"Mr ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA, has been increasingly at odds with Washington and London, who believe he is straying beyond his job description and freelancing as an independent statesman."

Gawd knows, we need an independent statesman, since the "statesmen" we have are totally useless.

Keep up the good work, ElBaradei. If we in the anti-war movement had our act together, we'd all stand up en masse and announce that we're behind you.

Well it certainly has begun, and we have been warned all along this was coming.
Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Bruce Fein, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, have all told us we are going to Iran next, and most recently Juan Cole wrote:

'Barnett Rubin relays a message from a well-connected friend in Washington on the Cheney Administration's plans to roll out a military confrontation with Iran in September. He writes at the Global Affairs blog:

" My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way:

They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."'

Can we stop this from happening? Unlike with Iraq, even the French are onboard this time.
I think if we bomb Iran, suicide bombers will start targeting American cities, buses and subways will be exploding, and we will live like Israeli's, in danger every time we leave our house.

Get ready...

I was stunned to hear an interview with retired general Wesley Clark yesterday in which he did not doubt that Cheney is moving close to bombing Iran. Clark is a well-positioned establishment figure with the best of sources in the military.

Damn those lunatics in the Bush administration!

Iran could solve this standoff today by agreeing to total transparency in the development of their nuclear program to wit: giving inspectors from the EU and the USA full and complete right to inspect every nut and bolt that gets installed in their reactors and monitoring their every move on a 24/7 basis for the rest of the century and beyond.

i recall that as the bombing was about to begin in march 2003, there were still UN inspectors on the ground in iraq; how different might the headlines be today if kofi annan had not caved in to shrub at the last minute and ordered them to leave?

they could have stood, like the tank man in tiananmen square, as a powerful symbol of resistance to state terrorism, and possibly the "coaltion" might not have been so "willing."

our only hope, it seems, lies in principled and courageous individuals such as el baradei and scott ritter who, at considerable personal risk, give voice to our collective doubts about our "leaders."

"a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran".

wHAT UTTER FUCKING BULLSHIT!

Let's say, for the sake of arguing, that Iran does really want to possess atomic weapons - like Pakistan, India and Israel already have. SO WHAT??? Will someone please tell me how in the world this is so "catastrophic"???

Iran is an ancient nation and also an imperfect democracy that in some ways is more functional than the US democracy is right now.

Iran has not invaded any neighboring state since Xerxes!

And, like any nuclear power, they know that the offensive use of even a single nuclear weapon would invite instant anhillation.

But like every current nuclear weapon power, they could enjoy instant respect for their sovereignty due to the deterrent effect that even the rumor of nuclear bomb possession confers.

All this talk about the current Iran president's so-called belligerant, anti semitic rhetoric is largely nonsense. And to any sense that Ahmadinejad sounds belligerant - once again, so what? That's what heads of state inlargely ceremonial positions like the iranian presidency do. Due to poor performance regarding the domestic economy, he's not going to get re-elected amyway. At any rate Ahmadinejad's rhetroic is a big red herring, the US didn't treat his predecesor, the more progressive Khatami any better.

Please, some sanity!

JoeT September 18th, 2007 12:31 pm

We all watched as Iraq and Saddam agreeded to total transparency - complied fully with every U.N. demand - and was still bombed out of existance. Iran is neither stupid nor a terrorist state.
Have you noticed how anyone that gets in the way of US and Israeli agression is labled as a terrorist?

JoeT

Iran could solve this standoff today by agreeing to total transparency in the development of their nuclear program to wit: giving inspectors from the EU and the USA full and complete right to inspect every nut and bolt that gets installed in their reactors and monitoring their every move on a 24/7 basis for the rest of the century and beyond.

Why should Iran do that if Israel, India, Pakistan, China, et al, did not have to submit to such inspections when the development of nuclear weapons was unlawful for them under international law? What makes Iran so different? Furthermore, all countries have a right to develop the technology for nuclear energy, and that is NOT unlawful under international treaties. And another furthermore -- under the NPT, all countries that originally had nuclear weapons were required to reduce their stockpiles down to zero. Who do you think did that? Who do you think continued to develop more and more sophisticated nuclear weapons?

According to all reports, Iran is about ten years away from having the technology to produce nuclear weapons. They certainly don't seem like any kind of nuclear threat to me nor to any other reasonable person.

