Cakewalk to Teheran?

I don't like the way this is shaping up:

From After Lebanon, there's Iran by Vali Nasr Christian Science Monitor 08/09/06:

When the war in Lebanon ends, the US will have to piece together a whole new strategy for dealing with Iran - especially its nuclear program. The Israeli-Hizbullah war has boldly ratcheted up Iran's regional stature at the same time it has depleted US influence and prestige.

From the outset, the Lebanese conflict was about more than just Hizbullah.  Jerusalem and Washington were quick to point the finger of blame for the conflict at Iran, and it was with Iran in mind that Israel unleashed the full force of its air power in Lebanon.  The US, too, saw shock and awe in Beirut as an opportunity to convince Tehran of the West's determination to bring it into compliance on the nuclear issue.

Tehran cleary received the message and viewed the US-backed Israeli war on Hizbullah as the first stage of a war on Iran.  But Tehran also used the occasion to send a message of its own to Washington. While dutifully denying a direct role in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Tehran nevertheless heaped praise on Hizbullah, hoping that its engagement with Israel might dampen enthusiasm for a military attack on Iran.  To further drive this point home, Hizbullah surprised Israel and the US by successfully testing a number of Iranian-made advanced weapons systems.  ...

In the coming months, Washington will have to look for ways to deal with a bullish Iran.  A policy of isolation and intimidation will no longer yield results and will serve to further destabilize the Middle East.  Hizbullah's tenacious resistance has moreover devalued military power as a deterrent.  The war has not only failed to subdue Hizbullah militarily, but has made it politically stronger.  US objectives and interests would be better served by giving Iran a vested interest in stability.  That means including Iran in a new regional security framework. The US should continue to demand that Iran curb its nuclear activities, abandon support of terrorism, and respect the democratic aspirations of Iranians.  The differencewould be that with regime change no longer a threat, Iran will be more likely to find reasons to change its course.  (my emphasis)

Then there's US neocons hoped Israel would attack Syria: Israel considered expansion of conflict in Lebanon 'nuts.' by Tom Regan Christian Science Monitor 08/09/06.  Regan quotes and links to several articles, including this one:  IDF prepared for attak by Syria by Yaakov Katz Jerusalem Post 07/30/06  Katz writes:

[Israeli] Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.  (my emphasis in bold)