The Asia Times has just published an article claiming a decision has been made to bomb. The article was reproduced on Commondreams. It says in part,



I have been very fearful of this course of events for some time. See the Topic I open on Admiral Fallon's resignation as Centcom commander. Most ADers who responded dismissed my fears as groundless because such an act would be crazy.

I have already written my 2 Senators and Congressman asking them to support a joint House and Senate Resolution declaring that the President will be impeached if he bombs Iran without a Congressional declaration of war.

If Senators Feinstein and Lugar do publish a joint editorial opposing this action, what action will you take and why?

1. Write similar letters to your own representatives?

2. Take to the streets in a massive protest?

3. Participate in peaceful civil disobedience?

4. Support the President in his action?

5. Other?

I am not dismissing your fears TedN5, I just had hoped the article would have given us something more out in the open to work with. We've been pondering this idea of an attack since the beginning of Bush's second term. I would pressure Feinstein and Lugar to revoke their secrecy agreement and reveal what they know because their oath to the constitution demands it. Then again with ideas this volatile is it any wonder there are leaks in the White House? I think this tells you how popular neocon thinking is around the State Department.

1. Write similar letters to your own representatives?

2. Take to the streets in a massive protest?

3. Participate in peaceful civil disobedience?

4. Support the President in his action?

5. Other?

I'd try one but remember democrats attempted 2 or 3 times to insert binding legislation that would require prior approval from congress and every time they failed. I wouldn't place my hope in getting through to my congress person. Congress isn't functioning that well at the moment.

After reviewing the ease at which the president can declare martial law, class anyone as an enemy combant and deploy military resources at home with the stroke of a pen the idea of dissent should be considered very carefully. If you protest consider the risks.

Really your last option is the most viable. It is time to seriously consider leaving the country or else you might be put into a confrontational situation where violence is the only answer.

For myself, if another attack occurs I will label the Bush adminstration as terrorists, with the same zeal as they did with the revolutionary guard. I might get kicked off but there comes a time to call a spade a spade and accept the consequences.

The threat of striking Iran--in any capacity--stikes me as remote, to say the least. Foisting this airy conspiracy on the neocons' doorstep--they having long since fallen from grace--is nothing short of paranoid hubris in my mind. The administration may ponder destroying Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, but the trouble is they don't know where all the facilities are and what's more as the centrifuges are mobile, Iran has the capacity to constantly change their location. What's more, why should we even worry about the State Department getting in a tizzy when all we need is another disgruntled CIA analyst to leak the whole thing? We've been down this road before and knowing full well the open resentment in the defense, diplomatic and intelligence sectors of the government, the administration is wary of trying to make any kind of case against Iran, no matter how damning.

So much has changed for the worse, since the beginning of the second term. Approval rating is at an all-time low and for those who believe the president to be so completely tone deaf as to not pay attention to the entire lack of resolve to anything but talk about Iran (and subsequently our not talking to them) have not been paying attention. Robert Gates is for all intents and purposes not Donald Rumsfeld and whatever neocon boogeyman the left wants to parade about when it comes to Iran, rest assured he'll be outnumbered by the realists or at the very least countered by them. It's simply not going to happen.

Iran is encircled by forces in the Persian Gulf and Afganistan. It wasn't necessarily intentional, but there it is. Quite frankly, we're already involved in something of a proxy war against Iran via southern and central Iraq as it is. The IRGC-trained special groups and Quds forces continue to cross the borders, bringing with them weapons, including EFPs responsible for killing Americans. None of this however, will offer any real mandate to attack Iran as these are irregular forces and our overall posture is quite gunshy where Iran is concerned. The attitude remains that we should finish what was begun in 2003 and then, maybe give some kind of focus on Iran, most likely in the same containment vein they currently now pursue. To attack however, would be folly, no matter how well founded the motive.

As a caveat to all my prior points I would like to offer that if we do hit the IRGC, it'll be a borderland strike as a warning not to come into Iraq--nothing so comprehensive as to change the regime. But who am I kidding? The will simply isn't there. Still, from now, until the end of the administration, there will be a serious case built against the Iranians in regards to both training and supplying (through both personel and equipment) Shi'ite insurgents. It would be foolhardy to ignore.

This will be over soon and there won't be any neocon to shove into wolves' clothing any more. And what then? Sitdowns with Tehran in the first year of an Obama administration? Only if it means another gift wrapped public relations victory for the mullahs. Have fun with that by the way...

