Can a Temporary State be a Bribe?

I laughed out loud when I read this:

A senior Palestinian intelligence official said that based on meetings with American diplomats he "understood" the US plans to target Iran's suspected nuclear installations in two to three months if negotiations with Tehran don't generate a major breakthrough.

The official, speaking to WND yesterday on condition of anonymity, said according to what he "understood," the US will "pay" for Arab support for a US strike against Iran by creating a temporary Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank by next summer.

The Arab offer to Israel isn't peace in exchange for a "temporary Palestinian State" with "most of the West Bank". It is a full state with full sovereign rights in all of the West Bank. Plus Gaza. My take on the offer when it was remade was that the Arabs expect it to be rejected and it will mark the movement of Saudi Arabia and others that follow away from the US camp, if not to the Iranian camp then towards neutrality.

But the Arabs don't want an attack on Iran and they don't want a temporary state. It's like Mexico telling immigration opposers that it will flood US markets with cheap goods, but as a bribe to compensate for that, it will allow more Mexicans to cross the border and compete in US labor markets.

Now if the US was to lie to any single person in the Middle East with even fewer than usual consequences, that person would be a "senior Palestinian intelligence official". I take this as a clumsy bluff, I'm sure Iran takes it the same way.

The good thing about this report is it turns verifiably false on February 1, 2008. Then I get to add it to my list of certain dates by which the US or Israel would attack Iran by which times there have not actually been attacks.