The war with Iran is about oil, not WMD, not nuclear stuff, not protecting American troops. (It will be another dry hole for Bush.) Solar energy is cheaper than oil and more plentiful.

Global warming will kill humanity, starting with hot countries. Get real. Replace oil fueled transportation with solar electric infrastructure or lose civilization and the Earth as we know her.

The one very good comment in this article that should strike home is:

"The Bush administration is running out of patience with diplomacy".

No foolin? Sounds a bit familiar, I do believe, Cheney/Bush ran out of patience with diplomacy when they ran the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and began the mission, which was 'accomplished' several years ago.

It was a heart warming, patriotic, gut wrenching feeling, to see our brave president land on that aircraft carrier, then boldly march right up and face the cameras, (wearing a leather flight jacket), and inform us proud Americans, ___ "Mission Accomplished"!

I couldn't hold it, _____ I wet my pants.

KEM PATRICK

Someone commented on aother forum that in his "Mission Accomplished" photo op, a bunch of grapes had been stuffed into the crotch of his flight suit. Hey, and the pilots let him steer the plane for about two minutes, too.

You woulda' thought we were supposed to bring the troops home then.

"wishfullthinker September 18th, 2007 12:05 pm
What drift? They are just running the gameplan. This article is stupid.."

wishfullthinker, your right on the money, the lead up to the bombing of Iran is right on schedule. As for the article-it's not stupid, it's pablum.

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is at least half Jewish. That explains his desire to bomb Iran. He's Bush's lapdog now that Tony Blair is gone.

One thing that never gets mentioned in the US is that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non=Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for electricity production purposes. What is portrayed as Iranian intransigence is really their insistence on excercizing their rights under international treaties. And the Bush regime's insistence that Iran stop enrichment BEFORE talks take place is nothing more than pur bullying. There is no grounds for it. It's like going into a used car lot and insisting that the dealer give you the car before you begin to talk about payments. The Bush bullies have it exactly backwards.

IRan is following the law, they are a signatory to the Nuclear NonPolifieration Agreement. All countries who sign on are entittled to a civilian nuclear program. There is no proof that Iran is doing anything other than what they are permitted under the treaty.

The USA is also a signatory to the treaty. they are in violation of the treaty and the law. They are supposed to be reducing their massive offensive nuclear arsenal, but are refusing to honor their commitments

Who should be getting bombed here?

These people may be worried about all the wrong things! If there is anything like a pre-emptive war against Iran, I think it's highly likely that the UFO people will be forced to intervene in order to avert world wide nuclear war! We have no idea what they are capable of, what their intentions might be, nor what the outcome might be if they are forcibly "outed" under pressure to intervene.

A. The US administration has never had any patience with diplomacy. They are like children who says if you don't give me the toy NOW, I am going to hit you. They hit you, even after you give them the toy.
B. Anybody who criticizes the U.S. administration is straying beyond their job description, since the U.S. administration is always held above critique. They have the inherent perfection of having God on their side and should not be criticized. What we need is many more independent statespeople in the world.

For whatever good it may do, here is a copy of the letter I wrote to my alleged Representatives yesterday.
----------------------------------------------
Please pass legislation denying President Bush the authority to attack Iran.

My personal comment to you:

Cheney/BushCo would have you believe that Iran, and indeed, all Islamic countries, are filled with bloodthirsty jihadists eager to slaughter us.

I have lived in Islamic countries, as well as other non-US countries. The average person in any nation is no different from the man in the street in New York, Stanwood, or Camano Island. All we want is a chance to live in peace, raise and educate our families, provide them with food and shelter.

The Islamic peoples that I lived with were kind, generous and loving. At that time, the Ayatollah Khomeni was doing his thing. I was told over and over, "Steve, that is not Islam, that is politics. Islam is not like what is portrayed by the governments and the press."

I found that to be so. I observed the Fast of Ramadan and meditated on its lessons, which are lessons of love and compassion for humanity. I have read the Holy Qu'ran and found that most of it would not be out of place in the New Testament. There are passages of violence in it, much like that of the Old Testament, but that is not the lesson of Islam.

As there are members of the Islamic religious right who use those passages to foment hate, so do the members of our own religious right use the blood and vengeance of the Old Testament to foment hatred and narrow-mindedness amongst their own parishioners.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are systematically exterminating the Islamic "man in the street" along with his family. We are destroying their homes, their mosques, we are supplying both sides of a civil war as an excuse to stay in Iraq until we have their oil. Now we want to do the same thing to the Iranians.

