[See below for additional information supplied in Comments by freelearner.]
Yes, one can imagine all too well Dick Cheney urging this line of thought around town with only nine months left until the next presidential inauguration.
I've been planning to write a blog post about all the predictions I've made that have turned out to be wrong, and no one could be happier than I to be wrong about the reinstatement of the draft, avian flu, immigration as a winning issue for the GOP, and most of all, a U.S. attack on Iran. Unfortunately, it's too soon to tell about some of these things, and particularly in the case of Iran, recent events have made a lot of people wonder whether military aggression against that nation in the near future is still very much a possibility:
- Joint Chiefs Chairmans Says U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran
- Israeli attack on Syria a prelude to Arak, Iran?
- Petraeus has been named to replace Admiral Fallon as CENTCOM head; Fallon repeatedly had said there would be no attack on Iran on his watch, while as we all know, Petraeus is nothing if not George Bush's lackey--or should I say Cheney's?--who never voices a dissenting word.
The ostensible reason for "preparing military options against Iran" is that Iran is meddling in Iraq and endangering our forces there. But the real reason is Iran's heavy-water nuclear reactor in Arak, Iran. There is some speculation that Israel may be planning a strike on that reactor. If that were to happen, there would certainly be retaliation by iran followed by counterattacks backed up by U.S. military power. Or, perhaps the U.S. would have to "soften up" Iran to make an Israeli strike possible. Iran does have some sophisticated anti-aircraft weaponry.
The reactor's start-up date is scheduled for 2009, so time is of the essence. Israel has not been shy about voicing its outrage over Iran's reactor, fearing that it will be used to make nuclear weapons. And in March, we discovered that
The Pentagon is looking into the possibility of Israel launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In the past months there were several working-level discussions trying to map out the possible scenarios for such an attack, according to administration sources who were briefed on these meetings.
Moreover (from the same source):
Israeli and US sources have said in the past weeks that the US did not convey any message to Israel in which it asked to refrain from an attack and has not raised the issue in bilateral discussions with the Israelis. Both countries share intelligence on the situation in Iran and the advance of the nuclear program, but do not discuss - according to sources who took part in bilateral talks - the possibility of using military force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Of course the U.S. didn't tell the Israelis to "refrain from an attack." There's nothing dearer to the heart of Cheney (what's left of it) than the thought of more carnage, blood, and destruction, and if nuclear fallout could be a part of all that, so much the better!
One of my fears is that some sort of terrorist or other act will be manufactured ( a la the Gulf of Tonkin) by the U.S. and blamed on Iran to justify an attack. Then would it be post-9/11 all over again, with the country deciding it needed a Bush clone and electing McCain by a landslide?
Do you really think they haven't thought about this? These are people for whom power and power alone gives life meaning. Nothing they could do would surprise me.
UPDATE from freelearner (moved here from Comments):