Showdown Over Iran We can stop the coming war with Iran - but concerned Americans must act quickly

Walt & Mearsheimer's Proof That 'Tail Wagged the Dog' Points American

Jews to a Universalist Ethos

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/09/more-on-walt-me.html

http://tinyurl.com/3aprxd

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11534

August 31, 2007

Showdown Over Iran

We can stop the coming war with Iran - but concerned Americans must

act quickly

by Justin Raimondo

More rumors of war with Iran are circulating here (via Juan Cole),

with inside scuttlebutt from inside the neoconservative network:

"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."

This comes via Barnett R. Rubin, Director of Studies and Senior Fellow

at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, and a

leading expert on Afghanistan, who has it from "a friend who has

excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often

been prescient." According to Rubin's anonymous sibyl - or is that

seer? - we can look forward to "a big kickoff on September 11."

This pretty much comports with what we've been reporting on

Antiwar.com for the past few months, and with recent reports of an

imminent US assault on Iran: see my last column on this subject. So

have a nice vacation, soak up as much sun as you can, because dark

days lie ahead.

The propaganda campaign is already picking up, but this time the

battle is going to be less one-sided. In the run-up to the invasion of

Iraq, the War Party had the field practically to themselves. Not a

single major politician or political figure rose to question the

"patriotic" lies that flooded the airwaves and inundated readers of

newspapers and blogs - not a one. This time, however, it is going to

be different: the War Party may win, in the end, but they won't

triumph without a fight.

It's true that none of the major Democratic presidential candidates

have dissented from the "approved" script on Iran, and that all are

kowtowing long and low to the Israel lobby, which is the powerhouse

behind this latest rush to war. It is also true that - naturally - the

majorRepublicanpresidentialcandidates are even more vehemently calling

for an attack - and they won't rule out using nukes. The only sane

Republican in the lot - Ron Paul, of course - is plainly horrified by

this, but the Republicans' willingness to contemplate a nuclear

Armageddon in the Middle East is hardly surprising, coming from a

party effectively in the grip of deranged "born-again"

dispensationalists - for whom rumors of nuclear war are part and

parcel of the "good news" that Christ is returning. It has been widely

noted that the Republicans have become a party of authoritarians, but

it's much worse than that: they've morphed into a party of lunatics,

as well.

The Democrats, however, aren't taking advantage of this: indeed,

Hillary Clinton, her party's leading candidate for the presidential

nod, refuses to rule out using nukes in any situation - even when it

comes to Pakistan, and, for god's sake, Afghanistan. The Lobby is just

as firmly ensconced in the supposedly "antiwar" party as it is in the

GOP, as the stripping of a provision from the recent defense

appropriations bill that would have required the President to come to

Congress for authorization for a strike on Iran made all too clear.

The war whoops are scheduled to reach a crescendo on September 11, at

which point I expect the War Party to roll out a new narrative that

portrays Iran as the protector and enabler of al-Qaeda, or even the

real author of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Perhaps they'll run the

complete works of Laurie Mylroie through a word processor, and, in

true Orwellian fashion, insert Ahmadinejad's name where Saddam's once

appeared, replacing "Iraq" with "Iran."

Presto, change-o! - and we have yet another war myth, a fresh load of

prefabricated propaganda with which to bamboozle the masses, befuddle

the media, and defuse dissent in the leadership of the major political

parties.

The media, and the political leadership won't give them too many

problems, although a few dissidents may protest loudly enough to

provoke retaliation (a smear job, perhaps a firing or three, and the

sudden loss of campaign funding in the case of candidates for office):

but, really, not a whole lot of discipline will be required to yank

the elites into line.

The real problem for the neocons is going to come with the supposedly

indifferent and ignorant antiwar majority, which is firmly opposed

[.pdf] to attacking Iran. Say all you want about the advanced state of

decadent torpor that seems to define the 21st century American, but

ordinary citizens are unlikely to sit idly by while the price of gas

skyrockets and the Middle East goes up in flames. It is hard to say

what form public outrage will take, but one can easily imagine the

return of the kind of domestic unrest that roiled the 1960s and almost

tore this nation apart. Massive demonstrations that turn into major

riots: the unleashing of the vast spying-and-repression machine

created with the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions

Act [.pdf], and all the post-9/11 legislation that limited our rights

in the name of "security" and the "war on terrorism" - and worse. Much

worse ...

The War Party is playing for keeps. Are we?

