I suspect whats actually going on is the testing of the US-British alliance, on the global stage. The US has effectively sent most of its allies into a 'holding pattern'. I think most of Western Europe is investigatind what 'European Politics will be without the US', preparing to move on in a more profound fashion. I don't think issues are irreparable with most of our allies- but I think we have passed the point of 'strained'.

I think in this vacuum, Iran is precisely playing its hand- Test out how much the militarily over-extended America is willing to lay on the table for Britain, see if a schism can't be created. With NATO flopping around like a politically dead fish after recent events, Britain is Americas last major fulcrum point to affect European politics and consensus. As with all historical alliances, its the 'trickle-down' affect, as allies move allies, who then in turn move their allies, etc.

On the other side of the pond, Argentina knows that the British navy isn't even what it was in the 80s, and is not capable of projecting force. Their play is to see what america does if they cast a hungry eye at the falklands. If America doesn't growl, then I think Argentina will be mounting nother invasion in the next decade.

With Iran, watch and see if Iran starts demanding that americans release more Iranians in order to get the brits out. That would be the smart thing to do if they wanted to drive a wedge between Britain and the US. Given the political history of this administration, they would immediately refuse. That would cause popular resentment in Britain, and encourage a 'grass-roots' schism that is growing in Britain about the British-American aliance. Noises for US release of prisoners has already been made by the newly-forming Iranian Satellite State of Iraq, so I think thats whats going to happen.

As for me- while I certainly hold that the War in Iraq is illegitamate and a horrendously executed mess, if Iranian operatives were 'in play' over there and duly captured in the act, well, Iran can ask for their release when America leaves Iraq. Until then, they are Illegal Combatants.

However, all of this rests simply on the word of the Bush administration... Which I find about as credible as Art Bell at this point.

As I have also said, I expect the middle east may very likely go up in a regional multi-player war, possbly even a global general war. Thats why I think the demands by the Dems for withdrawl are very ill advised- because I think the crisis will come when we leave Iraq, and not before. However, If Bad Things happen to any of the Brit hostages, then it may happen sooner than after the departure. Which leaves us in a Really Really bad position- immediatly militarily engaged in the larger conflict simply by the placement of our troops.

By far, the single most notable and telling thing in this whole conflict is that the capture of the British troops happened inside recognized Iraqi territory, which Iran has off-and-on through history claimed (even before the modern Iran was 'cookie cut' out). This was at least in part the stated cause for the Iran/Iraq war, and its not something Iraq is willing to budge on. In fact, it would be politcal and economic suicide for Iraq to budge on it as the Shatt-al-Arab waterway is essential for their acess to the persian gulf- and thus their entire oil-based economy (where Iran has many other entry points).

Now, however, Iraq is quietly pushing the americans to release Iranian Hostages.

So essentially, Iraq is pushing in a direction that is in sympathy with the Iranians, who by initiating this capture re-assertrd control over the entire Shatt-al-Arab waterway. So Iraq is acting in Irans best interests, and not their own.

Exercise for the student: What does this say about What the Shia-dominated Iraqi Government thinks in terms of its role vis-a-vis Iran?

That, by far, is the biggest story in this new Mess-O-Potamia story!