Bifford T. Davis is a dork. He's upset that his new black Macbook Pro came with white cords. By his reasoning, since it makes six colors of iPod Nanos, Apple should stock and ship cords in matching colors to each. Nevermind that cords aren't peripherals, or that all Apple cords are white, including iPod cords (or that this works). He expects that anybody brave enough to make the Apple leap of faith should have all their expectations exceeded, and having a black cord can't be asking that much. "Not a good start", he observes.

About two years ago, Bifford asked me to bet him whether the United States would be at war with Iran before the end of Bush's term, he being confident that it would. After some thought, I was fairly certain it was a good bet. War discontent was growing, Republicans were probably going to lose at least the House, and I had a hard time imagining a public that would stand for another war. He proposed an iPod as the wager, and I realized that given the expense, it was not a good bet. After all, I had a hard time believing Iraq could really happen, given the circumstances at that time. And since we were already hearing administration claims that Iran was aiding the Iraq "insurgency", I could believe that the rhetoric would ramp up in short order.

Well, it's 2007, and the rhetoric has (ramped up). Search on any given day for Iran news, and you'll find threats, newly proposed U.N. sanctions, and so on. The Pentagon has a plan all ready. It's Iraq circa 2002 all over again.

There are many drawbacks for the U.S. to our occupation of Iraq: thousands of American deaths, billions of American dollars, etc. But the rising risk of a major conflict with Iran is perhaps the best reason to leave Iraq. It's an easy argument that the reason neoconservatives want our Iraq engagement to continue is that they believe a war with Iran is inevitable so long as we remain. And that's no stretch. I have a hard time believing that anybody believes that a 15% troop "surge" in Iraq can make a difference, leaving a more plausible explanation to be preparation for an Iranian conflict. Bush's appointment of an admiral, the recent arrival of aircraft carriers and submarines, and a reported request to Turkey to permit the stationing of bombers for runs to Iran all suggest that this will happen. The more tinder you collect, the more likely a fire becomes. It ain't a tough equation.

What seems unlikely is that this time around, rhetoric will be the only sales pitch. Again, having our forces sitting at the border is a recipe for sparks. Ask anybody who has played Risk. They could even be accidental sparks. Heck, all it would really take is for an unstable Iranian to lob a grenade, and suddenly the U.S. invasion of Iran is a "needed response". I mean, they shot first, right? Then there's the terrorism rule, which says that any attack on U.S. soil and Americans won't mind the knee jerk. It worked for Iraq with 9/11, and if another attack happened today, Iran would be "in the bag", regardless of who actually executed the attack. And if you're following what some think is the next turn in the Libby trial, the timing couldn't be better to really ramp things up.

We have far less to gain from war with Iran than hawks want to believe. The number one gripe with Iran is its outspoken position on Israel, a policy that does not have universal support within Iran, and seems better characterized as party politicking than real threat ("We will bury you" comes to mind, and that was aimed at us). But even so, preventative war in the Middle East is the wrong policy choice for the United States, not only because it is amoral, but because it is self-defeating. We cannot gain allies and curb Islamic terrorism by repeatedly invading holy lands without cause. It takes something special (read: swaggering idiocy) to justify a war and the ensuing casualties with nothing more than a "they would have done it if we hadn't." This isn't me arguing for classical Just War theory; this is just common sense. And if perpetual war in the Middle East doesn't dissuade us, maybe conscription will. I say it's a good bet if the war party gets its way, unless history has anything to say about it. Reagan was smart enough to get us out of Lebanon. In Vietnam, it took Congress. If it doesn't happen with Iraq before Iran happens, I predict that the World War III that people like Gingrich think is already afoot will begin in earnest. And being that our continued, aimless presence in Iraq may just have Iran as its goal, calling 2003 the start of WWIII will indeed be accurate.

What does this have to do with Bifford T. Davis? Only that I'm glad I didn't make the bet. He wouldn't have liked the white cords, anyway.