We have a deal, and I agree: not if Iran attacks first. That counts for you if they do.

We will have to throw open to the group the matter of a staged provocation. All three countries are capable of staging some incident and retaliating, though I think Iran is hunkering down. I believe the recent capture of Brits was an over-zealous local action, and the central government was stuck with them. I don't think Iran wants trouble at all.

Any "retaliation" would have to be proportional to the alleged incident. I am sure, for instance, that the US and Britain are conducting operations inside Iran as we type, and it may be that Iran is conducting operations inside Iraq. If I were Iranian I certainly would be doing whatever I could to assist anyone resisting American influence on my borders. Any response to those would have to be reasonable.

For instance, the recent Israeli war against the Lebanonese. You don't dump cluster bombs over civilians in response to one or two Israeli soldiers being snatched. Especially considering the thousands of Palestinians being held by Israel.

I'd like to add that I've only been pointing out that McBush is setting the stage for an attack on Iran. I personally don't believe it's imminent, won't occur much before the end of the year. At present I'd give it about a 50-50 chance of happening at all. While I think the current administration would like nothing more than to attack, I'm counting on saner folks than Dick Cheney and Georgie McBush to prevail. Some folks at the Pentagon must have noticed the track record of this CinC.

Arf