Col. Sam Gardiner, who documented the Iraq sales effort, has been saying for months that if a third carrier group is dispatched to the gulf - probably the Nimitz - we'll have crossed the Rubicon. He says there's no way in hell that would happen for mere sabre-rattling.

Well, guess what...

I think Iran will start the U.S.-Iran war, if they haven't already.

There has been plenty of evidence of Iranian influence in Iraq and Iranian espionage within British and U.S. government coming out over the past year and longer, all dutifully ignored by mainstream media. If the Rove Wurlitzer is starting to play that tune, it surely indicates some policy tremors, but I don't think this information is being sexed up like with Iraq. This time they don't have to lie.

All for it, hell no!

Didn't think so. Just checking.

These accusations are clearly BS.

The Iranians have nothing to gain by provoking the US, but they have everything to gain by defeating the Sunnis (who are the ones really setting off the IEDs against US troops).

Al Maliki's Shiite-dominated government is beholden to Moqtada Al Sadr and his (Iran-funded) militia for its legitimacy. The Shiite Iranians realize this (since they're the ones funding him), and they also realize that they are the ones who stand to gain by eventually pulling Bush's puppet government over to their side. The Iranians aren't fools -- they know full well that whenever the US leaves Iraq, whether it be six months or sixty years from now, the Shiite majority in Iraq will remain intact and will be an easy target for Iran's influence. To engage in attacks on American forces in Iraq would work to empower the Sunnis, Iran's enemy.

Ahmedinijad may be crazy, but the rest of the PTB in Iran aren't. They're patient enough to wait us out.

This is not to be construed in any way as an advocacy of Bush's policies; it's simply a recognition that the Persians are very, very patient. They endured the Western-enthroned Shah for seventy years before having their way with him, and they'll out-wait the West on Iraq too. Whether we stay or leave, the Iranians have already won. I believe the neocons realize this and are therefore eager to trump up any excuse to try and bomb Tehran into submission.

It won't work. Making a martyr of Ahmedinijad is the LAST thing we need to be doing.

--Socialist With A Gold Card

"There has been plenty of evidence of Iranian influence in Iraq and Iranian espionage within British and U.S. government coming out over the past year and longer, all dutifully ignored by mainstream media."

Damn, rikki. I am continually impressed by your recognition of the objective facts and resistance to blind ideology. Well done.

A few items from my Iran file:

- The Mask Comes Off the Mullahs. Again.
- Arab silence allowed Iran influence in Iraq: FM
- Hizbollah fighter tells Israel he trained in Iran

It's been apparent for awhile that Iran has been using Iraq as a proxy war zone with the U.S.

www.lesjones.com

Oy vey.

Jim Henley provides the checklist for determining whether this evidence actually exists, and whether it matters.

Josh Marshall provides the next question: Would successful aggressive action against Iran materially improve our current situation in Iraq?

In the recent Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, Iran provided arms to Hezbollah to attack Israel. There's quite a bit of evidence that Iran supplied weapons and operatives to insurgency forces in Iraq for years now.

How much of a stretch is it for Iran to provide oh, I don't know, - let's say the nuclear weapons they loudly proclaim they're developing - to a third party that will use them against the mainland U.S.? Anyone with a pulse is concerned about that these days.

www.lesjones.com

Iran provided arms to Hezbollah to attack Israel.

Choke cough cough. I'm sorry. What were you saying?

There's quite a bit of evidence that Iran supplied weapons and operatives to insurgency forces in Iraq for years now.

Define "quite a bit" and "insurgency forces." Oh, and "evidence."

they loudly proclaim they're developing

...and which the people tasked with making this determination - the people who got Iraq right - say they aren't capable of developing.

Unfortunately, patient or not, Iran is currently run by fanatical Islamist clerics and a Holocaust-denying President with apocalyptic visions of conflict with the West. I'd rather not put much faith in their promises regarding the real ends of their nuclear experimentations.

Unfortunately, like it or not, the United States is currently run by fanatical neoconservative right wing fascists and a reality denying president with apocalyptic visions of conflict in the Middle East. I'd rather not put much faith in their promises regarding the real ends of their war experimentations.

Peace

Sven, Les said Iran armed Hezbollah, and you provided a link showing the U.S. armed Israel. Is that supposed to make sense, or did I miss something?

It's not supposed to make any more sense than Les offering Iran's arming of Hezbollah as evidence of Iran arming Iraqi "insurgents." If this is the standard of proof for starting a war...

There's "evidence" that "insurgents" have obtained US weapons. Chinese weapons. Czech weapons. Russian weapons. Libyan weapons. Italian mafia weapons. Saudi Arabian weapons....

Arming insurgents and arming Hezbollah during Iran's proxy war with Israel are two different things. And if Iran is willing to give Katyusha rockets to Hezbollah to use against Israel, who's to say they won't give nuclear weapons to groups to use against Israel or the U.S. That's the concern. Iran's PM is playing a very dangerous game.

