Those were critical concerns. Even wise men cannot see all ends, and he could not have known what would become of his descisions 20-25 years later.
However, I still maintain that when a nation initiates acts of war against us, it should be met with all force we are capable of mustering. To not do so will ALWAYS encourage more of the same.
The Iranians, mindful of Reagan's reputation, wisely released the hostages on the day of his inauguration. When he took no further action against them, they came to believe that he, too, was all talk. They tested him again in Beirut, with similar results. Their perceptions were confirmed. The rest is history.
As for Congress, Reagan wasn't known as "The Great Communicator" for nothin'. He was well able to make a case for war to the American people, much as he did for tax cuts and limited government. Congress would have had little choice but to follow along, as they ultimately did on his other programs, with the exception of spending, which they are genetically linked to.
It is called leadership. Reagan had it in spades, and could have done it. However, he didn't, most likely for the reasons outlined in post #55. I am sure that he would have if he made the choice himself, but as has also been pointed out, he had some advisors who had far less ball$ than he did. They may have convinced him not to act. It's happened many times, to many different Presidents.
Personally, I think he'd have, left to his own devices, cleaned up the whole Middle East in short order, sparing us what we have today.