Not Iran Too

Ran across an interesting paper out of the Oxford group in UK, basically a peace oriented think tank from what I gather, which tackled the question of what can we expect if Iran is attacked. In a paper titled IRAN: consequences of a war, Paul Rogers states in brief:

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Its interesting to me that the group limits such a conflict to only 5 countries. I would expect current US allies in Iraq to get involved at the minimum. And, considering US occupation of Iran too would mean controlling even more of the world's oil, other countries might start getting involved.

I have posted before that Iran is at the top of Bush's hit list and attacking them is inevitable. Things like this don't assure me we won't.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table." George W. Bush, February 2005

Folks, it ain't a "notion". If you can't learn from history older than yourself, you have an out because the history knowledge necessary to see this Iranian war coming is less than 5 years old.