Scary but hardly surprising--we've hoped this wouldn't happen and known it probably would.

My question is, will Barack Obama go along with it so he doesn't get accused of being soft on national security or will he grow a spine? And if he does go along with it, how, exactly, does he differ from McCain, Bush, & Cheney?

I await developments with interest.

Obama is in a tough spot here. He can't speak out before anything is actually official, or he'll be accused of being meddlesome, being pro-Iran, and being someone with Muslim sympathies. These rumors are bait to make him speak out and make himself look weak. I really hope he's smart enough not to do that. What's stopping the Bush Administration is the obvious: $4 gas isn't popular, $8 gas will make it so conservatives suddenly can't afford to drive to the polls. Attacking Iran would shut down the Persian Gulf quicker than you can say "That was stupid."

In this rare instance, I'm certain the saber-rattling is just the Administration's other wrist-strengthening exercise.

Who is Danny Postrel?
Another non-expert Middle East "expert"?
As someone who lived more than 30 years
in the region, let me tell you that 99%
of the soi-disant MidEast experts here
don't know what they are talking about
(this is why we got into the Iraq mess in
the first place: Some very serious people
had some dreams about Democracy in the arab
world although there was never any precedant...).

Must be getting ready to past the actual war off to obama, who will sure pick up where the smirking chimp leaves off.

A fake "constitution" expert that does not believe in the 4th ammendment, if you think there are going to be any fundamental changes under him, you are daft.

Just watch, he will also try to lead the demolition of Social Security, he has already "catapulted the propaganda" that it is in crisis - a lie that an objective look at the numbers proves to be false.

Whoa, Kevin, I am amazed by some of the stuff you are quoting!

Danny Postrel wrote:

I'd rather fall for the hawks' propaganda than awake one morning to find out that I'd underestimated the threat.

Spoken like a true 1940s German accepting some paranoid anti-Jew propaganda, Danny! Hell, why don't we just believe anybody who is a doomsayer from now on! Except for global warming folks / environmental advocates, of course.

Can you keep the wing-nuttiness down to a less-than Hitler-era level of insanity, Kevin? Thanks.

Re: the Iran strike, as I've said many times before, the Bushies may want Iran to make an aggressive move before they launch an attack. The Iranians are wisely keeping whatever aggression they are practicing limited to fomenting mischief on a small scale in Iraq, so to get their war, the ultra-conservatives who are controlling Bush may see these operations as a way to destabilize Iran into being more likely to lose its cool, and do something we can say better justifies an attack.

So rather than a prelim to an attack, it's trying to shake up Iran's leadership psychologically, so those folks will be more likely to react/act without thinking about consequences, and do something they used to see as stupid.

This whole Iran invasion thing feels like a Rovian political distraction.

Put a secret speaker in that Well where DinnerJacket looks for the 11th Immam. Like that Bill Cosby comedy skit in which Bill plays Noah to some detached voice booming at him.

"Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran,"

Is this the Democrat congress That's betraying it's liberal base? The same one that was supposed to end the war. Oh well Barack will straighten them out.

I never thought the administration was stupid/brazen enough to occupy Iraq on such flimsy grounds so I'll sit this one out.

Because attacking Iran would be an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do,we shouldn't put it past this incredibly stupid, irresponsible administration.

Here's my take, for what little it's worth. My guess is that indeed the Bushies are intent on doing SOMETHING about Iran while they still have the power to do so. I'd be willing to bet on air strikes against Iranian nuke sites sometime before Jan 20, 2009, either by the US or Israel or both. The table is being set.

"Is this the Democrat congress That's betraying it's liberal base? The same one that was supposed to end the war. Oh well Barack will straighten them out." - Truth Politik

The liberal base in the Senate (I don't keep a tally on the House 'cause the math is harder), numbers about 25 on foreign policy and defense issues. That's hardly a majority and I'm afraid rather accurately reflects the country as a whole.

