Haven't we heard all this before? The dire warnings? The talk of "regime change"? The leaked intelligence reports about nuclear weapons programs, and of threats to our forces? The vice president threatening "monumental consequences"? The "madman" in the Middle East who threatens our very way of life.

Make no mistake. The current posture and policy of the Bush administration is leading our nation inexorably toward a ruinously self-defeating conflict with Iran, a conflict that will have grave consequences for the Middle East, the United States and the world. And once again, everyone is busily pretending that it is not happening.

As we've learned – or have we not? – with Iraq, the Bush administration makes great pretense of serving up diplomacy as its first course of war. What is different and more ominous this time is that in its planning for this war, the White House is contemplating the first-use of nuclear weapons, in the form of earth-penetrating, "bunker-busting" bombs.

If this all sounds crazy, if you cannot believe you're reading this, believe it. Surely, a reasonable person would say, the Bush administration isn't seriously considering what it is considering? But we've all said that before, and look where we are.

The collateral damage of American air strikes against Iran, not only in casualties but in military and political backlash, would be immense. This would be no simple raid, but a major military operation taking several weeks. Iran is not Iraq, but a nation four times larger in terms of size and three times in population. We would be attacking a nation the combined size of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, and one with a military far more modernized and a population far more unified than Iraq in 2003.

And look how well things are going there.

The idea of air strikes against Iran is preposterous – they will only serve to strengthen the current regime immensely. And what would all this gain? At best, air strikes would slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years, unless the U.S. were willing to follow an air campaign with a land invasion and occupation. Short of that, the cost of buying time with air strikes would likely be a redoubling of Iran's determination to get a bomb – and an exponential increase in its bitterness towards the United States and its strongest ally in the region, Israel.

An attack would destabilize an already unstable Middle East. Terrorism against U.S interests around the world would increase dramatically. One could forget any hopes of stemming the global jihadi terror threat – Bin Laden and others would rouse the world's 1.2 billion Muslims with cries that the United States was seeking to destroy Islam. And any hopes of political reform in Iran would be doomed.

Our young men and women in Iraq would be sitting ducks for retaliation – the fanatical Iraqi Shiite cleric, Moqtada Al-Sadr, has already declared that his forces would attack American troops in Iraq in the event that Bush bombs Iran. Given that the Shiites in Iraq have so far functioned as expedient allies of the U.S occupation, and that we've lost nearly 3600 troops in four years largely at the hands of the Sunni minority in only a small part of Iraq, it is chilling to think of the consequences if the majority Shiites get involved.

An attack would greatly compromise the world's oil supply. The price of oil would soar to between $100-200 per barrel. Americans would find the price at the pump at least doubling. The global economy would be crippled. At best, a global recession would follow; at worst, a second Great Depression.

And yet the single thing that can be guaranteed about any air assault on Iran is that, however well laid out the plans beforehand, events will quickly spin out of control. The Bush government, blinded by arrogance, consumed by power, delusional in its divine mission, ridiculously sure of themselves, fearless of other people's lives, and still ignorant of its mistakes with regard to Iraq, will once again be stunned and unprepared to deal with them.

The result will be disaster for us all.

It just struck me. Yellow Journalism lives!

Remember the Maine???

What a long and glorious history our newspapers have of whipping up madness and hysteria for the greater power and glory of our powerful and glorious leaders!

strange animals, thanks for the analysis, about which you are absolutely right. but more than one or two people in the DOD, etc., is telling dick-bush the same thing. for all we know, this is just saber rattling.

but then, why do it? given the US strategic position (very compromised, to say the least), why even threaten another major regional power? and why do the prez contenders (not all of them, but the biggies) go along w/it? why does congress? why won't congress simply declare and enact that dumbya must obtain congressional approval before aggressive action is taken against iran?

it boggles my mind.

Thanks, Evelyn. You and I share a similar manner of thinking. I, too, believe that Bush plans on attacking Iran. I think that is part of why General Pace was let go, because he was opposed. That is also why an admiral was put in charge of CentComm, because an attack on Iran will largely be carried out by naval air forces.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, Bush may truly hope that also this sabre-rattling will force Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations, and therefore spare the world a horrific conflict, but I and you and many others believe he is quite prepared to initiate this conflict if he (well, really if Dick) believes Iran will never negotiate away its nuclear program.

BTW, Bush keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office, and often talks to advisors and visitors about how history will judge him a Churchillian figure.

Thanks for the Churchill quote. These are scarier times than we know.

Mine, too.

Certainly, some part of it is sabre-rattling, and perhaps necessarily so. And the presidential wannabe's of both parties of course want to be seen by the voters as being "tough on terrorism", as not capitulating to the mullahs, so they fall right in line with the White House rhetoric.

But if you believe Seymour Hersh's contacts, the answer to the question of "why do it?" is two-part: Bush's sense of providential mission, and his belief that if he were not to "act" on the "problem" of Iran, history will judge him not for what he did to Iraq but for what he left undone in Iran.

