While the Senate debates the future of the Iraq War this week, the Bush administration seems bent on ignoring whatever sentiment emerges and instead is spending more time internally debating what to do about another potential enemy: Iran.

So far, however, the major deliberations in Washington about the prospect of a military strike against Iran seem to be going on within George W. Bush’s own mind — not only because of the congressional obsession with Iraq these days but also because of the contradictory nature of the president’s many words and deeds on the subject. The White House complains that the Senate’s proposed Iraq resolutions against a troop surge in Iraq would send “mixed messages” to the enemy, but on the subject of Iran it is the president himself who’s sending the mixed signals.

Bush is fond of playing rope-a-dope on divisive issues as a way of confusing critics and supporters while he goes his own way. He offered a soft touch in proposing ways to help illegal immigrants obtain legal work, for example, while playing the tough guy in ordering the National Guard to the Mexican border. Even his controversial call for 21,500 more troops to Iraq was quite modest compared with what some in his administration had predicted during the months he was pondering a new war strategy.

On Iran, Bush has been on and off playing the roles of both good cop and bad cop since he labeled that country, Iraq and North Korea the “Axis of Evil” five years ago. The most recent chapter in this effort opened four weeks ago, when he went on television to unveil his call for more troops to Iraq. A passage in the speech sent shock waves around the world, provoking concern that he was about to start another war. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops,” Bush said. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces.”

Bush backed up the rhetoric with the announcement that he had ordered a second carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf to bolster security and protect oil and other American interests in the region, a move the Iranians consider provocative. But two days later, the administration seemed to reverse engines, as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured the Senate Armed Services Committee that the president had no plans for military action against Iran.

The Iran war scare settled down until the president revived the worries in his State of the Union address. He accused the “regime” in Tehran of arming “terrorists like Hezbollah” and of directing “Shia extremists” in Iraq, raising the prospect of a larger conflict in the Middle East centering on Iran.

The post-speech backpedaling was handled by National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, who denied in a television interview that any such hostilities were being planned. “The president has said very clearly that the issues we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically,” he said.

Again, the buzz died down — until last week, when the president said on National Public Radio on Jan. 29 that he will “respond firmly” if Iran “escalates its military action in Iraq.” On the same day, Pentagon officials leaked to the press what they termed “proof positive”: Iranian serial numbers on parts for explosive devices powerful enough to breach the armor on American tanks in Iraq.

One day after that burst of saber rattling, it was the president himself who seemed to shift gears, suggesting in an ABC News interview that his earlier remarks were misunderstood. “Some are trying to take my words and say what he is really trying to do is go invade Iran,” Bush said. “Nobody is talking about that.”

Whatever the president intends to do about Iran, he is obviously focused on a perceived threat and could quite possibly do something specific to respond to it. And in some ways, he is well served by having the Senate entangled in a thorny debate about his current war. It gives him more running room to ponder his next moves against Iran.

Along with trying to get a handle on Bush’s Iraq policy, the other forward-looking debate would be for the Congress — and the rest of the country — to consider what power the president has or should have to launch military operations against Iran.

But given Capitol Hill’s history of shunning its own powers, it is easy to imagine that, long after the start of any war against Iran, the Senate will again be debating another set of non-binding resolutions.

Even as Congress finally conducts serious deliberations on the Iraq War, the lack of a wide-ranging congressional debate on Iran recalls what I overheard from the press gallery overlooking the Senate floor in October 2002, when precious few senators were on hand to listen to the debate on whether to authorize the invasion of Iraq. “Where is everybody?” the dean of the Senate Democrats, West Virginia’s Robert C. Byrd, muttered to an aide.

When it comes to debating presidential war powers, Bush might again be one step ahead of the Congress.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC, CNBC. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.