There is one hope, and one hope only, that could save us, albeit it's

only a stop-gap measure, and that is the passage by a veto-proof

margin of a congressional resolution explicitly forbidding the

President from launching an attack on Iran without a vote by the

people's representatives.

As noted above, this was present in the defense appropriations bill as

approved by the Democratic leadership but deleted from the final bill

at the insistence of AIPAC - the primary instrument of Israeli

influence in Washington - and with the complicity of House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi. In the Senate, Democrat Jim Webb introduced a

separateresolution - Senate bill 759 - at the beginning of the year

that would have established the same let's-vote-on-it requirement for

an attack on Iran, but that seems to have gone nowhere. House

Resolution 3119, introduced in the House by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) on

July 19 of this year, is virtually identical, and is similarly stuck

in committee. Speaker Pelosi, who faces increasing discontent within

Democratic ranks over the Iraq issue, could easily rescue it, but

presently shows no inclination to do so.

The strategic conundrum the antiwar forces face is underscored by the

current campaign of a group called "Americans Against Escalation,"

which is running television ads exclusively in Republican-held

congressional districts taking legislators to task for their support

of the Iraq war - as the administration gets ready to bomb Tehran with

very little interference from the Democrats. Yet war with Iran would

be the most extreme escalation imaginable - so why the silence from

"Americans Against Escalation"?

Sustained public pressure to move the Webb-Udall legislation forward

could slow down, if not entirely stop, the rush to war with Iran - but

we don't have much time for the antiwar movement to get its act

together.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

So, what about those alleged Iranian nukes that are supposedly being

prepared by the New Saddam, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Well, if you read the headlines, you get two entirely different

stories - the International Herald Tribune reports "Iran expanding its

atom program, UN agency reports," which takes three paragraph to blurt

out the truth, or at least an approximation of it:

"More than 650 more centrifuges are being tested or are under

construction. That number is far short of Iran's projection that by

now it would be running 3,000 of the machines, which produce fuel

useful either to make electricity or in a bomb program, raising

questions whether Iran is facing technical difficulties or has made a

political decision to slow down its expansion effort."

So, the story encapsulated in the headline is the exact opposite of

the real story: the Iranian nuclear program is contracting, not

expanding, and furthermore Tehran has agreed to a timetable for making

their entire program transparent, and bringing it within the

parameters established by the IAEA. As Reuters put it: "Iran atom work

at slow pace and not significant: IAEA."

Before the conflict takes shape on the ground in Iran and environs,

the battle of competing narratives will be fought here in the States,

and Antiwar.com is on the front lines. This is, first and foremost, an

information war, and the winner will get to determine the fate of the

Middle East - and the US - for many years to come. That's why

Antiwar.com is playing a key role in the fight against this latest

lunacy - perhaps the key role. And that's why your continued support

is so important. We're thrilled that our last fundraising campaign was

a success, but with these latest war moves against Iran we realize

that Antiwar.com needs to expand its operations, and its coverage: we

must to make an all-out effort to stop this new war before it starts.

Won't you help?

If you contributed to our summer fundraising drive, then you might

want to consider signing up to make a monthly contribution. Our

Sustainers' program is the core of our support: it means we can count

on a certain income in the months to come. That gives us vital

breathing space to plan a strategy in line with our resources. It's

really the best way to contribute to Antiwar.com, and these kinds of

donations are needed now more than ever.

You can help avert war with Iran in two vitally important ways - call

your congressional representatives after the Labor Day holiday in

support of the Udall-Webb resolutions, and continue to support

Antiwar.com with your tax-deductible donation. It's a twofer for

peace.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/9631

Attacking Iran Would be Madness and a Capital Crime

By Dave Lindorff

Created Aug 30 2007 - 9:26am

With the Bush administration clearly pushing for war with Iran, as

crazy as

that would be, not just for an already over-extended, burned out

military,

but because of the havoc it would wreak on the global economy, it is

time to

call attention to a few points that are being ignored.

First of all, even US intelligence experts were saying only last year

that

Iran was at least 10 years away from having a bomb, so the alarmist

claims

being made by Bush and his gang, echoing the nonsense we heard in the

run-up

to the Iraq invasion, about the threat of nuclear holocaust, are

simply

scare tactics and should fool nobody.

Secondly, we should be asking why Iran would be trying to build a

nuclear

bomb in the first place, and what kind of threat it would pose if they

did

build one, or even several. Certainly an Iranian bomb would pose no

threat

to the U.S., any more than a North Korean bomb poses a threat to the

U.S.

