Apart from the folly of President Bush launching the United States into a war with Iran while American forces are spread-eagled across Iraq, there are other ominous aspects to such a development in the Middle East.

According to a lengthy report by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker and other sources, there are already U.S. combat troop teams in Iran, carrying out reconnaissance and identifying bombing targets. The longer they stay, the more likely it is that Iran will end up with U.S. prisoners. Any capture of Americans would provide Tehran with a propaganda coup, and it would require difficult negotiations to pry U.S. prisoners loose. Iran could demand an exchange for prisoners being held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, for example.

A second troublesome point about a possible U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is that use of tactical nuclear weapons -- bunker busters, they are called -- is apparently part of the planning. Administration sources have denied that use of nuclear weapons is under consideration. We certainly hope so, because any U.S. first use of nuclear weapons would be so contradictory to international agreements signed by Washington and to its stated position on nuclear weapons, that it would practically put America in the category of outlaw state.

Then there is the question of the civilian casualties of any U.S. bombing of Iran, particularly with nuclear weapons. Some 400 targets were mentioned by the Hersh story. The number of civilian casualties that would result from such bombing would dwarf the toll in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Finally, there is the ominous note that the U.S. military advance teams in Iran are in touch with ethnic minority groups. That almost certainly includes the Kurds, America's sometime friends in Iraq but a red line for other countries -- Turkey, Syria and Armenia -- that have Kurdish minorities itching to join the Iraqi Kurds in having their own state. The past few weeks have seen fighting between Turkish government forces and Kurdish insurgents there. By plotting with the Kurds in Iran in pursuit of "regime change," the United States guarantees that countries like Turkey and Syria, not to mention Iran, will have no interest in working with it to achieve stability in Iraq after a U.S. departure.

It also goes without saying that the United States would have no allies in a war against Iran. The latest to weigh in publicly are Presidents Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Jacques Chirac of France. Mr. Chirac's position is to be expected; that of Mr. Mubarak, with Egypt as America's second-largest global aid beneficiary, is more troubling.

Mr. Bush should also bear in mind that the price of oil reached a new high yesterday, for the most part because of his threats against Iran, which produces about 4 million barrels a day. The uncertainty in Iran and problems in Nigeria have been cited by oil companies as the reason for the high price of gas at the pump.

Why is the White House doing this? Israel may be urging the United States to take out another of its regional enemies. It is also possible that the Republicans believe that a nation at war would be more likely to vote for them in November in the belief that they are more effective at protecting America's national security.

What the United States should do with Iran, rather than threaten it with nuclear weapons, is encourage the expansion of oversight by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors there and commence direct negotiations with Iran's leadership, absent for 27 years. The current Bush administration course is foolish and dangerous.