Iranian people may be helping their brothers in Iraq, I don't know, but if the shoe were on the other foot and the Canadians or Mexicans were helping us to drive out an occupation of the United States, I would certainly welcome that. That is not evil.

You must pull the funding out from under the Cheney/Bush war machine, and you must forbid yet another illegal, preemptive war, this time against either Iran or Syria.

Lock and load "Do as we tell you or die," is not diplomacy or negotiation. It is the sort of thing that Hitler got away with until Poland, when the rest of the world finally got tired of what Hitler was doing and decided to fight back. Iran may well be Bush's Poland. Much of the world has good relations with Iran, along with mutual defense and trading treaties. The whole world may be afraid of the current insanity in the White House, but they may not take it forever.

Also, Iran is not the starved, embargoed nation that Iraq was, with no spare parts for their armor, no air force, and no air defenses. It was easy to take Iraq, but Iran is a first class military nation. They have not been aggressors for a long time, but their defense will be formidable and we shall pay a horrible price, even if we can lay waste to their country.

This is all so unnecessary. Just show some guts and forbid still more wars. Cut off the funding for more military adventures. Then sit down, discuss and negotiate. That is the way it is done in civilized nations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So, that is my feeling on this entire thing. Whether they ever read anything, I do not know, but we are heading for a tragedy of "Biblical?" proportions. We are once again like the train headed into an unlighted, unfinished tunnel, with the engineer asleep, full of people along for the ride.

Yours for peace and sanity in our time,

The Elder Statesmen group with Jimmy Carter and Mandela should fly over to Iran for an extended visit.
Maybe that would deter it..then again..probably not. Maybe having Angelina Jolie visit would prompt the media to question a war with Iran.

libertas fugit/Steve thank you for your beautiful post. As a Muslim your sentiments and observations are much appreciated and I hope more like you speak out.

Isn't it ironic? The only way that Iran could be assured that there would NOT be an (illegal) attack on Iran is if it had the bomb already. Iran has complied with the IAEA, and has done everything that it is supposed to do under international treaties, unlike Israel, India, and Pakistan. It is important also to note that every one of the states that possesses the bomb developed it, obtained it, and tested it without asking any other state's permission. Why should Iran be treated any differently? By attacking Iran we will learn how nasty those people really can be; and with us having attacked them they will have no reason to hold back. And we will also have given them every justification they would ever need for obtaining the bomb in the future. For BushCo to attack Iran now, and with only one year left in this administration (the lamest of lame duckery), and to saddle the country, the Middle East, Europe and the rest of the planet with the fallout is beyond unconsionable; it is criminal. But, it will give the neo-cons the never-ending war that they so badly want with the Middle East.

"lillulu September 18th, 2007 1:20 pm
The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is at least half Jewish. That explains his desire to bomb Iran. He's Bush's lapdog now that Tony Blair is gone."

lillulu,
I am half Jewish too but I do not want to bomb Iran or anybody and I don't know any Jews here in the US who does and if you were not so misinformed on this subject you would realize that most Jews in the world and very many in Israel do not want to bomb Iran.

You are expressing hate from ignorance...
Sorry to be so direct but you needed it.

Sincerely,
Jim

I've noticed in the past, - such as when the 'Cold War' was going on between Russia and the West, how the oafish polemics spouted by our not-very-sane leaders were often undermined by the actions and words of folk such as groups of scientists, and even musicians and such like.

Our zombie leaders tread their ruinous paths towards war, but in previous times, efforts made by civilians to forge links with the people of a denigrated 'target' country have helped show that those vilified were not, (as our leaders pretended!) vile and objectionable people, but just ordinary average human beings struggling with much the same situations in their lives as us ::::

For instance: in the case of Russia, American scientists (very sensibly!) forged links with Russian scientists, and worked on joint projects, AND they published and publicised their joint efforts / relationships.
I feel that this helped 'take the sting' out of the warmonger's vitriol.

As to artists, even people like Sting (to use that word in another way) -the lead singer from 'The Police' rock band, wrote and recorded a song: "The Russians love their children too" again highlighting that these folk from that country were much the same as us, and were to be accepted as such.

So, the point I'm heading towards, is that we (sensible ones!) can help foster and support inter-national links with the people of Iran. ~ We can help Iranians to visit our various shores, and we can show that they are NOT all weird beings armed to the teeth and 'ready to smite us with heavy-duty smiting gear', but are pretty much as we are...

