On Iran... "You agree that Iranians prevailed for now because of clever diplomacy. Diplomacy won over looming military threat. And you asked what if Iranians go ahead and aqcuire nuclear weapons? " => Yes, I do agree. Even the word's only superpoower has its limits. It has to choose it's moves carefully. Superpower bhayo bhandai ma sabai tira ekai choti haat halnu parcha bhanne ta chaina ni.. one country at a time. Ianians prevailed because of diplomacy and the fact that the European allies of America, especially the UK, after it?s gross misadventure and miscalculation in Iraq, did not want to commit it?s troops in the Iran war. America, although it has the ability to go alone in Iran and install a new regime, isn?t doing it either because of the Iraqi problems. :First of all, I don't think the US and/or covert Israeli military assault on Iran is imminent at all. No matter what harline rhetoric the US uses, the fact remains that: 1. It's military remains extremely thin-stretched and the US can ill afford to venture into another country whiule it's having an extremely difficult time controling one. 2. Iran will obviously do everything possible to keep the Yankees busy in Iraq, because they know that a stable Iraq now means the US troops will be marching towards them next. " Yes. I agree. Also, invading Iran at this point is not a good idea. If America changes it?s rhetoric on Iran, I am 99% sure that Iraq will be more peaceful. Iran and Syria are fighting a proxy war in Iraq with the US, so that it does not invade them. If Iraq was peaceful, America wouldn?t have any problem invading Iran, Syria and whoever comes its way. And, most importantly, "3. US should know that they have been able to hang on to Iraqi situation by a thin thread ONLY because they have been able to fractionalize the Iraqi society. US's ability (as little as it is) to reamin in Iraq comes from a tacit support from the Shiite community........ -US relations in Iraq, but completely ddevastate entire Muslim-US relations. " I agree with the first paragraph, but not with the second paragraph. Sharon?s hands are tied too, he is not as free as he was during the Lebanon or the West Bank Settlement days. You rasied the issue of an Iran-Iran coalition against the US. As you said, the societies are divided in terms of religious faiths and if you look at the history, they have been busy fighting among themselves.. A Iranian?s Islam is different than a Saudi Arabian?s Islam, which is different than an Iraqi's version of Islam.. All consider America to be evil Satan but they will never forge an alliance to deal with the Satan collectively, and individually, they can do nothing as a legitimate force. In ground-to-ground conventional warfare, their armies won't be able to face the US more than 100 hrs. on the options, I think, America will go with the option [a] because its the most cost effective one. But we shouldn't be too quick to say that just because Ameirica doesn't/didn't invade Iran, its global, regional influence is going down. The thing is America itself doesn't want a war in Iran at this moment. If they had wanted a war, they would have waited for this long. "chori pitera buhari tarsaune" - hamro purano nepali startegy seems to be a favored Bush strategy these days.. but let's not forget.. someone who can beat chori, can beat buhari too!