But in the ever-turbulent Middle East nothing is ever simple no matter how trivial, and almost everything bad that happens is immediately tied to a conspiracy theory blamed on the CIA.

One prediction that is safe to make is that rarely, if ever, do things turn out as predicted, expected, or planned. And what is said in public is not necessarily meant, while what is said in private can, and probably will, be denied. That's why prognosticating in the Middle East is far from being a precise science. It's more of gamble and guesswork, compiled with the ability to read deep between the lines.

As a former war correspondent used to taking risks (much as one can ever get used to that sort of thing), I will go out on a limb and make the traditional predictions.

Let's start with Iraq, the hottest potato in President George W. Bush's large basket of mixed problems. In Iraq's case there are two possible outcomes.

The first is that President Bush will be tempted to try and regain the upper hand in a last ditch effort by sending several additional brigade of U.S. Army and Marines into the theatre of operations. It is difficult to imagine that military force alone will solve the problem. If anything, it will only serve to escalate the situation. What is most likely to happen if Bush gets his extra brigades would be an unavoidable escalation of violence. Once U.S. forces are reinforced, the Pentagon might well be tempted to give us another demonstration of "shock and awe." The result of such a venture, or should we say an adventure, would be nothing but disastrous.

The key to solving the Iraq crisis is not in the military option but lies in talking to Iran and Syria, two countries the president refuses to negotiate with.

Aside from the unfortunate "collateral damage" -- that's the military's euphemism for civilians killed -- and more destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, the only concrete results that would emerge from such an expedition will be the amount of new hatred generated against Americans and against the United States. Al-Qaida could not ask for a better opportunity.

Given the current security situation in Iraq, adding more troops also means giving the insurgents and other anti-American forces more targets. It would mean more roadside bombs, more attacks, more U.S. casualty, and of course far more Iraqi casualties. It would mean perpetuating the cycle of violence instead of opening an avenue to dialogue.

The second option is to make better use of diplomacy. That means negotiating with regimes we don't like much, such as Syria and Iran; two countries that carry immense influence in not only Iraq, but in Lebanon too. This option will be more difficult. It will involve dealing with two countries whose leaders are astute at intricate, complex negotiations, and whose leaders are not under time constraints, as is the Bush administration. But in the end, this is the only viable option.

Second flash point, Lebanon: After nearly 30 years of Syrian military presence the Lebanese finally managed to get the Syrians to leave. But now, after a devastating war last summer between Israel and Hezbollah, the country finds itself on the brink of another civil war. How do you prevent that from happening? Talk to Syria and Iran to stay out of Lebanese affairs. What does Syria want? The Golan Heights which was occupied by Israel in 1967. How do you accomplish this? Through a peace treaty between Syria and Israel. Back to square one -- solve the Arab-Israeli dispute and you're on your way to solving a good part of the region's crises.

The danger for Lebanon is that Washington could sell it short in a deal with Syria over a deal on Iraq. It's happened to the Kurds three times in the past century.

Flash point three, Iran: Things can only go downhill from here following the United Nation's Security Council Resolution 1737 imposing sanctions on Iran. As with the sanctions imposed on Saddam's Iraq, these too, will end up hurting the people while sparing the ruling class. Result? More anger against America.

However, that is not the opinion of some Iranians. "This is a major victory for the Iranian people and the Iranian opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran that was responsible for revealing Iran's nuclear sites and triggered IAEA inspections," Alireza Jafarzadeh, a Washington-based consultant who sometimes speaks for the Iranian resistance, told United Press International.

"It is crucial that we now have a resolution under Chapter 7 of the Security Council. This is the first step in a series of actions to impose international pressure on the Iranian regime to end its nuclear weapons program. However, we should be mindful that the Iranian regime has no intentions to comply with the resolution and would seek to continue proceeding with its nuclear weapons program," said Jafarzadeh, who was the first person to reveal Iran's clandestine nuclear sites in Natanz and ArAk in August 2002.

"No time should be wasted to take up additional measures once the Iranian regime misses its deadline to comply," added the Iranian opposition advocate, stressing that the regime "is vulnerable to such resolution, because it is weak."

According to Jafarzadeh, the author of the forthcoming book "The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis," there were some 4,000 anti-government demonstrations in Iran in the past year. "Now is the time to step up pressure on the Iranian regime. The international community should not be intimidated by the Iranian regime's hollow threats," he said.

One could go on, there are other flash points in the Middle East -- Palestine, Afghanistan -- but why depress you more at this wonderful time of the year. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in 2007.