...Military action against Iran is back in vogue at the White House, as Darth...er...<b>DICK</b> Cheney regains traction on the issue. <blockquote>The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." - <a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330197756-110878,00.html>The Guardian</a></blockquote> This despite the fact that Bob Gates and Condi Rice have bluntly insisted that military action is not a viable option. This despite the fact that in February a number of <a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece>generals and admirals threatened to resign</a> if the Bush Administration ordered an attack on Iran. Reality does not support an attack on Iran either, given how overstretched our ground forces are, such action is not sustainable. There are those who argue that such an attack would be in the form of air strikes. The flaw in their argument is that Iran shares a border with Iraq...Any air strikes against Iran will result in Iranian troops coming across the border into Iraq and engaging US ground forces, which would further destabilize the region, prompting other regional powers to send forces into Iraq, with Israel being sucked along in the US wake. If the Bush administration is intent on sparking some sort of apocalyptic "Armageddon"-like conflict, attacking Iran would be the spark that sets the region, and the world ablaze.