Ne4 creates a weak pawn on e4, which is attacked by the black bishop.
So? I'd almost be willing to sacrifice a pawn to get a position like this. But e-pawn is safe. It can be guarded by the bishop and remaining knight and then the f-pawn if absolutely necessary (though I'd rather keep the f-pawn in front of the king).
It also blocks in your fianchetted bishop.
Um, the whole purpose of a finachettoed bishop is the defend the central squares from a distance. What is the bishop for if not to guard the pawn?
After Rd1... what are you attacking?
Nothing! You don't
attack during the opening! We're
controlling the d-file to shut down Black's options. Only once we get the other bishop out and both rooks together do we attack.
Black can easily trade off the rook with Qc7 Rd8 and then move the knight.
Good. Black wastes valuable time dealing with the threat. Meanwhile, we finish development and mount a
real attack.
This is pretty convincing, actually. Since 10. Nc3 b4? is probably not going to happen, is Bf3 a reasonable move for black? Should we explore e4 if it is, or if it becomes reasonable later on?
No, Bxf3 is a mistake for Black. He trades away his strong bishop. Naturally, we should do nothing to prevent this.
Also, what about Kg4 ?
Not sure if trolling or you don't understand standard algebraic notation.
Would it be a waste to play h3 some time?
Some time. But not now.
Normally I would like a set up with our pawns on e4 and f4 (after we move our knight) a rook on c1 and a bishop on e3. We could then decide between applying pressure on c5 and a possible king side attack. The problem is that e4 would weaken both our d3 pawn and the d4 square. Is the fact that blacks knight is on d7 not c6 (controlling d4) enough to justify such a plan?
No. We shouldn't push our kingside pawns after castling kingside unless necessary, eg, to create an escape square for the king.