150,000 American hostages?

Riverbend had a good new post on her blog Tuesday. In her inimitable way, she sketched some of her memories of the US capture of Baghdad back in early April 2003… She also penned her (highly critical) reactions to more recent political developments in Iraq.
At the end, though, she writes:

The big question is- what will the US do about Iran? There are the hints of the possibility of bombings, etc. While I hate the Iranian government, the people don’t deserve the chaos and damage of air strikes and war. I don’t really worry about that though, because if you live in Iraq- you know America’s hands are tied. Just as soon as Washington makes a move against Tehran, American troops inside Iraq will come under attack. It’s that simple- Washington has big guns and planes… But Iran has 150,000 American hostages.

Until recently, I would have agreed wholeheartedly with that conclusion. (I also really applaud Riverbend’s ability to differentiate between her feelings toward the Iranian government and the solidarity she expresses for the Iranian people.)
However, now I have a few doubts creeping into my mind as to whether the “hostage” nature of the huge US troop deployment in Iraq really is enough to deter (we could say “self-deter”) the Bush administration from launching a completely reckless military adventure against Iran.
After all, there were many of us with great experience in Middle East affairs who, in the run-up to his assault against Iraq, were warning Pres. Bush that to launch that assault would be counter-productive folly. That did not stop him then.
This time around, will he heed such warnings regarding the folly of attacking Iran? I would most certainly hope so. But at this point, I don’t feel as certain of his rationality–and, equally importantly, the rationality of key advisors like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld– as I did, say, six weeks ago.
Of course, the fact that Condi Rice seems to have been given new presidential authorization to outrank Rumsfeld, as evidenced in all the accounts of their recent trip to Baghdad, gives me some heart that her form of rationality might reign. She strikes me as significantly less reckless, stubborn, and ideological than Rumney or Chefeld.
However, hidden away in the back reaches of some portions of US “strategic thinking”, however, is something called “the madman theory of history”. This was pioneered especially by Henry Kissinger; it held that, in facing down the Soviet Union (at that time) there was strategic value in keeping or even cultivating a reputation for unpredictability and recklessness…
If the Bushies want to distance themselves decisively from that theory, then they should be working very hard right now to give assurances to the governments and peoples around the world (including the US citizenry here at home) that they are aware of the dangers of escalation– including even”inadvertent” escalation– in US-Iran relations and that they intend to act cautiously, rationally, and always with the best interests of the US citizenry and their (our) friends around the world front and foremost in their sights.
Note that to say this is to say nothing about the content of the policy they should pursue. (Though of course I have thoughts about that, too.)
But I have heard no such reassurance from the Bushies yet. That is a strong cause for concern.
—
Addendum Just one last thought. Back in 1980, Jimmy Carter lost an election because of his inability to solve the problem cuased by 57 US government employees who had been taken hostage by Iran. So how about the propsects for GWB and his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections if anyone points out that he has gratuitously given to the Iranians as hostages 150,000 US government employees?
Just a thought.