I suspect that the Bushies want to take on Iran, probably to satisfy some sort of wet dream about bringing on the second coming sort of thing. They can't do this directly, so are trying to quietly provoke Iran into doing something stupid -pretty much as Swan indicates. Supposedly we are readying HR362, which is supposed to bring on an illegal blockade of Iran. Some including Ron Paul, think this is a stealth declaration of war. We poking the bear with a stick, just waiting for it to strike out, so we claim it attacked us first when we shoot it. Given the complicity of the main stream media, the people will go along with the "the evil Iranians attacked us" meme.

Perhaps if we let in a little bit of sunshine now, and we can head this thing off. These are certainly more dangerous times than I care for.

It just seems to me that attacking Iran would almost surely lead to a truly HUGE increase in the price of oil (the Iranians ought to fairly easily be able to block passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz or just in general in the Arabian Sea). That seems to be compelling enough reason to think it is highly unlikely that the US or Israel will attack Iran (of course, unless there is some overt action on Iran's part that screams out for a military response).

All of the reasons cited above that the Bush administration shouldn't attack Iran make a lot of sense to me. Unfortunately the Bush administration and common sense don't even have a nodding acquaintance. They're a bunch of psychopaths and their agenda is to keep the GOP in power. Nothing will turn them aside from that agenda--not $8/gal gas, not common decency (another thing with which they're not acquainted), nothing.

WHEN IRAN IS OURS, why, WE will own the Straits of Hormuz, too, and control the Arabian sea.
IMPEACHMENT WILL STOP THOSE PLANS, call Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. Pelosi IS a Democrat.

I thought you were going to start ignoring Seymour Hersh, who has predicted twelve of the past zero attacke on Iran.

In the reality-based community, we believe that which we find ideologically pleasing, regardless of its improbability.

The 'goal' for Iraq war was for the GOP, operating out of the White House, to have a stick to beat Democrats with, to reduce domestic opposition to the Glorious Revolution to a cipher, using a wartime surge of nationalism and the powers of an aggrandized executive.

It was the key to a one-party state.

The imminent collapse of the Glorious Revolution could be forestalled by a repeat of the exercise

Iran won't be about Iran, any more than Iraq was about Iraq.

This whole misbegotten escapade in Mesopotamia has been nothing more or less than a second American civil war-by-proxy, attempting to settle deep and abiding differences about what this country, not Iraq, is, means, and does, by having a war about it -- just not here. If it wasn't in Iraq, it would have been someplace else. Iran will do just as well.

We've outsourced our Second Civil War.

Everyone seems to have this mindset that Bush is the problem, and once he's gone some mythical
"grownup" will put everything right. The reality will almost certainly be something different.

The point isn't necessarily to set up an immediate attack on
Iran, but to keep the country in play, so that such an attack is never out of the picture. Eventually, someone will find their way to the White House who will actually pull the trigger. Just as the first Bush and Clinton set the table for the second Bush, this Bush and Obama will set the table for, probably, Obama's successor (assuming Obama wins), perhaps even Obama himself.

We are following in Iran exactly the steps we followed in Iraq: 1) Demomize the country; 2)Impose sanctions that strengthen the hand of authoritarians; 3) Incite sectarian conflict; 4)On the grounds that Iran is a troubled country, a hotbed of terrorism and a threat to the region, and for the good of the people of Iran, invade. The only step we haven't seen yet is 4, the timing of which seems to be the current subject of debate. Why does anyone think that, in the wake of what we've seen with Iraq, Bush going away will alter this timeline?

Cheney et. al. want a casus belli; the basic options are:

1. Iran as nuclear power is an unacceptable threat. This is the never ending story, and has not had much widespread support--at least sufficient to justify preemptive strikes--and likely to be less so given the recent DPRK deal.
2. Iranian smoking gun in Iraq. However, a credible smoking gun has been elusive. Ratcheting up covert operations in Iran could cause Iran to respond in kind until it breaks out into the open. However, responding to such activities with direct military action against Iran would still be a problem to justify.
3. Gulf of Tonkin II. That would be faster, cheaper and easier to engineer than the other options, but a major direct response--beyond a very limited in-kind response--would still be hard to initiate or justify. The danger of that happening inadvertently may also speak to Fallon's anger at being cut out of the JSOC loop.
4. Apply a stranglehold (e.g., HR 362) that results in a defacto state of war, and which causes an overt Iranian response, either in Iraq (2) or in the Gulf (3).

