It's very hard to improve or add to Paul Craig Roberts's loudly shouted warning that Bush-Cheney are determined to attack Iran, most likely in early spring, or shortly after their second battle carrier group is in place in the Persian Gulf at the end of February.
Nevertheless, I'll make two points.
1. The Iran attack is necessary from their point of view because they have no other agenda besides permanent war. If they don't widen the war to Iran, then the domestic pressure to get out of Iraq would in all likelihood grow to such an overwhelming point that Congress might actually do something useful. (Even the current non binding resolution now bruited about is useful and very likely scary to the administration, but it's only a tiny step.)
2. The situation may be slightly more dynamic than Roberts suggests. There is evidence that some of the so far relatively quiet pushback on Iran may be working. Comparing the two recent speeches on the subject, Bush's Library Speech (1.10.07) and his State of the Union (1.23.07), there's a dramatic drop off in the later speech in the explicit level of anti Iran bellicosity. It might very well be that the pushback has forced them to proceed much more behind the scenes and under the radar than they had hoped.
Hillary Clinton, unprompted, warned against such a widening of the war last week on the Leherer News Hour and the enormity of the coming calamity broke through the normally impervious arrogance of Thomas Friedman, to the point that he devoted a paragraph to it in a recent column.
In other good news, Cheney is losing credibility even among some of his right wing media supporters if David Brooks on the Leherer News Hour is any guide. "What planet is he on?" chortled Brooks, referencing Cheney's recent dust up with Wolf Blitzer, when Darth Vader insisted that "We've had enormous successes" in Iraq.
It seems like we have only one more month to get Hillary, Hagel, Obama and the other presidential contenders to shout down the Iran attack. Unfortunately, the Bush Cheney low key approach seems more likely to get to the finish line. On the other hand, it's a riskier strategy. Unlike the Iraq war which was front page for months, and from their point of view, exceedingly well prepared, when it finally happened, it was a fait accomplit, and there was no effective backlash. The current, relatively stealthy Iran attack could result in unpredictable fireworks, similar to Nixon's venture in Cambodia.
I can't resist a shout out to my war for oil or war by Illuminati friends. Do any think that the coming Iran attack is also a war for oil? When will it be clear that it's a war for war, for chaos, for destruction and for no self serving, empire or imperial, or world government purpose? It's Hitlerian, Napoleonic and Maoist in its suicidal regime.
Why Can't Americans See What's Coming?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
January 27 / 28, 2007
The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A Massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.
This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue--the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.
Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media--and the demonstration in Washington--are focused on Iraq.
What can be done to bring American awareness up to the standard of the rest of the world?
In Davos, Switzerland, the meeting of the World Economic Forum, a conference where economic globalism issues are discussed, opened January 24 with a discussion of Bush's planned attack on Iran. The Secretary General of the League of Arab States and bankers and businessmen from such US allies as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all warned of the coming attack and its catastrophic consequences for the MIddle East and the world.
Writing for Global Research (January 24), General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy on Geopolitical Affairs and former Joint Chief of Staff of the Russian Armies, forecast an American nuclear attack on Iran by the end of April. General Ivashov presented the neoconservative reasoning that is the basis for the attack and concluded that the world's protests cannot stop the US attack on Iran.
There will be shock and indignation, General Ivashov concludes, but the US will get away with it. He writes:
"Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc. . . . The probability of a US aggression against Iran is extremely high. It does remain unclear, though, whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war. It may take a provocation to eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the US targets including military bases). The scale of the provocation may be comparable to the 9-11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say "Yes" to the US President."
The Bush Regime has made it clear that it is convinced that Bush already has the authority to attack Iran. The Regime argues that the authority is part of Bush's commander-in-chief powers. Congress has authorized the war in Iraq, and Bush's recent public statements have shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi insurgency from al-Qaeda to Iran. Iran, Bush has declared, is killing US troops in Iraq. Thus, Iran is covered under the authorization for the war in Iraq.
Both Bush and Cheney have made it clear in public statements that they will ignore any congressional opposition to their war plans.
For example, CBS News reported (Jan. 25) that Cheney said that a congressional resolution against escalating the war in Iraq "won't stop us." According to the Associated Press and Yahoo News, Bush dismissed congressional disapproval with his statement, "I'm the decision-maker."
Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US Media.
General Ivashof and everyone in the Middle East and at the Davos globalization conference in Europe understands the Bush Regime's agenda.
Why cannot Americans understand?
Why hasn't Congress told Bush and Cheney that they will both be instantly impeached if they initiate a wider war?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com