So Yahoo/The Politico’s Mike Allen sits down with Condoleeza Rice to discuss Iran, and it’s Condi who comes off sounding sane.

Allen baits her - What’s the nightmare scenario if Iran gets Teh Bomb??? - and he’s obviously wanting her to say that Iran will immediately launch salvos at Israel or maybe even the good old U.S. of A. But Condi doesn’t bite.

Then Allen goes into Israel’s fears about Iranian nuclear weapons and the scary possibility of proliferation in the region. Proliferation is indeed a major issue; but how can you credibly ask this question without at least acknowledging that Israel already has nuclear weapons? Allen doesn’t; and I’m sorry, that bespeaks an agenda.

And then he raises the possibility of Iran using the “ultimate weapon” - controlling the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Rice points out - again, sanely - that restricting the flow of oil would hurt Iran, too, dramatically reduce the country’s revenue.

So I come away from the video with two thoughts:

1. If Rice’s thinking reflects the administration’s thinking on the whole, maybe tensions have ratcheted down; maybe the Cheneyites role is diminished. That would be a very good thing.

2. But why is Allen throwing gasoline on the fire here? He’s specifically seeking incindiary answers; he’s asking the questions in a way that tries to lead Rice into making the most hawkish/neoconservative comments possible.

Would make for better video if she did, I guess. But if/when we wind up on the road to war with Iran, as was the case with Iraq, be aware that it is this type of media behavior that helps drive the bus.