In short, pay less attention to the administration's rhetoric and more attention to what's happening on the field. I'd guess (4) and (3) nose-to-nose, with (2) trailing by several lengths.

The point isn't necessarily to set up an immediate attack on
Iran, but to keep the country in play, so that such an attack is never out of the picture

I would argue that the time-line is quite short.

You have to look at this from the perspective of the Cheneybunker.

The existential threat to the Republic (and the Glorious Revolution) is Democratic control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. And maybe that court in the Hague.

Attacking Iran is the best way to forestall the threat. The Democrats will collapse like a yard-sale card table. Something showy like canceling the elections for the duration of the emergency won't be necessary. -- the Democrats will neuter themselves for the asking.

And hey, if it triggers WWIII or anything, it's still better than the alternative. The State exists to serve the Party, and if the Party is destroyed, the State loses it's raison d'etre.

Is this really brinksmanship? I think you have the wrong word Iran and the US aren't both aggressively seeking a confrontation. This isn't the Cuban Missle Crisis, or the US and China in Korea. Iran isn't threatening the US or any other country.

I think the word you want is belligerence or militancy.

I'm very skeptical about these covert actions. Given that we seem to have a "reverse-Midas" effect (everything we touch turns to shit) on the Middle East, wouldn't it be wiser to ignore Iran? The Iranian people (as opposed to the leadership) are already unusually pro-American. Maybe we just leave them alone so they'll continue to be that way. Either that, or we should just open a Halal certified McDonalds in Tehran. Hamburgers, Coca Cola, and Hollywood movies are the only things that people like about us. We should stick to those things.

What in the world are you folks going to do when Bush and Cheney are gone and you have to face reality again ?

Seymour Hersh sets the record for anonymous source once again.

Seymour Hersh always says we're ramping up to go to war with Iran. ALWAYS. This is at least the third time in the last three years. I think (I hope, anyway) he just enjoys freaking me out.

Well, anyone with any understanding of history knows how well Operation Ajax went in 1953, when covert operators overthrew the Iranian government. There is a direct line of causality from that fiasco through the appointment of the Shah to the Islamic Revolution of 1979. That worked like a fucking charm, didn’t it???

The US openly admits it supports internal insurgencies in Iran to purposely overthrow the political leadership while the US declares Iran's support of Iraq's insurgents against the US occupation is reason for war. The occupation of Iraq and the aggressive intimidation of Iran are abuses of American power. It is incredible we and the UN allow the US government to act in this way.

nepeta wrote:

Here's my take, for what little it's worth. My guess is that indeed the Bushies are intent on doing SOMETHING about Iran while they still have the power to do so. I'd be willing to bet on air strikes against Iranian nuke sites sometime before Jan 20, 2009, either by the US or Israel or both. The table is being set.

This isn't about nuke sites, it's about oil. Even if there are such sites (which we don't know), the Bushies have nothing to gain by and no interest in humanitarian gestures. It's not connected to Al Qaeda and AQ isn't going to get whatever weapons Iran has, so no one has the expectation that Bush should do it.

"I think (I hope, anyway) he just enjoys freaking me out."

I hope so too. But I fear that he's really just being used as a tool by the Bush administration. He sends a message to Iran that would be inappropriate to send through normal methods of communication. My guess is that Cheney secretly loves the work of Hersh.

Then again, I guess it might be a good pre-election stunt for them to bomb something in Iran.

Even if it isn't really a weapons site, so long as the Bushies claimed it was, it would get everybody excited about the threats to us and war, and swing some votes to the warmongers' candidate, McCain.

Anyway, I don't think the story about the covert ops means that an imminent invasion is being prepared.

Missile strikes are a different matter, but chances are those won't go off without more provocation, either. If it had to do with wiping out a base for supporting terrorists who operate within Iraq, that would be a good idea-- but seriously, aren't we all at least kind of skeptical about the claims about Iran's involvment by now? If they're really causing such a problem in Iraq now, why not retaliate against them now? What's the coyness for?

