Iran kidnap a set-up?

[Blackhand2010]

Would an attack or invasion be such a bad move on the part of the American and British neo-cons?
There is logic to suggest, that far from alienating them further from public opinion, it could end up giving them a foot hold on power for the future.
How?
The neo-cons currently do not have a viable candidate for next years election. So far, the two big Republican guns that have announced themselves on the Republican front are John Mcain, and Rudy Giuliani. Neither of these is particularly on the neo-con tip, and both are big enough beasts, that it's hard to see many other "name" candidates coming forward.
Then we have the election itself. The democrats two big guns, so far at least, are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both have major pluses, and major issues to overcome with the general populice (especially Clinton). However, after 8 years of Republican rule, what price change?
So, where does this leave the neo-cons? Out in the cold, I should coco.
So how would they retain a foot in the door at the White House? Why, screwing over the next President, regardless of political colour, of course!
And that is where Iran comes in. Think about it. Iran is doing enough posturing about it's nuclear capability, for an attack to be justified.
Well, after the spin-doctors have done their work, that is.
Especially now that they've gone ahead and "captured" British troops.
And if it's an full invasion, to quash the nuclear "threat" (oh, my ribs ache!), then all the better.
If that was to happen, as a land offensive, then troops would be left in Iran to deal with the situation, or if it was simply an arial attack on Iran, you would have the Iranians baying for (U.S) blood, and perhaps, launching an attack, of their own (most likely on Israel, I don't think any nation state is silly enough to think that they could launch on the U.S. yet).
This would leave the post-2008 President, between a rock, and a hard place. If the President was a Democrat, too little action would leave them open to accusations of weakness in the face of aggression from the right (and the U.S public at large. They are pretty unforgiving of peaceniks. There are some out there who still think that Easy Rider had a happy ending).
Too much aggresion will cause problems with fellow democrats, and Tim Robbins.
And nobody wants an angry Tim Robbins.
That would make 2012 an open season for the next neo-con puppet.
If the president be a republican, any aggression will push them to the right and into the warm, comforting, money laden, arms of the neo-cons. Not enough aggession, and the hawks will have them out on their ear.
So will an attack happen? Logically, I'd say no, but logic is something that Bush's administration is lacking in, so it's possible. I wouldn't bet the farm, either way.
And if not Iran, those North Korean's look pretty handy...

[tommy dickfingers]

why would iran want to start a war,something like this could ignite one.

[tommy dickfingers]

it seems like the only setup was by the iranians in kidnapping our sailors for political purposes,this is for all of you pacifist white poppy brigade of dogooders to try and persuade our government not to start a never going to happen war against iran.