Just the other morning I woke up from a terrible nightmare, one depicting events of epic proportions: against all conventional wisdom and the sage advice of experienced military and intelligence professionals, the United States of America had attacked Iran.

After the initial shock, there was dancing in the streets of America, mostly by the political Right, as days and days of satellite coverage of crumbled, burning and exploding Iranian nuclear sites was flashed to the television screens of America and the world. Until that is, the rumors and suspicions began to work their way to the surface of our jubilation and, despite our fervent wishes, soon turned to bitter reality. We didn't get them all. And then as the saying goes, the other shoe dropped.

Other than a small clutch of war rabid neo-conservatives, I really can't imagine any sane American who wants that nightmare to come true. Unfortunately, there is a small group of neo-cons who are very close to the president, and they have a disproportional amount of influence with him. For it was pressure by these individuals that motivated him to attempt what no other political or military force has ever been able to accomplish in over 2000 years, that being to effectively change the Middle East from established Muslim totalitarianism to Christian Democracy. Iraq and Lebanon are two prime examples of his efforts. Now, he wants to go to work on Iran.

Equation I: The Competency and Prestige of A President and His Administration

The possible outcome of the volatile Middle East situation can easily be broken down into four political and military equations:

In the August 21st edition of the far Right leaning Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, there was an editorial by John Fund, entitled "Bush's Brain" (subtitled: The president just doesn't communicate anymore.). The author did his best to defend George Bush, but his candor compelled him to report via the following paragraph decisive turn and rapidly dwindling respect the president has within his formerly solid support ranks:

"Joe Scarbourugh, a conservative MSNBC talk-show host and former GOP congressman from Florida, is even questioning the president's mental skills. Last week he devoted a segment of his program (on which I was a guest) to the question: "Is our president an idiot?....Is George Bush playing dumb or is he just plain dumb?" The next day he wrote on Huffingtonpost.com that while Republican presidents are routinely an "unfair target of ridicule from liberal circles" he has noticed that now "Republicans are quietly joining the left in questioning the presidents intellectual prowess" He says that "former administration officials still close to the White House will tell you Mr. Bush detests dissent, embraces a narrow world view and is intellectually incurious."

Excerpted from the same article:

"Last week Britain's Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott had to deny a report that he had called the Bush administration "crap" in a private meeting with fellow Labour Party members of parliament. But Harry Cohen, a Labour Party MP, stood by his account and went on to claim Mr. Prescott had also called Mr. Bush "just a cowboy with his Stetson on."

Needless to say, all of this does little to bolster the already failing grades within world opinion as to the credibility of American diplomacy, especially in Middle Eastern affairs. One has to now ask the very critical question, do we trust this president and his 'gang that can't shoot straight' to competently meddle in the developing - United Nations Iran Nuclear Debate?

If one is sane, sober, up to date politically and reasonably observant of the Bush group's performance to date (as stated previously, Iraq and Lebanon being prime examples), the answer to that critical question has to be a resounding - no!

Unfortunately, we no longer have the choice; that elective window has been closed. With their usual reckless disregard for the will of the people, Congress and the dictates of the Constitution, the Bush administration has placed America in the middle of the coming fray, We are now up to our necks in diplomatic quicksand and sinking rapidly toward the possible center of another military folly. Here we go again.

Equation II: World Politics Is A Three Dimensional Playing Field

After World War II, the most popular opinion often fielded by many a bar-stool philosopher, armchair general and hindsight intellectual was: "If only we'd assassinated Adolph Hitler in 1939, we could have prevented the occurrence of the war." You will note, these Monday morning quarterbacks never use the word 'possibly.'

Of course every Science Fiction author and fan knows the correct assessment of such a possible outcome from such an attempt to change the future, would more properly be expressed as - 'maybe, but not necessarily'. The reason being that a specific action at one point in time, is no guarantee of a specific long-term affect in the future. For if that were the case history would be an amalgam of wishes and desires and reality would cease as we know it. More than ever, that same theoretical prognosis holds for any attempts at preventative military action in the Middle East.

The science of understanding the outcome of political and military intervention in any international circumstance, is as easy as comprehending the mechanics of a game of pool, not a game of chess: which is often mistaken for the proper analogy

Conventional chess is a Two Dimensional game where the players get to move the pieces strategically in reference to known moves, and each can see the moves of the other to execute a measured response. But in pool, when the break comes with the first shot taken by the starting player, the balls go in random directions, all at once, regardless of the skill of the player: chance not desire dictates the outcome. When the starting player says they've had a 'good break' as to where the balls ended up, what he or she is really saying is that their experienced skills have rendered for them a 'lucky shot.' And that has always been the guiding age-long reasoning of the military that, no matter how well you plan, once the first shot is fired all of the initial planning is virtually useless.

Such an outcome is feasible when playing with inanimate pool balls, but the outcome can be decidedly disastrous when manipulating heavily armed nations existing in proximity to other heavily armed nations; particularly; those who have an ethnic or cultural connection. These secondary realms of active power represent a Third Dimension of possibilities that have to be calculated into any strategic move. If we are to play a game of chess in the arena of Middle Eastern politics, circumstances dictate it be a game of Three Dimensional Chess: such as would be necessary in dealing with the present Iran dilemma.