AQ isn't going to get whatever weapons Iran has

Primarily because Iran doesn't want to be turned into a crater like Iraq, so they don't want to implicate themselves in 9/11 style terrorism (which would be good enough reason, of course, to invade-- a better basis than the claimed basis we had against Iraq), and secondarily because of the ideological divide between the Iranians and AQ.

Our compliant media and the “expert” mouthpieces present us with a FALSE DILEMMA, according to which we either have to sanction/bomb Iran or else face being nuked by Iran.

This is simply not the case.

Not only are Iran’s centrifuges under IAEA safeguards but Iran has made perfectly reasonable compromise suggestions to resolve the standoff that is widely endorsed by American and international experts: multilateral enrichment on Iranian soil.

This was one of many Iranian compromise offers that the US has refused to even acknowledge, along with Iran’s 2003 comprehensive peace offer (which Rice falsely claimed she had never seen.)

Read more at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php

If I was Prez and I had good reason to think Iran was a danger to us in the here-and-now, instead of just a bunch of dangerous personalities who would be a threat if only they had the right weapons, I would just kill all their leaders.

Laura Rozen has some interesting grains of salt to take with Seymour Hersh's article at her blog http://warandpiece.com/

If I was Prez and I had good reason to think Iran was a danger to us in the here-and-now, instead of just a bunch of dangerous personalities who would be a threat if only they had the right weapons, I would just kill all their leaders.

Well, maybe that's a little extreme, but the point is, why not neutralize the threat somehow.

I think announcing covert-ops and the associated price tag is a pretty bizarre form of diplomacy, more likely to make Iran the enemy of our nightmares than anything else.

Seriously, what sort of "democratic" movement is going to be bolstered by military threats and covert ops? I can see how it will raise the popularity of the mullahs, but no alternative politicians are going to be able to stand up effectively in this context.

Well, maybe that's a little extreme, but the point is, why not neutralize the threat somehow.

That's sort of funny. You see we orchestrated a coup in 1953, propped up the Shah for 26 years, supported Saddam Hussein in a war against them for 7 years, and then spent the last seven years threatening their country with bombing or invasion.

The anti-american leadership is a self stable form of government that would in fact get a boost from any sort of attack, assassination, etc. If you want to neutralize the threat you have to either force them into submission with a hundred thousand troops or stop picking the fight.

If we do attack Iran I think it *might* help McCain, but I don't believe Bush gives a damn about McCain or even really cares about the GOP anymore, or even about the American people. It's all about his legacy now. He might prefer that he goes out with a bang instead of a whimper. If he attacks Iran while the economy is tanking, then it could be argued that the attack itself was what drove the economy into the dumper-not his policies-and we needed to stop the Iranians from getting a bomb at all costs-therefore it was the right thing to do. The oil business will also not be doing too shabby as a result.

I'm curious about the wingnut talking point regarding Hirsh we've seen in this thread. Hirsh, we are told, has continuously predicted a U.S. invasion of Iran, so we should all ignore him now. The obvious non sequitur of this line of argumentation aside, I'm not so sure the premise on which it is based is correct. Has Hirsh ever predicted a U.S. attack on Iran? Or has he, instead, documented a clear pattern of U.S. behavior that points to such an attack as the end goal of U.S. Middle Eastern policy? My own belief is it's the latter, but the wingnuts are more than welcome to cite some of Hirsh's work where he makes these explicit predictions of an attack. If these predictions exist.

>"Is this the Democrat congress That's betraying it's liberal base? "

Bottom line is that the US Congress will not betray AIPAC.

Iraq was not about oil. Iran is not about oil.

It's all about Israel. Every element of US Mideast policy is about Israel. The interests of the American people are secondary and incidental.

Keep that simple fact in mind and the actions of the Bush regime make perfect sense.

Well said, Buford.

fostert: wouldn't it be wiser to ignore Iran?

Undoubtedly. So you can expect the current administration to do the opposite. I want to believe that Hersh has gone crazy, but in the dark of the night I see Commander Codpiece being measured for his new flightsuit.