With tens of thousands of bombs, including huge city-vaporizing H-

bombs, in

the US arsenal, no country except for Russia has the ability to

seriously

threaten America. The same goes for U.S. allies, whether in Europe or

the

Middle East. If Iran were to threaten Kuwait or Israel with nuclear

attack

it would simply be committing suicide because of US retaliation.

Clearly, the motive for Iran obtaining the bomb is then defensive.

Iran is

confronted by Israel, which does have a considerable number of nuclear

bombs, and the means of delivering them to Iran. This is a real threat

to

Iran, and just as America and Russia developed a program of MAD

(Mutually

Assured Destruction) to prevent nuclear holocaust, just as India and

Pakistan, both nuclear powers, have developed a program of MAD, so

Iran

wants to protect itself from a nuclear Israel by establishing a

condition of

MAD. The US only adds to the pressure on Iran's leadership to get

themselves

into the nuclear club by its repeated bellicose threats to attack that

country.

The historical record shows that America does not attack nations that

have

their own nuclear weapons, and Iran understandably wants to achieve

that

kind of protected status.

The fevered rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding alleged

fears

of a nuclear Iran also should be put in historical context. The

administration keeps asking why Iran, the second-largest oil-exporting

nation in the world, would need nuclear power, implying that the only

reason

for Iran's wanting to build nuclear power plants and to develop the

capability to refine uranium, would be to develop bombs. In the 1960s

however, the US actively encouraged the Shah of Iran (installed in

that

country courtesy of a CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran's elected

government) in his campaign to build 20 nuclear reactors, and also

supplied

him with a research reactor. The Shah was also known to the US to be

working

aggressively at developing nuclear weapons. At the nuclear research

facility, which the US built for the Shah, there was known to be

research on

nuclear weapons design, on plutonium extraction, and on laser-

enrichment

processes. Indeed, by 1979, when the shah was overthrown by the

Islamic

Revolution, Iran was widely known to have the most advanced nuclear

program

in the Middle East-all accomplished with America's blessing and

assistance.

(The Shah even had discussions in the late 1970s with Israel about

modifying

Israel's Jericho surface-to-surface missile for Iranian use-a missile

that

is nuclear capable.)

So clearly, the US has not in the past thought it improper for Iran to

be

conducting nuclear weapons research, or to be constructing nuclear

power

plants.

Now let's just summarize why an attack on Iran, as reportedly being

urged by

Vice President Dick Cheney, and threatened by President Bush, would be

a

disaster even worse than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. First of all,

attacking

Iran, a Shia Muslim nation, would inevitably lead Iran to order

retaliation

by its Shia allies in Iraq against already strapped US forces in Iraq.

Shia

militias such as the Badr Brigade, which to date have largely ignored

US

forces, would be likely to turn out in force against American forces.

With

American supply lines already vulnerable, US forces could quickly be

cut off

from all but aerial supply. They would also be heavily outnumbered.

Iranian

sappers and their Shia allies in Iraq and in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

could

be expected to do major damage to Persian Gulf refineries, oil

pipelines and

loading terminals, effectively shutting down production in most of the

region. Iran, once it was at war with the US would also surely make

use of

the hundreds of anti-ship missiles that it has reportedly set up along

the

eastern coast of the Persian Gulf, striking both US Navy vessels and

vulnerable oil tankers. Oil shipments through the Gulf would cease,

even if

Iran failed to block the narrow Straits of Hormuz by sinking a couple

of

ships in the narrow channel, if only because of the soaring cost of

insurance that would follow the start of hostilities. That in turn

would

lead, according to some analysts, to global oil prices of perhaps $200

per

barrel-about three times the current price.

Iran, following an American attack, would also be free to retaliate

against

American targets anywhere in the world. It is extremely likely that

just as

the U.S. reportedly already has special forces in Iraq engaged in acts

of

sabotage and of incitement of sectarian violence, Iran has its own

special

forces overseas, and in the U.S., preparing for sabotage. If the US

were to

bomb Iranian nuclear power plants and government installations, under

the

international rules of reciprocity in warfare, Iran would be justified

in

attacking American nuclear power plants and government offices. And

this is

not even taking into consideration the freelance terrorists who would

flock

to the cause from all over if the US were to invade yet another major

Islamic nation.

There is also the matter of how a US attack on Iraq would affect

politics in

other Muslim countries. Many analysts believe that a US attack on or

war

against Iran would lead to an Islamic revolution in Pakistan which

could

turn that already nuclear nation into an Islamic Republic, solidly

aligned

against the US and armed with nuclear weapons and missiles to carry

them.