Given that Bush frequently compares himself to Churchill, it's not difficult to imagine that he believes history will compare him instead to Chamberlain if he were not to nip Iran's nascent nuclear development in the bud.

Poet is in a VERY BAD mood whose proximate cause is the mention of anything by Michael Gordon:

To the tune of "Big Spender" from Sweet Charity (with appologies)

Big Talker--

The moment you opened you mouth,
I could tell you were a big bull-shitter,
Establishment pundit,
A lousy slime,
Reading what you write is such a waste of time

Let me get right to the point,
You are a trashy whore, though you think yourself a success,
Hey bullshitter,
Go somewhere else with your mess!

For those of you who want to see "the Michael" up close and personal go to (if you can stand it!):

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/17/160232&mode=thread&tid=25

This is all utterly insane--including the commentaries. Starnge Animals thinks a war with Iran, on top of the one in Iraq, would cause the price of oil to double, and create problems at home.
Wake up, people! Islam would not tolerate another groundless, aggressive attack---the supply of oil would be cut off, and with the already tight supply, it would much more than double. Worldwide depression would be the mildest, not the worst, consequence. And aside from the economic consequences of another major war, the turmoil at home, and within the military, would destroy this country completely. A war similar to the Iraq war, similar to Vietnem, is obviously not possible so they might figure on nuking the hell out of iran, simply clearing much of the population to seize the oil openly. This would be genocide beyond anything Hitler did--what would follow would include no further pretense of democracy. Domestic dissent could be dealt with by simply killing protesters--by this time the regime would have no support but that of terrified acquiescence, and those fascists who would be pleased by the end of democracy--probably a higher percentage of the population than we like to think.
Why are even Democratic contenders embracing such talk? Why are even Commondreams commentators speaking as though this were merely an exacerbation, a poor policy choice rather than a plan to wipe the planet clean of humanity?
All I can say is that if it has come to this, I DO hope they will use germ warfare rather than nukes, to allow other species to survive.

So what are we doing to point out this "cry wolf" howler to the rest of the (un?)civilized English speaking world? After all, what is civilization if not a society that believes in the mantra of "live and let live"? What then, would un-civilization be? Kill, and damn the consequences??

All Too Relevant Quote:
How is the World Ruled, & and; how do wars start?---
Diplomats tell lies to journalists, & then believe what they read.
(Karl Kraus, Austrian Press,1874-1936)

Hi StrangeAnimals. You wrote, Bush frequently compares himself to Churchill. Oh God help us.

Churchill is quoted as once saying, "I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect would be good,___ and it would spread a lively terror".___ Churchill commenting on using posion gas against the iraquis after WW 1.

My-MY. Let us all hope Bush hasn't read that quote; but then of course someone could have read it to him and he does Okay reading speeches. He's actually not quite as stupid as some portray him to be. Also, he really does believe God put him in power to save mankind. God, what god? The god in charge of this planet for the present is the Devil. Well,if that is true, if Bush ever faces charges for murder in a world court, he'll have a perfect defense. "The devil made me do it". Guess I can cut off any attempted humor, this subject is actually not humerous.

If Bush does attack Iran, (and I personally believe he will,)__ he won't use posion gas. The use of atomic weapons however is a high probability and Depleted uranium shells and bombs is a given. Our military would almost have to use "strategic" atomic weapons to prevent havng our troops wiped out.

Our already broken and rather demoralized military in Iraq, would be in dire straits if a war does break out. They would be fighting not only solders from Iran's forces, but at that point in time the snipers in Iraq would come out in force. It would be a damn mess. If we think Iraq is in trouble now, and it is, wait till we start another war with Iran. You know the Arabs might forget they are Sunni or Sheite for awhile and join forces. They hate us more than they do each other.

Iran is not only four times the size of Iraq, it is not all flat land, A goodly portion is rugged hills and mountains. No one has ever totally conquered Mesopotania. Imagine fightng an offensive war in the state of Nevada and western Utah? Baaad.

It appears that the ducks are being lined up for not ony a takeover of America by Cheney, but a war with Iran. If it occurs we are screwed and it will be a long screwing. Got Kids, love em? Me too, what do we do besides worry and write to one another? ___ Oh yes, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach. Almost forgot.

Yes, I send letters to my conressman, talk to my neighbors, and they all think I'm a paranoid fruitcake. Am I, are all of us?

I think it's clear that trying to move Bush, Cheney, Rice and their cadre is utterly futile. The effort, I think, must be to make it clear to Obama, Edwards and Clinton that none of them is going to be president of the United States if they permit a war on Iran -- a war for which all three of them are currently and for some time have been only a very little bit, if at all, less eager than Bush and Cheney.

