#4 The writer's chief contention is that Iran's proxy forces can not be precisely controlled and that the primary players like Israel, Iran and America will inevitably be drawn into a more direct clash.
As I see it, there are even more wild cards in play. The events of 9/11/01 activated the Jacksonian ethic in U.S. foreign policy and this force is far from quiescent. The American public, by and large, can see the connection between Islamic attacks around the world and Iran's intentions (the image of Iranians burning a U.S. flag while chanting, "Death to America" come to mind). Although the current administration wishes to consolidate the situation in Iraq before addressing the Iranian problem, Iranian complicity in the production of EFPs used in Iraq or a major attack on U.S. interests around the world with Iranian fingerprints on it could provoke calls for retaliation against the head of the Islamofascist snake.
There is also a divide in Tehran itself between the realists (most of the generals) who recognize that a direct confrontation with America would be ruinous for Iran and the idealists (like Ahmadinejad) who see it as a divine mission. Political setbacks like the riots over a raising of gas prices could impel the idealists to seek a confrontation to improve their image at home, with the possibility that a miscalculation causes the situation to escalate prematurely (the capture of the English seamen was a bonanza but the stakes have now been raised). |