America's standing in other Muslim countries like Malaysia, Egypt and

Saudi

Arabia, already low, would also sink.

War with Iran is then, clearly madness.

It's high time to demand that the American government explain how any

of

this is in American interest. War with Iran is also criminal.

Invading a country that poses no immediate threat to the nation

initiating

hostilities is the gravest of war crimes. It is, under the Nuremburg

Charter, a "Crime Against Peace," and the perpetrators of such crimes

are

guilty of a capital offense and as such should be tried, convicted,

and

executed.

_______

About author Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an

Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal [1]. His new

book of columns titled "This Can't be Happening! [2]" is published by

Common Courage Press. Lindorff's new book is "The Case for Impeachment

[3]," co-authored by Barbara Olshansky. He can be reached at:

dlindorff@yahoo.com [4]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://counterpunch.org/mcgovern08312007.html

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

By RAY McGOVERN

Former CIA Analyst

Why do I feel like the proverbial skunk at a Labor Day picnic? Sorry;

but I thought you might want to know that this time next year there

will probably be more skunks than we can handle. I fear our country is

likely to be at war with Iran-and with the thousands of real

terrorists Iran can field around the globe.

It is going to happen, folks, unless we put our lawn chairs away on

Tuesday, take part in some serious grass-roots organizing, and take

action to prevent a wider war-while we still can.

President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney

plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around

the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction"-not even

ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for U.S.

reverses in Iraq, and the White House's felt need to create a casus

belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed

retaliation-eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related

facilities.

Bush's Aug. 28 speech to the American Legion comes five years after a

very similar presentation by Vice President Dick Cheney. Addressing

the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney set the

meretricious terms of reference for war on Iraq.

Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was being honored at the VFW

convention. Zinni later said he was shocked to hear a depiction of

intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us)

that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two

years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to

date on key intelligence findings.

"There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD...I heard a case being

made to go to war," Zinni told Meet the Press three and a half years

later.

(Zinni is a straight shooter with considerable courage, and so the

question lingers: why did he not go public? It is all too familiar a

conundrum at senior levels; top officials can seldom find their

voices. My hunch is that Zinni regrets letting himself be guided by a

misplaced professional courtesy and/or slavish adherence to

classification restrictions, when he might have prevented our country

from starting the kind of war of aggression branded at Nuremberg the

"supreme international crime.")

Cheney: Dean of Preemption

Zinni was not the only one taken aback by Cheney's words. Then-CIA

director George Tenet says Cheney's speech took him completely by

surprise. In his memoir Tenet wrote, "I had the impression that the

president wasn't any more aware than we were of what his number-two

was going to say to the VFW until he said it."

Yet, it could have been anticipated. Just five weeks before, Tenet

himself had told his British counterpart that the president had

decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that "the

intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

When Bush's senior advisers came back to town after Labor Day, 2002,

the next five weeks (and by now, the next five years) were devoted to

selling a new product-war on Iraq. The actual decision to attack Iraq,

we now know, was made several months earlier but, as then-White House

chief of staff Andy Card explained, no sensible salesperson would

launch a major new product during the month of August-Cheney's

preemptive strike notwithstanding. Yes, that's what Card called the

coming war; a "new product."

After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman, Cheney

and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld dispatched him and the

pliant Powell at State to play supporting roles in the advertising

campaign: bogus yellowcake uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes for

uranium enrichment, and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological

warfare agent-the whole nine yards. The objective was to scare or

intimidate Congress into voting for war, and, thanks largely to a

robust cheering section in the corporate-controlled media, Congress

did so on October 10 and 11, 2002.

This past week saw the president himself, with that same kind of

support, pushing a new product-war with Iran. And in the process, he

made clear how intelligence is being fixed to "justify" war this time

around. The case is too clever by half, but it will be hard for

Americans to understand that. Indeed, the Bush/Cheney team expects

that the product will sell easily-the more so, since the

administration has been able once again to enlist the usual

cheerleaders in the media to "catapult the propaganda," as Bush once

put it.

Iran's Nuclear Plans

It has been like waiting for Godot...the endless wait for the latest

National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear plans. That NIE turns

out to be the quintessential dog that didn't bark. The most recent

published NIE on the subject was issued two and a half years ago and

concluded that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon until "early- to

mid-next decade." That estimate followed a string of NIEs dating back

to 1995, which kept predicting, with embarrassing consistency, that

Iran was "within five years" of having a nuclear weapon.