Fear of being on the wrong side of AIPAC is responsible for the fact that congress won't contest the policy. AIPAC can destroy political careers by demonizing their opponents as anti-semites. Thats actually pretty amazing considering that AIPAC is far right, and Jewish Americans as a whole are an extremely liberal group. It will take a brave and powerful politician to take them on, and regain American sovereignity over our own foreign policy. I hope a post-election Obama is up to it (this is very likely a vain hope). Neither candidate would dare challenge them pre-election.

B4 we went into Afghanistan, ~25% of Pentagon spending was unaccounted for. Now, years later as we "head into Iran" possibly 50% of Pentagon expenditures are shady. What will it look like after the Iran World War ? 75%....

Perpetuawar.

We Fleece the People so help us God.

Matt >"...looks for the 11th Immam...."

I think you mean the 12th Imam.

fostert >"...Given that we seem to have a "reverse-Midas" effect (everything we touch turns to shit) on the Middle East, wouldn't it be wiser to ignore Iran?..."

Yes, it would but the TPTB wouldn`t like that at all. And since when has Bush Handlers, Inc. had anything to do with "wise" ?

fostert >'...My guess is that Cheney secretly loves the work of Hersh."

So you`re suggesting that Hersh`s source is Addington or Cheney himself ? Certainly possible I suppose.

And I can`t wait for the price of petroleum products to get high enough that the guy down the street always (except when he sleeps) using a leaf blower to keep the ants off his property can`t afford to do so anymore.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

It's all about Israel. Every element of US Mideast policy is about Israel. The interests of the American people are secondary and incidental.

as well as...

Fear of being on the wrong side of AIPAC is responsible for the fact that Congress won't contest the policy. AIPAC can destroy political careers by demonizing their opponents as anti-Semites. That's actually pretty amazing considering that AIPAC is far right, and Jewish Americans as a whole are an extremely liberal group.

And therein lies the problem. How do you tell Israel, "You're not special anymore," without looking like a Nazi?

The anti-american leadership is a self stable form of government that would in fact get a boost from any sort of attack, assassination, etc. If you want to neutralize the threat you have to either force them into submission with a hundred thousand troops or stop picking the fight.

Well, I just meant stopping a particular attack, but it's waaaaaaaaaay out there hypothetical- like "What if Iran had a submarine that could fire nuclear missiles that was within range of us and we heard they were going to shoot one at us?" I meant that in that case we should blow up the submarine or something.

So perhaps you're right that it wouldn't hurt the rulers politically, but my basic point is that if we're worried about a specific threat and we really know about it, then why wouldn't the Bushies just take some sort of action to stop the threat (instead of just sabre-rattling over and over again)? I sure would.

So the ultimate point is that there is no real threat (most likely) or that the Bushies don't care about addressing a real threat (less likely).

How do you tell Israel, "You're not special anymore," without looking like a Nazi?

By using a gesture instead of words, maybe.

So the ultimate point is that there is no real threat

In the mind of some, an unchastened Iran is a threat to their cherished meeting of the preconditions for the second coming. What are a few million deaths, as compared to the coming of the kingdom of god.

"So you`re suggesting that Hersh`s source is Addington or Cheney himself ?"

Not really. My guess is that whenever Hersh meets with someone, Cheney's thugs take that person to an undisclosed location and torture the shit out of him. And after that, the person says exactly what Cheney wants him to say. And Hersh buys it. Cheney knows that if people expect a war with Iran, they are more likely to let it happen. So it's good for Cheney when Hersh tries to convince people that war is coming and nobody can stop it.

I'll go with those that say that S. Hersh has always been pointing at the administration's inclination rather than predicticting an actual attack. Sort of similar to the administration pointing out the lack of an attack since 11th September, 2001. Doesn't mean people haven't been thinking about achieving that result!

As to interfering in Iran, we tried and succeeded in the 50s and reaped the whirlwind (unpredicted by our "intelligence") 25 years after "successfully" replacing the government in our favor. Here we hope to achieve success with little chance of replacing the government, only hardening attitudes and animosity against the US, not only in Iran but throughout Islam and any country under threat from the US.

