What will happen when Israel strikes at Iran's centrifuges and, likely, their shiny new heavy-water reactor? Obviously, Iran will counter, putting to the test their grandiose military claims. I would find it difficult to believe Israel will escape unscathed, but I know they have a decent anti-missile defense (though not perfect, I expect).

I've seen various, conflicting reports about whether or not Israel has the green light to fly over Iraq to make its strikes. Rumor has it, the U.S. is denying delivery of certain refueling planes, though, which would be helpful in such a long-distance raid. How will Israel get there and back? Are there other, neighboring nations friendly enough to Israel? (Doubt it. Befriending Israel means signing up as a Muslim terror target.) Might this mission be defunct before it begins? The Israelis are very creative people, thinking outside the box militarily. If they resolve their present, internal, political woes, they'll have a good plan, I'm sure, to prevent Iran from launching a nuclear first-strike.

Will any other nations be dragged into the conflict? Nobody likes Israel. These days, not too many nations are fond of Iran, what with their idiotic shamshir rattling of late. Iran's Arab neighbors are quite nervous over what stupid things Iran might do. Given the geopolitical distancing around both Israel and Iran, it's possible their coming conflict could be largely ignored.

One of the more damaging effects might actually be U.S. involvement. Were we to assist Israel, say, with any kind of offensive support, we may be implicitly challenging Russia's sphere of influence--it's Russia's backyard, after all. If Georgia has taught us anything, it's that Russia is far more willing than the U.S. to do what it takes to protect its interests, even merely political ones. U.S. involvement in an Israeli-Iranian conflict could very well invite Russian participatory support of Iran. The coming Cold War II could heat up very quickly in such a scenario. If so, I can easily see this growing into WWIII.

There might have been a time when military strategists could be counted upon to act predictably, even if only using short-term, national self-interest (as opposed to using Biblical morality or even just long-term, national self-interest). These days, though, when moronic politics rule military powers, national self-interest often is not a factor. I haven't examined it closely yet, but I would not be surprised if the reigning model for predicting national and military responses is merely that of personal egos. In this case, merely careless words may be enough to set off WWIII, if the wrong egos are offended. (Just how have we evolved as a civilization beyond that of petty, feudal lords? Well, we can kill much more efficiently. That's something, right?)