The most recent NIE, published in early 2005, extended the timeline

and provided still more margin for error. Basically, the timeline was

moved 10 years out to 2015 but, in a fit of caution, the drafters

settled on the words "early-to-mid next decade." On Feb. 27, 2007 at

his confirmation hearings to be Director of National Intelligence,

Michael McConnell repeated that formula verbatim.

A "final" draft of the follow-up NIE mentioned above had been

completed in Feb. 2007, and McConnell no doubt was briefed on its

findings prior to his testimony. The fact that this draft has been

sent back for revision every other month since February speaks

volumes. Judging from McConnell's testimony, the conclusions of the

NIE draft of February are probably not alarmist enough for Vice

President Dick Cheney. (Shades of Iraq.)

According to one recent report, the target date for publication has

now slipped to late fall. How these endless delays can be tolerated is

testimony to the fecklessness of the "watchdog" intelligence

committees in House and Senate.

As for Iran's motivation if it plans to go down the path of producing

nuclear weapons, newly appointed defense secretary Robert Gates was

asked about that at his confirmation hearing in December. Just called

from the wings to replace Donald Rumsfeld, Gates apparently had not

yet read the relevant memo from Cheney's office. It is a safe bet that

the avuncular Cheney took Gates to the woodshed, after the nominee

suggested that Iran's motivation could be, "in the first instance,"

deterrence:"

"While they [the Iranians] are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for

a nuclear capability, I think they would see it in the first instance

as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons-

Pakistan to the east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the

west, and us in the Persian Gulf."

Unwelcome News (to the White House)

There they go again-those bureaucrats at the International Atomic

Energy Agency. On August 28, the very day Bush was playing up the

dangers from Iran, the IAEA released a note of understanding between

the IAEA and Iran on the key issue of inspection. The IAEA announced:

"The agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared

nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has

therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use."

The IAEA deputy director said the plan just agreed to by the IAEA and

Iran will enable the two to reach closure by December on the nuclear

issues that the IAEA began investigating in 2003. Other IAEA officials

now express confidence that they will be able to detect any military

diversion or any uranium enrichment above a low grade, as long as the

Iran-IAEA safeguard agreement remains intact.

Shades of the preliminary findings of the U.N. inspections-

unprecedented in their intrusiveness-that were conducted in Iraq in

early 2003 before the U.S. abruptly warned the U.N. in mid-March to

pull out its inspectors, lest they find themselves among those to be

shocked-and-awed.

Vice President Cheney can claim, as he did three days before the

attack on Iraq, that the IAEA is simply "wrong." But Cheney's

credibility has sunk to prehistoric levels; witness the fact that the

president was told that this time he would have to take the lead in

playing up various threats from Iran. And they gave him new words.

The President's New Formulation

As I watched the president speak on Aug. 28, I was struck by the care

he took in reading the exact words of a new, subjunctive-mood

formulation regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. He never looked up;

this is what he said:

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear

weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and

violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

The cautious wording suggests to me that the White House finally has

concluded that the "nuclear threat" from Iran is "a dog that won't

hunt," as Lyndon Johnson would have put it. While, initial press

reporting focused on the "nuclear holocaust" rhetorical flourish, the

earlier part of the sentence is more significant, in my view. It is

quite different from earlier Bush rhetoric charging categorically that

Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons," including the following

(erroneous) comment at a joint press conference with Afghan President

Hamid Karzai in early August:

"This [iran] is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a

nuclear weapon."

The latest news from the IAEA is, for the White House, an unwelcome

extra hurdle. And the president's advisers presumably were aware of it

well before Bush's speech was finalized; it will be hard to spin.

Administration officials would also worry about the possibility that

some patriotic truth teller might make the press aware of the key

judgments of the languishing draft of the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear

capability-or that a courageous officer or official of Gen. Anthony

Zinni's stature might feel conscience bound to try to head off another

unnecessary war, by providing a more accurate, less alarmist

assessment of the nuclear threat from Iran.

It is just too much of a stretch to suggest that Iran could be a

nuclear threat to the United States within the next 17 months, and

that's all the time Bush and Cheney have got to honor their open

pledge to our "ally" Israel to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential.

Besides, some American Jewish groups have become increasingly

concerned over the likelihood of serious backlash if young Americans

are seen to be fighting and dying to eliminate perceived threats to

Israel (but not to the U.S.). Some of these groups have been quietly

urging the White House to back off the nuclear-threat rationale for

war on Iran.