If this is publicised, then it helps put good relations and *understanding* back on a sane footing, and it counters the loony Leaders thrust for war...

...Just a thought, so maybe it's worth working on our 'cultural links' with Teheran etc??

**Make friends, ~ not war!**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ here's some lyrics from Sting's song:

"In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie that we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too..."

KATHYODAT posted this quote a few days ago and I would like to re-post it, as it is so approprate for today. ___ Thank you Kathy.

"I see in the near future a crisis approachng that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of CORRUPTION IN HIGH PLACES will follow. The money powers of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign, by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregrated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed".

~~~Abraham Lincoln~~~ 1865

libertas fugit

Excellent letter.

Just curious how the major U. S. papers, the Times and the Post are going to play this.
Being owned and controlled by Jews are they going to subtly advocate for the war and do Israel's bidding, or will they actually represent the interests of the U.S.?

A war with Iran right now would be too ridiculous even for this administration to start. The U.S. is just saber rattling. We just won't have the troops necessary to "win" the war without instituting a draft, and I can't imagine the Republicans would take that political risk.

This is Cheney's and Bush's great Swan Song. Anything is possible. Rationality is at the service of ego 100%.

I think this is a no-lose situation for Progressives. If Cheney and Bush go through with it, it should really help strengthen the case for a radical re-thinking of how our nation is governed.

If they don't do it, well, that's one less mess to deal with in the short term.

Of course, the blow is to US credibility, to innocent Iranians, and to the world economy if the last spasm of neo-cons goes all the way.

We already have Cheney socializing his mantra, "I don't worry about the polls" whenever the public is mentioned. So, we already have Cheney showing overt contempt for our system of government, which is a democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.

corrective lens

The Bush administration thinks all it will need are air attacks and shelling from those offshore ships, no troops for an invasion.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Iraq could be overrun by a huge number of Iranian ground forces going after American troops if Bush attacks Iran, and quite likely most Iraqis would join them.

Jim, I don't hate Jews. I hate what they do to people based on fear. I find the killing of innocent people to be wrong. Killing Palestinian children who have backpacks (books in them, not bombs) and are on their way to school is a terrible criminal act.

libertas fugit

Yes, Excellent letter.

Thanks for a voice of sanity

THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

As the US rapidly spirals down closer to becoming a third world country, only more wars can keep the stock market from crashing.

I recall the time when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran as a favor for the United States of America. The Iranians defended their nation by sending in their own children as suicide fighters, along with their regular military forces of course. My point is that if Iran armed their children in defense against an invasion before, what makes someone think that Iran will not do this for the USA should the USA invade Iran?

If I was a USA citizen, I would stop being ego-centric and to stop expressing delusions of grandeur. Americans need to accept the fact that Iran, at minimum, will have nuclear energy sooner or later. It is not up to the USA to decide who has the right to nuclear energy and who does not. USA has enough problems. Start fixing your own problems, stop worrying about problems of other nations. Indeed, I am almost certain that most nations would prefer you mind your own business Americans! My sympathy for the inherent inability of Americans to accept the harsh truth that Americans cause more harm than good in the world. If not warfare, then by pollution, crime, international trade policies that ON PURPOSE does not benefit countries in the Third World - thank you very much USA, et cetera, et cetera.

"Out of control" my ass. The US can be stopped by the intenational community very simply. They can threaten to drop the dollar and convert all trade to Euros. China has the power to stop us as does the EU. The UN can and should condemn our aggression outright and declare us a criminal regime. We must do everything we can up to and including a national strike to shut the economy down and stop this juggernaut in its tracks -- at this point, the economy is teetering on the edge and it wouldn't take much to push it over.

These ROGUE COUNTRIES were wrong about Iraq, when they invaded the latter on the pretext that it had WMD, even though Hans Blix told contrary to their "intelligence". The same pattern is again unfolding with regards to Iran.

