Whose Report Is It, Anyway?

"European envoys expressed alarm at the use of 'battlefield' in describing policy on Iran."

Helene Cooper and Nazila Fathi write in the New York Times: "Mr. McCormack maintained that his use of the word did not mean that the State Department had adopted the view that the United States should confront Iran militarily, a view that has been advocated by some officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

"'I was trying to illustrate that you don't just confront Iran with guns and soldiers; sometimes you do it with lawyers and accountants and diplomats,' Mr. McCormack said.

"But other administration officials said that the United States was getting increasingly frustrated that Security Council sanctions, which were meant to rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, have been anemic."

Will Bunch blogs for the Philadelphia Daily News that the plan to cite the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization should be seen in the context of "an often overlooked sub-plot on the long road toward war with Tehran . . .: How could Bush stage an attack on Iran without the authorization of a skeptical, Democratic Congress? . . .

"By explicitly linking the Iranian elite guard into the post 9/11 'global war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's lawyers would certainly now argue that any military strike on Iran is now covered by the October 2002 authorization to use military force in Iraq, as part of their overly sweeping response to the 2001 attacks."

AFP reports: "The White House said Wednesday that it was not considering military action against Iran, as the United States planned to designate Tehran's elite Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group."

From yesterday's gaggle:

"Q What do you say to those who might see this as a preparation for some sort of military anything with Iran?

"MS. PERINO: Yes, all of our efforts are focused on the diplomatic actions that we are working through, in terms of the United Nations Security Council. Military action is not being contemplated. As the President has said, no President should ever take that option off the table. . . .

"Q And to follow, so when the President said there will be a price to pay, or there will be consequences, is that kind of a diplomatic reference? Or what kind of price is to pay or consequences is he referring to?

"MS. PERINO: I'm sorry, when did the President say that?