And passively "having obtained" isn't the same as intentionally being supplied with.

www.lesjones.com

who's to say they won't give nuclear weapons to groups to use against Israel or the U.S.

If they do, they will cease to exist. That deterred the Soviets for fifty years.

I suppose the argument is that these guys are crazy and don't care if they are annihilated and thus martyred.

It doesn't seem like a winning strategy for the long-term survival of your religious movement or its people, though. You'd think even the most radical Imams and Mullahs or whatevers could figure that out.

"If they do, they will cease to exist. That deterred the Soviets for fifty years."

And if the nuke arrives on an ICBM we tracked from Ukraine, that works. If a small nuke goes off in New York harbor, who's to say who gave it to them? That's the problem of renegade groups. The old system of deterrence doesn't work the same way.

I'm also a little more worried about someone with non-secular motivations for using nukes.

"It doesn't seem like a winning strategy for the long-term survival of your religious movement or its people, though. You'd think even the most radical Imams and Mullahs or whatevers could figure that out."

They have. I couldn't find the link, but the NY Times had a big story about the ayatollah's break with Ahmadinejad because of the latter's nuclear saber-rattling and Holocaust rants.

Here's an interesting piece I ran across in my search:

Interesting piece on deterrence now and then. FWIW, this person concludes that attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure isn't the solution, though his solutions to Iran seem to be the same ones that were tried and failed in North Korea.

www.lesjones.com

Jeez, Les, I guess we're on the same wavelength.

Arming insurgents and arming Hezbollah during Iran's proxy war with Israel are two different things.

Indeed, they are. Especially considering that Hezbollah is a Shiite militia, and the "insurgents" are Sunni ex-Baathists who hate Iran's guts and are bent on toppling Iraq's Shiia-dominated, Iran-friendy government.

And if Iran is willing to give Katyusha rockets to Hezbollah to use against Israel, who's to say they won't give nuclear weapons to groups to use against Israel or the U.S.

This comes back to whether Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons, no? And if you destabilize the entire Middle East by starting a war with Iran, I'd say the chances that a nuke - supplied by Pakistan or a former Soviet republic - slipping into the hands of terrorists increase substantially.

Small quibble - the Katyushas are the cheap, unguided and often homemade rockets. The Iranians provided the larger, more sophisticated stuff.

And passively "having obtained" isn't the same as intentionally being supplied with.

My point exactly. If the Bushies truly have the goods on the Iranians, they should be willing and able to approach Congress, answer the basic questions I linked to earlier and seek authorization for war. Otherwise, they should STFU and preserve what little credibility our country has left for when its really needed.

They may be trying to develop weapons, but they might be trying to just be defiant.

Or it may be a domestic political ploy.

Or they may be building up capacity to try when the US screws up and gives them room to wiggle out of the NPT.

Or they may be trying and be incapable.

Or this may all be irrelevant, and the real reason the Bushies are trying to play up the threat is because it has handed Iran an excellent strategic hand.

let's just say there are folks in Iraq from various factions trying to kill U.S. forces and undermine Iraq democracy

Then let's start killing the bastards instead of riding around in under-armored vehicles providing easy targets for them.

What kind of winning strategy is that? What morons came up with that? The same morons who got us in to this without a plan or even a clue and got all these people killed?

EU report? We've officially entered the twilight zone.

Again, if the Bushies, the EU or anyone else have the cards, they should be laid on the fookin' table. But they don't. They. Don't. It's all speculation, subject to mystical interpretation of the Iranian motives (not to mention our own strategic goals). We may as well be using Tarot cards.

The IAEA's Mohamed El Baradei - the guy the Bushies blew off on Iraq and the guy who tried to warn them about the Niger forgeries - said today about what we know:

I don't see a military solution of the Iranian issue. First of all, as far as we know what Iran has now today is the knowledge. We do not know that Iran has the industrial capacity to enrich uranium. We don't know, we haven't seen indication or concrete proof of a nuclear weapons program. So I don't see that people talk about a military solution. I don't know what they mean by that. You cannot bomb knowledge, as I said before. I think it would also be completely counter productive."

let's just say there are folks in Iraq from various factions trying to kill U.S. forces and undermine Iraq democracy.

Yeah, let's just say that. We don't need to understand what's really going on, who we're supporting and who we're fighting against. No matter that the guy who has the tightest relationship with Iran, lords over a militia that was trained in Iran, armed by Iran and is completely loyal to Iran, gets invited to the fucking White House.

Details are for suckers.

I think the American people would revolt...and it would be impossible for Bush to explain his rationale....The REPUBLICAN PARTY would become persona non grata everywhere except in Texas and the south...sorry, we're apparently stuck with those guys...we'll see if Bush , Cheney, etc etc..if they're stupid enough to actually do it.