"Talks between Iran and six world powers — the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — scheduled to begin in Istanbul next Friday could be the last chance to avoid full-fledged conflict.
If the talks fail, the Middle East could plunge into a regional war before the year is out."
That really should be a 'when' not an 'if', don't you think? [Read the whole scary scenario worked up by National Post commentator]. However, I think it's just armchair general optimistic-neocon porn. There's not a real discussion of the backlash, or the long term effects of another 'pre-emptive' war in the Middle East. There is a note that the already unstable and crumbling EuroZone will finally plunge down the crapper due to high oil prices by even the mention of a Iranian War. Yeah, who else will be going down that pipe with it?
And as much as most of the Middle East hates the Iranians, the mistrust of the US being Israel's lapdog will only be solidified when the attacks begin. And the safety net of ruthless dictators holding down the Brotherhood is no longer in place after the Arab Spring - to which America 'led from behind.' Let's put it this way - if you thought Afghanistan was rough, it was just pre-season to what could blow up to an official World War.
BTW - did you hear that Mitt and Netanyahu were pen-pals back in the day? Like 1976. Okay, not pen-pals, but they were both corporate advisors at The Boston Consulting Group.
It didn't end there, when Mitt was Gov of Mass - Net gave pointers on how to crush, er, contract the size of Massachusetts government. And on Super Tuesday, he got a personal phone call about the situation with Iran. (Which was probably even more detailed than when he met with Obama on the same subject, I conjecture?) [source]