It is incomprehensible that the people in these countries have become mere spectators to the genocidal activities of their leaders and governments, except for mere rhetoric. Why isn't there continuous mass outrage expressed on the streets of the US and the Western countries? Why aren't students coming out of their schools/colleges in protest against the criminal activities of their governments? Unless this happens the terrorist activities of the US, Britain, and the other western nations will continue for the sake of blood-oil.

lillulu, maelstrom -

I agree with Jim Glover, antisemitism has no place on this forum or any other. This Nazi thinking keeps popping up here and I think (and hope) a lot of us are sick of it.

the discussion about nukes is a sensationalized distraction. neither iran's nukes nor saddam's mia wmds make/made sense as sole rational for war. protecting the dollar and the empire does.

saddam started asking for euros for oil in 2000. iran is beginning to trade oil in currencies other than the dollar. the iranian oil bourse (which will not trade in dollars) has been in the works for a couple years now but hasn't yet gone online.

it doesn't seem like any of the presidential front runners will quit financing the american empire and redirect from 'defense' to fixing our own internal issues. instead they'll continue advancing corporatism and spend over half of every tax dollar on 'defense' and petrodollar warfare to prop up the dollar while the u.s. rots from within.

It's about the oil and US global domination. WMD is a convenient smokescreen that likely will 'dupe' Congress and many others, as it did and still does regarding Iraq.

Iran is Bush's Stalingrad

France, Germany, Engalnd, and the US think we should stop Iran. The wealthiest Persians live in Brentwood Califronia, the ones I talked to want to see Iran free from the regime. What ever the extreme is going to do to stop the extreme, Its clear that Iran is not an Iraq. We can not even stake claim to Iran oil once we occupy it. Like we are doing in Iraq. This really is about freedom of a people, even if the people do noit want us to intervene out of fear. We all agree that the majority of iranians want to see their regime toppled, right? As do we in Bush. But this time I think it really is about a dangerous threat of nukes. Unlike the Iraq lie. So pull your left wings back on this one. Russia and China are the benefactors to Iranian oil. We will not be getting anything out of Iran. So to attack Iran would be an honorable mission without exploitation. I think all that Bush will do are air strikes. No ground troops. And then we can try to bring in the leaders of Irans intellectual society that teach at our universities and live here. We all know they exist. How about empowering them? I do not understand the reasons why you think Iran should be able to have nukes? Are you willing to let Iran have nukes out of fear? To me this is the one issue that proves to me that the neo cons may have a point in that the liberal extreme are cowards.

Again this is about oil not WMD's.

They want to bomb the area around Basra were the silk worm missles are poised to bomb ships leaving the Persian Gulf with oil.

Again- no plan about what to do in the future: Iran has 900,00- boots on the ground and 8 year war with Iraq had a problem: Once inflammed, the SShiite Iranians will not stop fighting. All Shiite sympathizers in the Middle East will get into the fight.

There is no plan after they bomb!

We all know that the WMD's are NOT a threat for many years and anyway- israel has 100 WMD's and why should not all the others in the Middle East armor up.

Everybody needs to armor down including Israel and the US.

Jim Glover said:

"I am half Jewish too but I do not want to bomb Iran or anybody and I don't know any Jews here in the US who does…"

Don't kid yourself, bro. You mean you haven't heard of Joe Lieberman?

I have a deep feeling that the Neo Con and Neo Liberal and Neo Fascist Plan has already failed and the weirdos who planned it already see the writing on the walls.

We have been down so long, it looks like up to me.

Bush is not as crazy as he acts and his crazy cowboy act is all he has left...he is afraid of horses and the military knows he is a phony.

Bush's don't impeach me card is not so much Cheney as it is...."If I get mad and frustrated enough I will push the button".

When our revolutionary fathers wrote Impeachment as the final remedy, there was no nuclear button to push.

We the people will never give up...and they are beginning to realize it.

There is still plenty reason for hope...Keep it alive...don't be afraid...that is how they keep us down!

ForUs,
Jim

PS Lieberman?
Damn, I forgot about him... I stand corrected

So how can we get the message to Bush that Americans have run out of patience with Bush?

Sir Melvin Cleophus said
"If I was a USA citizen, I would stop being ego-centric and to stop expressing delusions of grandeur."

There are few US citizens on Common Dreams expressing delusions of grandeur Sir M.C. I'm not an American citizen ...yet. I hope to be one before Nov. 2008.

I'd like to say here that one of the reasons I'm continuing with my quest for citizenship is because of the people here, who give me hope that the USA can and will be different - because of folks like these.