Thanks for calling attention to this article. It raised my highbrows when I first read it. What's disturbing is that the military and government are trying so hard to make links to Iran when the Iraqi government is concerned about all the jihadists and money for the insurrection coming from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Sunni countries. Why doesn't the press cover this if they want to reduce the violence in Iraq and the deaths of Americans and Iraqis?

Is this Bush's undeclared War on Climate Change?

An attack on Iran causing oil prices to rocket into the stratosphere and petrol availability into the black market is one sure way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Mwildfire, I agree with a lot of your comments. Personally, I don't believe a war with Iran would be just a poor policy choice, I believe it would be the end of the United States. We would have a depression__ and I've given my opinions on that subject several times on other strings. It will not be like the one of 29, there were millions of farmers then and there was food, people by and large did not starve. Not now. Now most of our food is trucked across country, the stores would be empty within a few days. Then it would begin,__ anarchy, rioting and killing far worse than we can imagine. People kill for food. Tme electricity would fail, millions of armed men would be pouring across our southern border, it will be hell on Earth.

So no, WE are aware of what will occur if Cheney has his way and many of the bloggers here have been stating it for a long time.

Hi Strange Animals, some comment by Winston, the power brokers have been around for eons. Power does go to the head of many. I'm surprised we're still here. The already use of "depleted uranium" has put our planet in jeapordy. There is enough deadly atomic waste in the atmosphere now to put all life on Earth on the brink of extenction. If it kills off the ocean's pytoplankton it's over. Those tiny life, supply 70% of our oxygen. After all life has been eradicated, the atmosphere will be mostly hydrogen, the sun's rays will cook the Earth and she will be a sister planet of Mars, just another big ball of rocks and dirt, silently orbiting in this solar system. Depressing subject, so most tend to ignore it. Bush SR. and Jr. are fools, this use of DU in weaponry is truly weapons of mass destruction. Mass in this case means,___ everybody.

If you have not read it yet, go to Google and ask for depleted uranium. Humanity is in serious trouble, all life is. The symptoms are clearly obvious, bird population across the globe have suffered a "dramatic" decrease in just the past eighteen months. We have already expended hundreds of TONS of DU and are still using more in Iraq and Afgan.

Every person in that area of the world, including our troops are dead men walking. Some will be dead within five years, most will be in thirty. It is everyplace now, the atmosphere is loaded with it and will be for at least four million years. So, a war with Iran__ or anyone else,__ is deadly serious.

This blog has some of the brightest commentators I have seen. And I agree with most of what you guys are saying.

An attack on Iran would present an existential threat to the US. The Russians and Chinese, who are on good terms with Iran, have made it clear that if we attack, they will support Iran against us. They clearly see what Americans are not told: That an attack on Iran would be a continuation of America's attempt to get preferential access to Middle Eastern oil fields by military force. They also see that the real targets of this policy are themselves: That the US is intending to use its control of the oilfields to exclude potential competitors from access to them. If this happens--if we attack, and if Russia and China decide to oppose us--they can do so in any number of unpleasant ways, most of which do not include military action. China alone could bring the effort to a screeching halt, by simply 1.) Not lending us the money we need to carry out the attack; and 2.) By ceasing to provide our military with necessary parts. As incredible as it seems, the US military is using parts in its missiles and planes which are only being manufactured in China--the result of a quarter century of Reaganesque economic policies which have hollowed out our economy and made us the biggest debtor nation in history.

WE ARE A PAPER TIGER, FOLKS. We CANNOT carry on the present insane militaristic policies unless the world gives us the economic support to do it. And after Iraq, there isn't much willingness to do so.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything happening which will prevent the attack--it will take impeachment of Cheney and Bush to derail it, and the Dem's are too weak and corrupted by corporatist capital to do it. So we are like helpless riders in a bus that's being driven off of a cliff.

And what a wreck it's going to be.

Alamac.___ Damn, I thought it was bad. Your disartation sure made it look a whole lot worse.

Fraid you are absolutely correct. If the pick a pair get impeached,? Well, all bets are off. Can't hold our breath on that though.

After mulling it over Alamac, (the things you wrote about), I thought about moving to Mexico and telling them I was a Canadian, just so they wouldn't hate me.

That statement about our aircraft parts are mostly made in China is the worst one. They really do have us by the short hairs.

A neighbor is currently restoring a 1967 Mustang. He ordered a new radiator and it came UPS. In big letters on the box, it read, MADE IN CHINA. A 1967 Mustang!!! Gheeeze!!! Everything is made in China, we just bought garlic at a Safeway which was grown in China, packaged in Calif.

We desperately need a real leader, one who will correct this China mess and all the other mistakes as soon as popssible. Now this may sound stupid, silly, or dumb, but I seriously and sincerely wish, Robin Williams would run for the office. You know what? He really could win, he'd get more support than any of the current crop. He could then take Kinuch as the VP.

Let's all think about it and maybe petition him, there is plenty of time. No one owns him and he's a very intelligent guy___ who displays a high degree of common sense. That is the name of this tune, COMMON SENSE.