real results...? By attacking Iran to further bolster the legacy, isn't that an admission that this Iraq thing may not turn out so good over time? In fact, it could get much, much worse, so what the hey, let's take a shot (or "double down") and attack Iran and then see where the legacy chips fall...? Laugh, but BushCo has done more on less sane thinking.