Equation III: What Will the Israelis Do?

What will the Israelis do to resolve the Iran threat as they see it? That is a total unknown. As usual, they are holding their cards close to their chests as the struggle with their plight in Lebanon. What we do know is that the U.S. has shipped to them far more 'bunker busting bombs' that they are ever likely to employ against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.

These unique bombs are technically upgraded models of the same bombs they employed to destroy Iraq's nuclear site at Osirak in 1981. But many of the key Iranian nuclear sites are exceptionally deep underground, and may not be that much affected by these bombs. However, as an outside chance of success in permanently disabling the Iranian nuclear effort, some military analysts suggest what has to be used are 'low yield nuclear weapons.' Of course, such an action would change not only everything in the Middle East, but the world inclusive.

What is troubling to political analysts of our allies is that the only real chance they have of mounting any sort of attack on Iran is in conjunction with the United States.

Equation IV:What Will the Iranians Do?

The big question here is two-fold. How far along is their 'nuclear research', and why don't they appear the least bit phased by our military threat to them.

In considering all options with the dealing of the Iranians over the nuclear issue, we must always keep in mind one salient fact: this country managed to hide an entire nuclear reactor from the world for more than 20 years. This is a key element of critical importance in our planning options, because the world really doesn't know how far along the Iranians are in their quest.

The Iranians have not outright rebuffed U.N. demands by stating that they won't ever cease their 'nuclear research.' But instead have resorted to simple stalling tactics. It has always been this author's long held opinion that those far away from achieving their goal, will outright reject cessation of their activities. However, those who only stall for time are close. This suspicion has credible legs.

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli employed within the country's nuclear program, revealed to the world via photographic evidence, confirming the existence of the hitherto secret nuclear program. What shocked the nuclear world community, however, was the extent the Israeli program had advanced. To many experts their development was 10 to 15 years ahead of their best previous estimates.

Iran has had an easier course to tread. They have had the assistance of the rouge nuclear nation, North Korea, and the illegal assistance of Pakistan's Dr. A. Q. Kahn, head of that country's successful nuclear program. How much knowledge, equipment and, most importantly, possible nuclear material did they supply the Iranians with? We simply don't know.

Why Attacking Iran Would Be Diplomatic and Military Folly

It would be a mistake of epic proportions for the Bush administration to attack Iran. It is a gamble we most likely will win militarily in its initial stages, but lose politically, militarily and region-wise resolutely in its final stages. It's as simple as that. Attacking Iran is, strategically, a master plan for American defeat in the Middle East. Do so and we're finished for decades in an area of the world vital to our energy needs. Here is some of the reasoning given by the highly decorated and regarded military analyst, General Barry McCaffrey (Ret.) U.S. Southern Commander 1994-1996:

"The notion that we can threaten them with conventional air attacks is simply insane" he said on Meet the Press aired on August 20, 2006. "We're more vulnerable than they are to having the Persian Gulf closed. We'd be leaving exposed to retaliation 130,000 troops 400 kilometers (268 miles) into Iraq surrounded by a Shia population. Our allies are terrified that we'll use air power to go after 70 odd nuclear sites."

He also stated, "We cannot solve the problem of Iran or Iraq with military power. And Iran is going nuclear."

One Possible Outcome Among Many

If we made up a deck of cards as was done for the reputed Iraqi war criminals, I have no doubt the deck would contain more than 52 cards; all of them affecting or being affected by an attack on Iran. However, for the requirements of this editorial exploration of possible affects of significance in the Middle East arena, I have need to point out only one individual that so many journalists appear to have overlooked in their assessments of a U.S./Israeli. war with Iran..

He is Pakistan's Prime Minister, General Pervez Musharraf, a man who has barely escaped three assassination attempts. His regime is a minority one (just like Sadaam Hussein's Sunni leadership was), he is surrounded by mountainous hills containing deadly Bin Laden led Al Qaeda forces, and the now not so friendly as they used to be resurgent Taliban forces. Most important, Musharraf's country has a fully functional ready to go nuclear arsenal.

This arsenal has been a major concern of Israel for many years, and is one of the chief reasons they have gone to great lengths to, diplomatically, sidle up to the government of India, an age long adversaries of the Pakistanis - and also possessor of a nuclear arsenal.

In a U.S./Israeli attack on Iran, should one of the random outcomes cause his government to fall, the country's Muslim majority will have full control of those weapons. Think about that for a cold moment. I assure you the Israelis have.

A Possible End Game

There is increasing division among Republicans, for they and the public in general regard Iraq as 'Bush's War.' However, the neo-conservatives, for the most part, still back that war, and are pushing vigorously for a military solution to Iran. And they are doing so with complete disregard to the learned and conventional wisdom of seasoned military and intelligence professionals from our own military and that of our allies. Added to which we have a lame duck president with less than 24 months left in office, who doesn't want to go out as a loser. Soon he will have to write off Iraq and Lebanon. What's left to try? Iran.

So why do I fear this man, George W. Bush, who has done so much damage to America during his presidency, will, on the way out, toss this last grenade into the room? Why ? Because he listens to no one other than himself. And more than anything, he fervently desires to leave a historically noteworthy legacy, even if in doing so it eventually leads to a mushroom cloud - somewhere.