The rehersal for an attack on Iran

Juan Cole points to the Seymour Hersh article where Hersh tells us that the Bush-Israeli plan to bomb Hizbollah was supposed to be a rehersal for the US bombing of Iran. He then goes on to say this:

Let me say this loud and clear, drawing on Pat Lang. Any US attack on Iran could well lead to the US and British troops in Iraq being cut off from fuel and massacred by enraged Shiites. Shiite irregulars could easily engage in pipeline and fuel convoy sabotage of the sort deployed by the Sunni guerrillas in the north. Without fuel, US troops would be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar attacks that US air power could not hope completely to stop (as the experience of Israel with Hizbullah in Lebanon demonstrates). A pan-Islamic alliance of furious Shiites and Sunni guerrillas might well be the result, spelling the decisive end of Americastan in Iraq. Shiite Iraqis are already at the boiling point over Israel's assault on their coreligionists in Lebanon. An attack on Iran could well push them over the edge. People like Cheney and Bush don't understand people's movements or how they can win. They don't understand the Islamic revolution in Iran of 1978-79. They don't understand that they are playing George III in the eyes of most Middle Eastern Muslims, and that lots of people want to play George Washington.

This is exactly right, and it's not the only disaster an attack on Iran would spawn. Hopefully, now that the rehersal has proved so disastrous for the Israelis, Bush will back off from his plans to attack Iran - but I doubt it. The man seems incapable of learning from experience.