Wow, what a stellar source. "Still active in the foreign affairs community" though retired from his job. That could mean he is retired, lives in Italy and gets his information from local "sources" every morning at the cafe. Perfect.

A current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations:

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf Group
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Ansar al-Islam
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Asbat al-Ansar
Aum Shinrikyo
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
Continuity Irish Republican Army
Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
Hizballah (Party of God)
Islamic Jihad Group
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
Kahane Chai (Kach)
Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
Lashkar i Jhangvi
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
National Liberation Army (ELN)
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
al-Qa’ida
al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly GSPC)
Real IRA
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

I'm thinking adding Quds force to that long list isn't going to change much about our relationship with Iran. And it certainly wouldn't indicate we're going to bomb Iran.

Edited to add: A couple of days ago Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech indicating support for the entire Iraq resistance. He was careful not to selectively support only certain resistance groups. Either he is lending moral support to even the hardest core Qaeda-allied terrorists in Iraq (completely giving up any hope to be seen as anything other than a band of criminals and thugs) or he's speaking in code and supporting the Iranian resistance within Iraq. Now, if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in Iraq and targeting our forces, they might also be targeted THERE, true.

How is ANY anonymous quote "stellar"? You might as well go to Joe Blows blog in the inernet and get some conspiracy theory and be JUST as "stellar".

I actualy didnt know if our country knew where all of Irans uranium facilities were or not, interesting to hear we dont. Most of what you said in that post I agree with, based on things I've read. I think its unrealistic that we will go to war with Iran anytime soon, although many people seem to think its right around the corner. I agree that Iran is cause for concern, and for good reason, but to initiate a war at this point in time would stretch our recources even thinner at a time when the public is having a hard enough time supporting our position in Iraq. It would be poitical suicide to act in such a way, and in my eyes not necessary. Unless of course something changed and Iran did something that was a clear act of war to us or an ally. It's bad enough they fund terrorist organiztions in Iraq, which is enough to keep them in our scope.

It's interesting to hear from someone with experience working in the political field, I noticed on your profile you were dressed in uniform, briefly what exactly do you do, if you dont mind me asking? Welcome to the site by the way.

The story provides more details about the source:



At least the reporter knows the name of our 41st President...

Seriously, how can someone who has been out of the government for the past 15 years know something so secret?

I see this as remote. The source posted is muddy at best. We know Iran is sending men and war material into Iraq to kill Americans and Petraeus has said he will target them in Iraq – a very good idea imo.
But as for an attack on Iran – never happen.

I realize that the author of this piece lacks the reputation of a Seymour Hersh or even a Pepe Escobar (who also writes on Asia Times) and that most of you are convinced that Bush would never attack Iran in the current political and military situation. Nevertheless, the questions I asked presupposed that the named senators would write the predicted editorial. So far, they haven't but what will you do if they do? Sit back like "good Germans" and let a second war of aggression be added to the list that now includes one such war, torture, and numerous other war crimes?

This is the usual political posturing by the left before the election – same with the Nader impeach Bush nonsense. There is little reason to attack Iran now – this may change as they get close to nukes and/if the EU + Russia block further sanctions.

Art some point Israel will act if this happens – which is their option.

Bush has no reason to do anything – hey and it will be all over when Obama gets in – as he will “talk” them out of positios they have held for decades.

No, even Israel won't bomb Iran, because the only way to get there is by flying over Iraq, in which case we would be enabling the strike since we have forces sitting in Iraq. So...we might as well bomb Iran ourselves if 'Israel acts'. Neither is going to happen. We have eliminated the Israel option to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities by occupying Iraq.



Why would I react or think any differently because two Senators wrote an editorial on this matter? And Hersh did come out with this story, more than once. The first time was over three years ago. Attacks on Iran were 'imminent' according to him (and his sources), back then. Usually when something is supposed to happen and doesn't people back off the matter. Not so with this one. It just keeps going and going and going. "Not next month, the month after!" "It's happen this year!" So now August is our new deadline? Is that final? Can we stop bringing up the issue as though it is impending if it doesn't happen in August or will there be a new deadline number twenty?

Well Israel could violate the air space of other countries (who could stop them?) or just fly around Africa and come in over the Arabia sea. But I tend to agree – Israel will not attack now since we are connected with them.

