The heart of the Bush philosophy, "The rules don't apply to me," could never have been put into practice without the Cheney corollary: "Tear up the rules, do what you want, and hide it." Iran will be their last field of exercise together.

Once again the president and vice president are ahead of us. Iraq is no longer on their minds. That chapter closed when Petraeus and Crocker administered the sedatives in Washington. Besides, Iraq had become tiresome to George W. Bush. The committee hearings in September were a necessary cover to tie down American soldiers in the Middle East. His excuse was signed by Congress, and now he is home clear.

The dates can only be guessed. November for the triggering incident, December for the trip to the U.N., February for the ultimatum, perhaps March again for the strikes. The repetition would suit his taste for boyish acts of defiance.

Diplomacy, to Bush, is one of those words you had to learn to say in school, like "serious consideration" and "concerted effort." There isn't any glamour in it, no kick. He intends to bomb Iran. He tells us so in every other speech and in everything he doesn't say and doesn't do.

The signs of resistance have been appallingly modest. There was the pledge by a few participants in a recent Democratic debate to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013. But even 2013, six years from now, seemed too soon to say for the front-runners Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. To stress his difference, Chris Dodd followed his pledge with an op-ed impressive enough to show his position was not taken casually.

Chris Dodd is "a good hater" -- an ability (in some settings identical with honesty) that he might teach with profit to other members of his party. Three years ago, he mounted a challenge to Harry Reid for the position of minority leader of the Senate. It is curious to think where the opposition would stand today if Dodd had won that contest. He would have become the majority leader, and would be throwing all his reserves of energy into battle against a lawless administration. A bracing and assertive opposition is beyond the psychological means of Harry Reid. He lacks the mind, the heart, the eye for openings and (though it seems unfair to say so) the voice for the part. He is literal-minded. He cannot think on his feet.

Last week, like many other weeks, saw an irresolute flare of dissent from Hillary Clinton. To give an appearance of qualifying her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (which had approved executive action against Iran), Clinton became the co-sponsor of the Webb-Clinton resolution. Though it presents itself as a check on the president's war powers, Webb-Clinton (if it follows the outline delivered by Jim Webb on March 27) differs only marginally from the anti-constitutional resolutions of Joe Lieberman. It says that war with Iran must be authorized. Yet it specifies that authorization is not required to repel attacks, to thwart imminent attacks, or to engage in hot pursuit into enemy territory. Considerate loopholes, through which the president can drag three carriers and launch a satisfying number of missiles.

Such "prudent" measures supporting the president go on the pretense that they are strengthening his hand for tough diplomacy. But the proof that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have no interest in diplomacy is that there are no talks. On the contrary, all the moves they are calling are aimed at shutting down diplomacy. Last weekend, General Petraeus accused the Iranian ambassador to Iraq of being a member of the Quds Force. Perhaps he is. (No evidence was offered.) But this is not the sort of thing you say unless you are running up to war. That Petraeus was willing to commandeer a wider regional conflict was surely part of the understanding he reached with the president when he was chosen to build the walls in Baghdad and lend his name to the "surge."

The Republican party (now generally despised) is too dismal to speak of. With the exception of Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, and a few others, since 2001 it has stood for abject servility to the president. The Democrats in a significant minority, passing now and then into a bare majority, have, at least, voted against some of the disastrous policies; in the recent vote to restore habeas corpus, they fell just short of the necessary majority of 60. And yet (the fact is palpable) the Democrats are paltering. They are fainthearted. The consequences of their failure to draw down the war after November 2006 just don't seem to strike them. When in doubt, they revert to social-democratic family values, as if prescription drugs were a suitable antidote to torture, massacre, and the destruction of cities.

They won a mandate to stop an illegal war, but they let the war be widened; and they are about to consent to another war, before they ask for another mandate.

The president does not wait and he doesn't ask permission. In early February 2007, according to Robert Draper in his biography Dead Certain, Bush was looking to the end of the year, and to Iran: "I'm an October-November man." He had already factored in the pause for the summer, and the soothing September explanations. "The danger," he told Draper, "is that the United States won't stay engaged." But engagement means war: "People come to the office and say, 'Let us promote stability--that's more important.' The problem is that in an ideological war, stability isn't the answer to the root cause of why people kill and terrorize."

The only answer that goes to the root cause, Bush told his biographer, is to add more instability, the right kind of instability. After two wars and a proxy war, none of them yet successful, a lesser man might shrink from further dealing in blood; but in February, Bush was prepared: "I'm not afraid to make decisions."