The stakes are very high indeed. This just in: "[n]o enrichment is taking place at Natanz, but diplomats accredited to the agency [International Atomic Energy Agency] said Friday that it might start within days" (Associated Press, "Iran Says It Rebuffed U.N. Because It Feared U.S. Attack," 31 March 2007, <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/world/middleeast/31nuke.html>).
That's in sync with Russian intelligence's suggestion that the US might strike Iran* in early April.
* RIA Novosti keeps (at least) two dossiers on the topic of US strikes against Iran (with overlapping but not identical contents): <http://fr.rian.ru/trend/attaque_Iran/> <http://en.rian.ru/trend/strike/>.
> Can we expect things to play out -- like Russia toning down the
> proposed UK statement by the Security Council? You bet.
>
> But any amount of "rightness" that Iran might have in making their point
> had went straight out the window when they captured the patrol. The
> fact that they continue to hold them just makes it worse. So I'm back
> to Yoshie:
>
> >> The Iranians certainly are in the right ...
>
> Which she has soundly convinced me of :-)
I said that Iran's leadership had the right to detain the UK sailors to make a point, not that they had the right to hold them indefinitely.
I don't seek to convince you of that. I'm happy as long as Moscow acts as if it were taking my view of the matter, not yours. :->
If Iran comes out of this conflict stronger, Iran's leadership owe Putin and his Eurasianist supporters a round of drinks . . . perhaps shots of that green-Islamic-label vodka about which Chris let us know. -- Yoshie