Depends on the 7 year old. The PSP is kind of like the PS3, in terms of a lot of multimedia power that probably gets wasted just playing games. If you are willing to monitor and help your kid out, then it could be excellent for road trips and such, since you can put movies/music on there. I disagree with other posters who think the DS is more durable. Sure, dropping a $130 thing is easier on the heart than dropping a $180 thing, but that's what warranties are for. As long as the kid is responsible, it should be no problem. Does your kid also have a cell phone? If so, then a PSP shouldn't be so bad. What worries me most is the touch screen on the DS. I remember when I was 7, I had little control over pencils (always breaking the tip), which could spell trouble for the touch screen.

However, the game selection is hands-down better on the DS than PSP, at least for a seven year old. Sure, you've got your Hot Shots, Loco Roco, and not yet mentioned Me and My Katamari, but that's 3 vs. 100 kids games on the DS. But again, if your kid wants to play a Tiger Woods golf game, then maybe these kiddie games aren't the best fit. Or maybe you should just get the PSP so you can play classic games downloaded from the Playstation Store, for a fraction of the cost of a UMD.

IMHO, unless your kid REALLY wants a PSP now, you ought to wait for the updated version of the PSP (whenever that comes out), by that time maybe the PSP and PS3 will be better integrated. In the mean time, a DS can't hurt, those brain games are awesome. And it is much cheaper than the $50 price difference. A PSP needs a new memory card if you want to do anything cool with it, plus extra accessories.

Why don't we stay on topic? The topic is a little confusing because Iran is already "invading" Iraq. Iran is taking advantage of the turmoil in Iraq and sending "covert" ops over to instigate a lot of bloodshed between Iraqis. It's not exactly the same covert ops that we usually think of (any Ghost Recon game), Iran is basically just trucking over soldiers/supplies to create havoc and hopefully turn Iraq into a buddy theocracy/Islamic state. In principle, it's not that different from what we are doing (trying to create a buddy democracy), except we go about it in a different way (trying NOT to kill civilians).

However, the topic is probably asking what would happen if the entire country of Iran mobilized and invaded Iraq, in a similar way that Iraq invaded Kuwait in the last decade. I'm guessing Iran wouldn't be so stupid as to attack the US, they would either wait for us to leave, or give us an ultimatum of "We want to invade Iraq, leave or get caught in the crossfire." I can't imagine the US wanting to stay and fight another country. I doubt it would be as easily defeated as Afghanistan and Iraq was, but maybe I'm too tentative about their nuclear capabilities. And even if we stayed, we already know the quagmire that would ensue. All the terrorists hide out amongst the populace and slowly destroy things from the inside. And the terrorist influx would be even WORSE in Iran. Guess who's on the eastern border of Iran? Pakistan AND Afghanistan. And that border over twice the size of the Iran/Iraq one.

Long story short: if it happened while we were there, we would steamroll their military, but create a whole new generation(s) of terrorists, and probably further solidify the extremist islamic hold on their government. If it happened after we left, it would be the middle-east equivalent of Darfur, with whole-sale butchering of most muslim sects to be replaced by Iran's favorite brand, and also create a whole new country for the greater glory of Iran. Which also emboldens and bolsters the terrorists in Iran. Either way, we get screwed.