[Independentamerican]

Well Iran supports terrorism. George Bush is fighting a war on terroism. Maybe Iran had the right to do what it did but with the new developments regarding their attempts at obtaining plutonium this places them in a very negative light. How else do you fight a war on terrorism ? Look at what Sharon has done in the last couple of months and it seems to be winning.

[Anglospheroid]

Horsefeathers! The Iranians could much more eaily use their network to sabotage the pipelines within Iraq without involving the British and by extension the Americans.

The Assahollahs are dangerous but not stupid.

[Alberta's Child]

Your post might provide a rationale for dealing harshly with Iran in general, but it has nothing to do with this specific incident. Go back and read the article again in the context of what we've discussed here, and you'll see just how childish and silly the author is.

I'll quote this one bit in particular:

And why, you might ask, did the Iranians feel threatened? Because they were planning to attack (or have their surrogates attack) the oil terminals, silly.

Iran picks up a bunch of British sailors laying detection equipment in the Persian Gulf region, and the author makes the wild (and thoroughly unsubstantiated) accusation that Iran did this because they are planning to attack Iraqi oil terminals.

The notion that Iran simply didn't like the idea of British sailors carrying out a covert military mission in Iranian waters is apparently beyond the author's infantile mental capabilities.