Food for thought (and sorry this is second hand)...but was chatting online with a friend of mine two days ago, and he found several references in Israeli newspapers to the same thing. These articles even went so far as to detail the steps Israel was taking to prepare for the expected retaliation for such attacks from Palestine (where Hamas is funded primarily from Iran). Will post links if I can find them, but they were not blogs.

The push is real or real enough to capture the attention of a substantial swath of observers who after enduring the vacuous claims for war the first time around are paying much more attention to events as the unfold. The great tonkinesque-aha moment will not be an event that takes people unawares.

Want examples? The cancelled meeting at Karbola was great example, where an external reporter highlighted discreptancies that the military conveniently did not see. The straight of Hormuz incident, where after Adm. Mike Mullen commented on the boating incident as flagrant and then admits to not viewing the video in its entirety. Heck of job, war and peace are at stake and he couldn't be bothered to view the material in question before getting in front of a camera. Is it any wonder Olbermann gave him an award?

The problem to this thread are not the warnings, it is the repetitiousness of making extroirdinary claims which yield the necessary questions the next day. It sounds like the constant challenging of adminstration opinion is becoming tedious for you. This is a case of war weariness. If you want the chicken little behavior to stop then might I suggest writing to Mr. Bush to revamp his ailing ambiguous axis of evil angle which encourages the chicken littles.

Not true. In actuality that “external reporter” wouldn’t have any discrepancies to highlight at all if not for the military which DID ‘see them’. It was in fact US military munitions experts that didn’t find ‘discrepancies’ exactly, but did find that they couldn't credibly link Iran as the source. Which doesn't mean, incidentally, that they didn't come from Iran. They not only have to prove the weapons were Iranian but that they were recently manufactured as well (which would indicate that they had been smuggled in recently). All Iran need do is eliminate or distort the manufacturing dates (or easier still, smuggle in weapons that are a couple of years old).

This part of the article was interesting:

Big lie indeed. Australia is considering bringing an ICJ case against Iran for incitement of genocide. Maybe they’re going to bomb Iran!

Lie ? He said even more yesterday. Threatening the US as well.

Maybe Obama in “direct talks” can change all of his views.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."
Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear.
"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

On April 25^th, Admiral Mike Mullen stated Petraeus was preparing a briefing detailing "just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability." The accusations were centered around Petraeus' forthcoming document to be completed in late April. The alluded goal was to present the notion an arms cache captured in Basra which bore 2008 manufacture dates on them was the latest in a series of broken promises from the Iranian government. [Source: DoD]

On May 2^nd , Maliki spokesmen Haider Abadi told the LA Time's Alexandra Zavis that Iranian officials had evidence disproving the charges. A day later another cache was announced by an Iraqi commander in Karbala. Yes it is true US experts were sent in could not find direct evidence of Iranian complicity. My question is, had the Maliki government not taken a proactive role in the verification of these arms caches, what are the chances the munitions experts would have entered Karbala? They simply would have accepted the claims of whoever wrote the report and differed to the nearest expert for opinion as they did with Mullen on the 25^th.

My point is and I should have clarified, had this event not been covered on the 8^th by another LA Times reporter the results gleaned from the munitions experts would have escaped media attention. This is significant because an unbroken silence would have offered yet another opportunity for Petraeus to make unconfirmed allegations to which the public could not counter. If one steps back and realize what just took place, we are overcome with a sense of déjà vu. Like the Downing Street memo, the was an attempt at fixing facts around the policy.



The traction given from the misquote of the century was enormous. If the Australia wants to embarrass itself it can go right ahead, that facet has been discussed extensively and refuted. If you wish to kick a dead horse and gussy up regime-change into total annihilation count me out. The issue has been successfully closed and warrants no further comment.

But it isn't like the Downing Street Memo. Petraeus isn't the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He's a commander in Iraq (or was at the time of this interview). He's the Commander in an area which is absolutely replete with Iranian weapons that don't bear the date 2008 on them. And Maliki is aligned with Iran. You know it and I know it and Petraeus knows it. Only Bush doesn't know it. What would you do in Petraeus' position? And I don’t see any indication whatsoever in that link that Mullen advocates bombing Iran (thanks for the link, though, it was informative).