The reason not to attack Iran is not that it is a bad move strategically. The reason not to do it is that we quite simply have no right to do it. Iran does not belong to the US. The US has no right to attack Iran. To do so would be another illegal war of aggression. Initiating a war of aggression has been defined at Nuremberg to be THE supreme crime against humanity. The US was a main player in drafting that principle.

Let's not talk about it being a bad idea tactically or strategically. That implies that it could be a good idea if the strategy and tactics were sound. Not so. It would be a supreme crime against humanity by our own definition as drafted after WWII.

Unless, of course, laws apply only to the weak and the vanquished. If "might makes right" is the only moral principle that has any weight at all, then let's talk about strategy and tactics.

Ecosutra you say we should attack Iran to free them? Lets kill them in order to save them? Are you insane? This is what we've done to Iraq and in the process we've destroyed thier country. This is about raw imperialism and US-Israeli hegemony in the region. Roman Emperors spoke of democratizing the heathens and freeing the barbarians. Nothing has changes in 2000 years.

mirf59

I agree wholeheartedly. America has no legal, moral, or authoritative right to attack Iran, didn't have any right to attack Iraq either.

moonraven is also correct -- it's a bad move strategically. If Iraq has been a hornet's nest Bush stuck his hand in, Iran's more likely to be a lion's den.

Correctivelens, libertas fugit, mirf59, and other Commondreamers, et al:

They say that in real estate, location is everything. And in warfare, as the clock runs out on the Bush regime, you better believe that timing is everything.

Fox News' James Rosen wrote on 9/12/07 that according to well-placed beltway Bushie sources, "everybody in town [ie., DC] is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to ten months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections." The same article concluded "Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs....."

Okay. After the primaries, but before the 2008 election. Hmmm.... Why that time frame?

Oh yes! It's not about oil. Or Israel. Or Armageddon. Or Little George's ego. Or spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Or making Iraq a playground for rampant capitalism in the great global market. Or killing jihadis over there, so we don't have to kill them in the back alleys of Philadelphia and Peoria.

It's about power. It's about perpetuating domestic political power for right wing militarism within the American two-party system. That's why the script and the hype and the timing is so similar to what it was in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2002, as Mr. ElBaradie points out.

Say Bush starts the shock and awe bombing campaign in response to some sort of border skirmish with Iran, or some Persian Gulf naval provocation, real or imaginary.

Then US troops capture caches of Iranian-manufactured weaponry destined for smuggling into Iraq to help the insurgency and al Qaeda kill Americans, weapons that perhaps even include some missing WMD. The grinning photo ops are right out of Norman Rockwell. The psy-ops fanfare is spectacular.

Captured El Quds and Al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists of course confess that a great Tet-like offensive was in the works, a nefarious plot nipped in the bud by the brilliant coordinated efforts of US military and intelligence professionals. General Petraeus assures President Bush this isn't just light at the end of some tunnel, but it's real, actual victory, right here on the horizon, right within our grasp.

Bush, in turn, relays Petraeus's tidings of great joy to a thankful nation from the Oval office, magnanimously (and some say even humbly) calling out for bipartisan unity and reconciliation in the historic days that lie immediately ahead. He does not even smirk.

And so the whole executive branch of government, the GOP, Fox News, Rush, Hannity, the Wall Street Journal, and the mainstream media pundits and anchors turn en masse, like a great masked Greek chorus, to the Democratic Party Presidential nominee. They chant in unison: will you stand with us, in a glorious push for peace and final victory at last, or will you instead withdraw - as the noisy pacifist wing of your party wants - stabbing our brave troops in the back just at their moment of triumph, just when we've got the evil doers on the run?

The choice is yours. See you at the polls in a couple of weeks.

Drop enough bombs, drop them smartly enough, and hopefully the major blowback can be delayed until after the electronic tally counting has been completed.

If George Bush geographically escalates the air war and ground incursions into Iran after the primaries but while the 2008 campaigns are underway, what do you think the Democratic Party's nominee is going to do?

Absolutely for sure, the GOP will be united.

And equally for sure, this will be a bloody wedge issue indeed.

Bill from Saginaw

Bill from Saginaw

The US is going to try to get away with acting like a junkie without his dope---no cheap energy/consumer goods, heap big war "to straighten things out." This is the NeoCon-Psychopaths' "window of opportunity" to see that no nuclear rival arises to spoil the party and defend "our" oil from us....They'd rather die than change, and they're going to get their wish. I grieve that so many people will suffer for and with them. Is this the only way we can learn?