Suppose we can prove that Iran's leaders have been providing weapons to the Shiites in Iraq. Would this be surprising? And in any case, and more importantly, what's the implication?

The Bush administration seems to hint that if Iran is providing weapons we should attack the country. But on what grounds? Have we not supplied weapons to our allies in war after war? Have our enemies not done likewise?

To take an example. The Soviets provided billions in weapons to North Vietnam during the war there. But no one ever seriously suggested that we should therefore have attacked the Soviet Union.

To take another example. The US provided millions of dollars in weapons to the Contras. Did that give Nicaragua's Sandinistas grounds to bomb New York?

And in both cases, I might add, the countries continued to talk to one another. We maintained diplomatic ties to the USSR throughout the Vietnam War and we maintained an embassy in Nicaragua during the Contra war.

So what's going on here? Somebody--care to name names?-- is framing this issue in a way that could possibly lead to war if we don't watch out. By focusing on Iran as a source of weaponry we are being led slowly but surely down a path to war.

Of course, it is important to know if Iran is supplying weapons. We should try to cut off the supply if possible through diplomacy, economic pressure and military patrols along the borders. But go to war over this?