Yep. The US has learned NOTHING in the last 50 years of international relations. At least with these clowns in charge.

As long as Hersh keeps the citizens and media alert against this self-created threat, long may he prosper.

God save us from ourselves. Heaven help us all!

The U.S. will not attack Iran . . . until October.

Even if all this bluster is just something designed to coerce Iran into concessions, it is dangerous. In August 1914, the European powers lost contol of events and blustered each other into war.

Considering how many politically naive idiots, even among purported Democrats, are willing and eager to support a slimeball like McCain, I think a strike against Iran in the fall could easily result in a McCain victory. I was never one of the 90% of Americans--all the idiots?--supporting Bush after 9/11. Bush was still an evil, lying creep.

But you'll still find zillions of Americans whose hearts will go aflutter at the prospect of fighting people in Iran. They'll think, "I'm a patriot! I'm a patriot! We can beat 'em! We're winners! We're on top! We're the best!"

Doesn't this make George Bush a terrorist? He's inciting violence in a country that has done nothing to us. How is that any different than Saddam Hussein sending money to anti-Israeli terrorists?

Swan,

Do you read the papers? Are you aware that Iran has thumbed its nose at Security Council demands that it cease enriching uranium? Do you even care? What do you think the world ought to do to stop Iran from enriching uranium?

Who built Iran's first atomic reactor? We did.

"America, home of the brave"...wetting our collective bed over some pissant country enriching uranium, which under the IAEA they have every right to do for civilian purposes.

Who can blame Iran, anyway? As North Korea shows, a country with nukes, doesn't get attacked. After the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief's saber rattling it's an entirely rational response- though there STILL is no evidence of an Iranian bomb program!

It's simply amazing- the same nation that faced down Germany and Japan (with the massive assistance of our allies of course) is shaking in its boots from Iran, a country which has no modern record of aggression outside its borders, and no ability to project force abroad, save for some knockoff Scuds.

The USA- a nation filled with God-boggled, cringing cowards, hiding behind our $trillion Department of 'Defense' security blanket...pathetic.

Dear On June 30,

You are absolutely right, we shouldn't be shaking in our boots about Iran enriching uranium en route to making nukes. There is absolutely no reason for us to fear the Iranian nuclear program because we can bomb the crap out of its nuclear program and unilaterally set it back 10 or so years, and I can't think of a good reason not to do so. I can't see any alternative, frankly, and you don't offer one except to say, "who cares?"

The only interesting questions are whether the Israelis will attack before us and if not whether President Bush will wait until after the election.

If Iran was doing this to our country, wouldn't it be considered an act of war and worthy of being responded to with appropriate force?

I am being serious here. But its like the serious people in Washington expect us to be able to do stuff like this with impunity across the world while everyone else sits on their hands and takes it.

DBL has no regard for the rule of law, but respects the authority to kill those he fears. Iran is not a threat to the US or Israel, yet DBL wants to kill some Iranians for lawfully doing what the IAEA allows, regardless of what the US puppets of the Security Council vote on. Israel is the rogue state and should be subjected to relentless sanctions and boycotts until it relinquishes its illegal nuclear weapons.

DBL: What do you think the world ought to do to stop Iran from enriching uranium?

Careful how you define "world". A significant number of countries support Iran's pursuit of enrichment. Another chunk wants them to pause to allow for confidence-building and inspections. A few want them to stop and roll back all activities, and only a couple have put force on the table as means of achieving that goal.

I can't see any alternative, frankly, and you don't offer one except to say, "who cares?"

Then you aren't looking very hard. You may think the alternatives won't work, or the outcomes are unacceptable, but they're out there, and have been discussed ad-nauseum. If, however, you start with the position that Iran's enrichment activities are unacceptable under any conditions, then it's understandable why you don't see an alternative.

Hey. Laughing is the sensation of feeling good all over and showing it principally in one spot. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Online trading platform. I found only this - how to trade stocks online. Another forex entitled in becoming water business ranks forex tournaments mayan of mentor links, online trading. Online trading, like all viewers in the service, the font of a trading is next to love. With best wishes :-), Aila from Turkmenistan.