And there's the point. Neither Australia nor I (nor the US government for that matter) are advocating either forced regime-change or annihilation of Iran. Yet it's being painted that way. No matter what Iran does it's dismissed as some US subversive plot. I must wonder why. The Iranians did take United Nations sailors prisoner not long ago. Did we bomb them? When did the United Nations take Iranian sailors prisoner and force them to make public statements on television? The Iranians aren't as afraid for themselves as you are for them, obviously.

Report the situation honestly to the Congress and the American people as well as to his superiors and the President so that we will cease sacrificing American lives to support one faction in a simmering civil war as opposed to playing the political general and reporting what the President wants to hear. And somehow I don't think there are nearly as many Iranian weapons in the area as there are weapons of US origin or even from the former Iraqi regime.



I'm not sure what the UN has to do with it but the US did seize Iranians in Iraq and there was speculation at the time that the Iranian capture of British sailors was an oblique way for them to apply pressure for the release of their officials.



(See Article).

The outspoken former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, put the events of the last few months into context while discussing the importance of what Scott McClellan,

(See Ray McGovern Article).

Iran took UN Multinational Forces hostage.



Although the reflex reaction to justify everything and anything Iran does might be hard to suppress, their motivations are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we will bomb Iran. We could talk all day about Iran's personal justifications for whatever they do, whether their actions are justified or not, and take a full thread on each topic. That incident alone required a long thread. The point is, we didn't bomb Iran at the time. If we were truly awaiting an excuse and wishing to attack, I'm hard pressed to think of a more opportune time than right after they took UNMNF, refused to released them and placed them on television to 'confess'. Yet we didn't. According to this guy--------->



We were already set to bomb a full year earlier than the hostages were taken, in 2006, just awaitin' the chance for an excuse. We didn't bomb Iran when they took hostages, and they had already found a large Iranian weapon's cache in 2006 (Karbola was hardly the first), and they had recently refused to suspend enrichment. Yet somehow you seem convinced of the latest argument, that we'll do it this summer for much less reason.




Yes, well, he's batting 0 out of....who knows how many, now. Yet the hysteria continues.

For what it's worth JTA reports Olmert will ask Bush to bomb Iran during his visit. I wonder if the Iran-Syria missile defense program is ready to go.

I'm undecided about Bush giving the order to take out a few locations on behalf of Israel before leaving office, or Iran developing non-peaceful nuclear and delivery systems technology. If Ayatollah Lesly was flanked by a superior, hostile force the idea of acquiring the bomb would appeal mightily to her, but in keeping with the new tradition of piling mistake upon mistake, it looks like the CIA may've gotten the beginning of NorK's reprocessing program wrong. Dragging us into another military conflict is an understatedly bad idea, but this man somehow manages to keep at least a third of the population fooled into continuing military support for an Iraqi regime that is in fact supported by the Iranian regime, teh U.S. enemy #1.

People rally behind their governments in times of crisis, real or imagined, no matter what their government does. That's something you can count on.

Recent interview with Fallon

The purpose of the article was to demostrate how the leadership is projecting their fears in one direction while not having the evidence to support their theory. The percentage of weapons of Iranian origin is substantially less than Chinese, or Russian or American but that doesn't get reported. The purpose of one sided reporting is to create the image that this is a problem. This is a war and weapons will flow to conflicts. What is important but never discussed is why only half of the information is reported on.

The more important issue is the psychological landmine you have dropped.

And Maliki is aligned with Iran. You know it and I know it and Petraeus knows it. Only Bush doesn't know it.

Sure Maliki does exibit some ease when talking to a neighbour but it is absolutely stupid to hold an American phobia as a prerequisite for assuming office in Iraq. By ironic twist you have conflicted your own arguement that Iran wants to destablise Iraq but can somehow remain cozy with Maliki. If Maliki goes so does Iran's best advocate, which makes a mockery of Mullen's rhetoric. Even with Sadr behind the wheel relations would drop because of his well vocalized nationalism. I think it is worth mentioning that Malilki will never have the freedom of action he desires as long as the Sadrists or the Awakening Council exist. If I was American I'd be thanking Al-Sadr for generating a broad public base that is considered domestic and who has every intention of removing Maliki from power. How do you respond to a win-win situation? You wall up 2 million people in a slum and set the rifles on automatic.

