But Saakashvili defied Bush, plunging into South Ossetia anyway—supposedly to the astonishment of the administration. So what has the White House done? It has rewarded its disobedient client with U.S. military personnel on the ground in Georgia. President Bush announced a U.S. humanitarian mission yesterday, after which Mr. Saakashvili called the New York Times to say he interpreted Bush's statement as promising 'definitely an American military presence' that would 'secure our airport and to secure our seaports.' Following the remark, an unnamed American official shrugged that America 'won't be protecting the airport or seaport.'

Saakashvili's pronouncement could have provoked a dangerous Russian escalation.

The United States has no vital security interest in Georgia, and should avoid brinkmanship with nuclear-armed Russia. It was a terrible idea to cultivate Georgia as a client state; it is a worse idea to allow Tbilisi to call the shots in such a relationship. The White House, by its own admission, said 'no' to Mr. Saakashvili once, and did not mean it. Someone needs to start telling Mr. Saakashvili 'no,' and actually mean it.

What this situation should highlight is the recklessness of the bipartisan American support before the recent Bucharest NATO summit for providing a Membership Action Plan to Georgia. The last thing the United States should be contemplating is expanding NATO, an alliance without a mission, to include a country with two unresolved territorial disputes with Russia. Further, there is reason to wonder to what extent such robust American support led the Georgian government to believe that they had American backing, should further problems with Russia arise.

The loss of life in any conflict, whether in Darfur or South Ossetia, is to be regretted. But American national interests call for restraint and discrimination, and in this case we must face the fact that the defense of far-away countries from much larger, more powerful neighbors who have permanent seats on the UN Security Council would be a dangerous venture indeed.

What makes the conflict relevant to the U.S. is that President Bush, as well as both presidential candidates, have supported giving Georgia a security guarantee via NATO membership. Why an American president would want to risk American blood and treasure -- not to mention another Cold War -- over a breakaway province in a country few Americans could even point to on a map is inexplicable and reckless.

Even if the test was successful, the missiles in some ways are not the most significant threat Iran could pose to U.S. forces in the region. By firing on U.S. supply convoys transiting southern Iraq, or by swarming small craft against U.S. vessels or tankers in the Persian Gulf, Iran could likely cause much larger problems for the American troops in the region than its Shahab missile could.

As usual, the member of the administration making the most sense is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who responded to the second round of tests by noting that "what we're seeing is a lot of signaling going on." The danger, however, is that the parties become more interested in signaling their side's respective strength than actually trying to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

Both countries need to realize that neither country has the ability to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. The most optimistic result of a military strike would be to kick the can down the road a few more years. That outcome would be of little value, particularly when juxtaposed against all the negative consequences of military action, which would be akin to throwing gasoline on a Middle East that is already on fire. Likely results include the prospect of significant violence in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere; even higher oil prices; and ultimately, another major war.

Too little forethought went into the decision to plunge into Iraq. Too little forethought went into the Israeli decision to bomb Lebanon in 2006. The Bush administration needs to consider today whether its refusal to negotiate until Iran meets Western demands is going to lead to a positive policy outcome. Today's news is yet another indication that their current course could well lead to disaster.