The (Very) Bad News

Bush and Cheney have clearly decided to use alleged Iranian

interference in Iraq as the preferred casus belli. And the charges,

whether they have merit or not, have become much more bellicose. Thus,

Bush on Aug. 28:

"Iran's leaders...cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks

against coalition forces...The Iranian regime must halt these actions.

And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our

troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront

Tehran's murderous activities."

How convenient: two birds with one stone. Someone to blame for U.S.

reverses in Iraq, and "justification" to confront the ostensible

source of the problem-"deadeners" having been changed to Iran. Vice

President Cheney has reportedly been pushing for military retaliation

against Iran if the U.S. finds hard evidence of Iranian complicity in

supporting the "insurgents" in Iraq.

President Bush obliged on Aug. 28:

"Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had

been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to

Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and

our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last

few months..."

QED

Recent U.S. actions, like arresting Iranian officials in Iraq-eight

were abruptly kidnapped and held briefly in Baghdad on Aug. 28, the

day Bush addressed the American Legion-suggest an intention to provoke

Iran into some kind of action that would justify U.S. "retaliation."

The evolving rhetoric suggests that the most likely immediate targets

at this point would be training facilities inside Iran-some twenty

targets that are within range of U.S. cruise missiles already in

place.

Iranian retaliation would be inevitable, and escalation very likely.

It strikes me as shamelessly ironic that the likes of our current

ambassador at the U.N., Zalmay Khalilizad, one of the architects of

U.S. policy toward the area, are now warning publicly that the current

upheaval in the Middle East could bring another world war.

The Public Buildup

Col. Pat Lang (USA, ret.), as usual, puts it succinctly:

"Careful attention to the content of the chatter on the 24/7 news

channels reveals a willingness to accept the idea that it is not

possible to resolve differences with Iran through diplomacy. Network

anchors are increasingly accepting or voicing such views. Are we

supposed to believe that this is serendipitous?"

And not only that. It is as if Scooter Libby were back writing lead

editorials for the Washington Post, the Pravda of this administration.

The Post's lead editorial on Aug. 21 regurgitated the allegations that

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is "supplying the weapons that are

killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq;" that it is

"waging war against the United States and trying to kill as many

American soldiers as possible." Designating Iran a "specially

designated global terrorist" organization, said the Post, "seems to be

the least the United States should be doing, giving the soaring number

of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq."

As for the news side of the Post, which is widely perceived as a bit

freer from White House influence, its writers are hardly immune. For

example, they know how many times the draft National Intelligence

Estimate on Iran's nuclear program has been sent back for

redrafting...and they know why. Have they been told not to write the

story?

For good measure, the indomitable arch-neocon James Woolsey has again

entered the fray. He was trotted out on August 14 to tell Lou Dobbs

that the US may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its

nuclear weapons program. Woolsey, who has described himself as the

"anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National

Security Affairs," knows what will scare. To Dobbs: "I'm afraid

within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they

[iran] could have the bomb."

As for what Bush is telling his counterparts among our allies,

reporting on his recent meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy

are disquieting, to say the least. Reports circulating in European

foreign ministries indicate that Sarkozy came away convinced that Bush

"is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities," according

to well-connected journalist Arnauld De Borchgrave.

It Is Up To US

Air strikes on Iran seem inevitable, unless grassroots America can

arrange a backbone transplant for Congress. The House needs to begin

impeachment proceedings without delay. Why? Well, there's the

Constitution of the United States, for one thing. For another, the

initiation of impeachment proceedings might well give our senior

military leaders pause. Do they really want to precipitate a wider war

and risk destroying much of what is left of our armed forces for the

likes of Bush and Cheney? Is another star on the shoulder worth THAT?

The deterioration of the U.S. position in Iraq; the perceived need for

a scapegoat; the knee-jerk deference given to Israel's myopic and

ultimately self-defeating security policy; and the fact that time is

running out for the Bush/Cheney administration to end Iran's nuclear

program-together make for a very volatile mix.

So, on Tuesday let's put away the lawn chairs and roll up our sleeves.

Let's remember all that has already happened since Labor Day five

years ago.

There is very little time to exercise our rights as citizens and stop

this madness. At a similarly critical juncture, Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr. was typically direct. I find his words a challenge to us

today:

"There is such a thing as being too late.... Life often leaves us

standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity.... Over the

bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic

words: 'Too late.'"

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and Robert Gates'

branch chief in the early 1970s. McGovern now serves on the Steering

Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). He is a

contributor to Imperial Crusades, edited by Alexander Cockburn and

Jeffrey St. Clair. He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@aol.com

A shorter version of this article appeared originally on

Consortiumnews.com