Iraq shares a geographical border and must work on some level. Never lose sight of this. The practical necessity of a minimal relationship was perfectly exemplified when NATO used Iranian intelligence to route the Taliban in Afghanistan. Too much credit was slavished on American operational ability and too little of the success was attributed to neigbourly cooperation. When relations drifted the Taliban surprised everyone and made a comeback of Rocky Balboa proportions. When the idea of increasing cooperation with the Pakistani military did diplomats return to the idea of regional support structures. Here that troublesome twitch manifested as a lack of action.

If a perceived loss of control ended with that one incident it would be bearable. The problem is this psychological twitch has reared its ugly head on more than one occasion.

This twitch I vividly recall was responsible for causing Bremer to disband the army for fear of dead-enders taking control of a national army. This same trait dissolved all the civil servants of Iraq, which undercut government dispensation abilities but again the Baath party was paraded as a boogeyman and everything had to be constructed from the ground up. The same fear manifested itself again after the elections and Sistani considered pushing Sadr's demand for an occupational withdrawl. The result? He was asked to leave and Iraq lost a leader who had the ability to sway militias, whom I might add only coalesced as a knee-jerk response to security because the army - you guessed it, was disbanded. Everytime the process was interrupted the situation degraded.

If the revolutionary guard is bombed with with the same level of care as was when they were declared a terror group, the result will be a cornered Sistani forced to issue a new and devastating fatwa against all American troops.



A catagorical no. Forced regime change is advocated between two and three times a week by the Israeli knesset. See Lesly's link. The question isn't about providing a sworn statement to that effect it is how much of it do you want to read? The link detailing Fallon's opinion only highlighted the fracture within the executive where Dick has the president's ear and Condi, Gates, and Fallon are trying to take it back - and losing. Fallon's comments merely underscore an internal tug of war, a backlash hoping for a more moderate foreign policy.

If this is all an imaginary plot and I am obsessing over nothing, the constant stream of unconfirmed allegations should alert even the casual observer. For a massive chunk of the world to entertain this notion there has to be a prior history that suggests such an intent is real. The evidence I have is a lot more real than Colin Powell's powerpoint presentation in '03. You're up against a mountain of evidence. I'm currently in the process of narrowing down about 50 pieces of material which cover the irrational drive to label Iran as the root cause of all America's problems. I'm hoping to post after the 5th or so. It is real, is it voluminous, and it should erase any doubt that there is an agenda in place.

The fact is that it is more than “rifles” and mortars. It is special electronics to detonate IEDs and men.

“Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.
Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".
An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."
"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1



And they have been coming into Iraq for some time to train Shiite militia

“BAGHDAD — American forces are tracking about 50 members of an elite Iranian force who have crossed the border into southern Iraq to train Shiite militia fighters, a top U.S. general said Sunday.”
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/...raniraq_070819/



Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi gives credit to Iraq for the success of the surge? She is a brainless idiot.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040005?f=h_latest

I’ve been trying to understand the above enigmatic statement. I’m not sure I’ve got it, after about five reads, but I’ll give it a try. Are you accusing me of suggesting an ‘American phobia’ should be a prerequisite for assuming office in Iraq? Uh, I’m not. I’m simply stating a fact. Maliki is aligned with Iran.

Nor have I asserted that Iran wants to destabilize Iraq. I have asserted that Iranians are in Iraq, participating in attacks on US troops both directly and indirectly and smuggling weapons across the border. A very easy thing to do. The evidence of this is quite abundant. What they want is to assert their own influence over Iraq and get us out. And no, an Iraq under (direct or indirect) control of the Islamic Republic of Iran would not be unstable. I’d say the rate of insurgency and crime would be roughly zero under that regime.



I actually basically agree with you on this point.

Apparently Israel is still considering an attack on Iran, something that would require US approval and probably participation to be successful. In preparation, Israel conducted extensive refueling exercises over the Eastern Mediterranean recently. In addition, several key meetings in Israel have heightened speculation. (See This Observer Article).



Meanwhile Cheney and company with the ill informed OK of at least 4 Democrats in Congress continue to fund dissident groups in Iran including terrorists and groups hardly distinguishable from al Qaida. (See this Hersh Article ).






Whether or not the Bush Administration will support an Israeli bombing campaign is open to question. There is little doubt that the Vice President and his circle would.

Maliki has connections in Iran. That's about it. He and his Dawa party have very little else. What they don't have is a prejudicial hate which Ryan Crocker and General Petraeus are trying to mandate as a prerequisite before holding office.



