It's not this column's job to rehearse the reasons for and against the current war in Iraq and the increasingly likely incidence of some kind of action by the US against Iran.
But George Bush stepping down at the end of next year without some form of military action against Iran is about as likely as Bengal tigers turning vegetarian.
What's this to do with Brown?
The Americans need our South Atlantic base at Diego Garcia to launch their B2 "stealth" bombers (Missouri is even further from Iran).
Everybody knows what George is planning because he's asked Congress for yet more millions (or billions) to upgrade the B2 fleet.
So Gordon has to say "yes" or "no" and he can't do it on the quiet now.
But will the media support him?
When Tony Blair persuaded Parliament to back the invasion of Iraq almost all the newspapers supported him and, as I recall, only The Guardian held out.
Famously its sister paper The Observer, the one paper that opposed Anthony Eden's Suez adventure in 1956, backed the war too.
Which soured relations between just-departed Observer editor Roger Alton and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger, as Alton might be reflecting as he reads the stuff about Iran.
But will they line up behind Brown if, as seems likely, he backs America versus Iran?
Brown, of course, is supposed to have had, at the least, grave doubts about the invasion of Iraq.
But he kept schtum, out of loyalty according to his friends, because he didn't think he could win a fight, according to his enemies.
So what would the papers say if Bush attacked Iran?
The Murdoch press (despite the reservations of most of its journalists, on the posh papers anyway) will line up loyally. The Guardian papers (no more nonsense here) will oppose it, the Telegraph will probably support it (although you never quite know with Will Lewis) and the Mirror should say, "not in a million years".
Although the Mirror did support the Iraq invasion initially, even though then editor Piers Morgan subsequently and noisily recanted.
The Financial Times, which counts for a lot with Brown and his ex-FT henchman Ed Balls, might well take the view that this would be an economic disaster, with oil already hovering at close to $100 a barrel.
The key though is the Mail.
The Mail is no great fan (or fan of any description) of Bush and has put the boot in to all things Iraq since the invasion went sour.
It doesn't like Iran either, of course, but would it back Brown all the same as it still has a certain regard for him (or editor-in-chief Paul Dacre does anyway)?
It seems unlikely that the US will actually try to invade Iran but there's a strong likelihood of a shooting war on the southern border with Iraq, which just happens to be where most of the remaining British troops are based.
So British involvement in a fight with Iran would, presumably, take two forms, use of "our" bases and support for the Americans trying to stop Iran "meddling" in Iraq.
Whatever, it's a nightmare for Brown, whose natural supporters are decidedly anti-American and also for the press, which knows it was stitched up like a kipper over Iraq and is fearful of its readers losing faith completely if it goes and does the whole thing over again.
Which it well might.
To you and me it seems quite easy. If the government's doing something wrong or unethical, you just oppose it.
But the government also disposes of access to stories and influence (unless you find yourself in a John Major scenario where the papers are telling you what's going on).
More chewed fingernails at Number 10, and in what used to be called Fleet Street.