As I've stated above the Iranians are not supplying arms at a rate that is any higher than the Saudi's or the Americans. What does come is from criminal arms dealers and not official party policy. To do so would only erode stability for the Maliki regime as it is completely dependent on American cooperation for survival. This is what makes your arguement so contradictory, the Iranians cannot take a potshot at the Americans and keep a friendly in office at the same time. It just will not work.



While I support your source the above statement leaves the arguement open to, "just how much control does the vice president have over military affairs?" This is difficult to quantify because of the clandestine nature of covert operations. The best path in my opinion is to follow both the culmulative effects of house bills and elusive presidential findings. The on again off again rebuffs by the air force and state department have also contributed to keeping the issue alive and as details slowly leak out, even a few members of congress believe there is something dangerous at play.

What struck me as significant in that article TedN5 was the shifting of the military command structure by omitting a four star general from his area of operations. While information of black operations was not new, the conflict involving the centcom commander is very significant. By using the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) as extensively as the president has, I can't see much potential for oversight. D.N.'s interview suggests that if the special operations are handled completely under the table by the executive, the concern of expanded war is very much a legitimate concern.

Regardless of how one feels about the above material the ongoing legislation should be enough to silence the critics. Take the up and coming resolution 362, fittingly called the Iran War Resolution as it suggests that a full on blockade should commense despite the inconvenient truth that every snap inspection from the IAEA came up empty. For refusing to volutarily shut down their operations the preferred Persian punishment is:

"demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

"Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran". Does this mean a naval blockade? A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

The sister bill from the senate is resolution 580 A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability which codifies the president's right to interfere which correct me if I am wrong Mrs. Pigpen, is the underlying premise of this thread? Then again, is it any surprise that allowing the executive to claim power to interfere is merely of an extension of last year's bill allowing the executive to label who is and who isn't a terrorist? Remember Executive Order 13224? Concrete evidence and rational justification are just not part of the program.

Trouble, I agree with portions of your post, but disagree with others.

I don't think that there is an official government sponsorship of the insurgents in Iraq. But I think you underestimate the familial relationship between Iran and the Dawa Party and Badr, who were feted, armed and trained by Iran until 2003.

Arms do come across the Eastern border, as do Quds Force personnel. Iran is playing an implicit role in the insurgency, but I think it's coming from supporting influential sources within the Tehran government rather than from the government itself. I think that Tehran knows this is all too true, but they are plying several factions against one another as part of a larger scheme to foment near term chaos in return for a solid Shi'ite state in the long run.

All that aside, I share your concerns of this administrations fetish for a armed conflict with Iran before they lose the White House to the Democrats.

One could also say the feting, arming, and training, has simply shifted into the American scope since 2003. Mrs.Pigpen has consistently implied Iranian involvement as singularly negative. A valid question to ask is how much emphasis was placed on security verses training insurgents to fortify themselves against American or Sunni interests? When faced with an absolute breakdown of security does it not seem natural to lend a neighbour a hand so their problems do not become your own?

The question I've been trying to answer is , have all forms of assistance which are not American-approved been demonized?

The chaos of the situation drew the same level of arms, and investment out of the Saudis for the Sunnis and Israelis for the Kurdish Peshmergas. Accepting Mrs.Pigpen's assessment of participation = bad is a narrow interpretation of events considering the majority of attacks on American soldiers are not Shiite.

Iran's actions are no more absolute than any of the other side in the neighbourhood or said another way have no more of hidden agenda than anyone else.
While I can agree the exploits of the Badr group have been near thuggery in the south, I have am undecided if this is because a power vacuum, internal division, or external coercion. With so many divisions discerning cause and effect can be challenging.

There's absolutely some level of truth to that. Dawa/Badr will gravitate to some extent to wherever there lies the means to pursue power. Right now, Maliki knows that kowtowing to America will enable him to retain American support, just as the contrary was true when former Prime Minister Jaffari was swept aside when he showed the slightest bit of independence from the American script. [Jaffari, ironically being more closely tied to Iran than even Maliki]



Of course they have; Iran is the next great evil empire in the Middle East. Instead of talking to Iraq, treating them as a player in the region [which they clearly are], we simply demonize them, thus stifling any sort of rapprochement , short of war.



Not to mention that most foreign fighters have come from Syria. Not to discount the Quds Force personnel that enter Iraq, but they are not the majority.



I would like to see any statistics you find on this......my experience in Baghdad was that the majority was Shi'ite.