WILL BUSH ATTACK IRAN?

When I got back Friday I asked a few of my friends what they thought about Bush attacking Iran. I got mostly blank faces. No one seemed to know what I was talking about. Over on the other side of the pond, the mass media was going nuts for the last two weeks with stories about the Bush Regime preparing the NATO allies for an impending attack. They seemed to either be trying to scare the ayatollahs (who are probably savvy enough long-term chess players to know the unpopular, troopless Bush is bluffing) or they are actually reckless enough to actually start another war and are looking to create an atmosphere of inevitability.

The German media had stories about it everyday-- big stories. (Today a U.K. paper, THE HERALD, ran a story on how Bush's Middle East cat's paw, Israel, is planning a pre-emptive strike, with logistical assistance from U.S. puppets in the Kurdish part of Iraq, on Iran; and Israeli newspaper Haaretz is carrying a piece entitled "Blair: 'We Won't Rule Any Measures Out' Against Iran.") I was surprised no one picked them up here. And today I found an article by William Rivers Pitt for TRUTHOUT that lays out the whole ghastly scenario. It boils down to how much jeopardy Bush is willing to put the nation in for domestic political capital in the face of the Abramoff/DeLay scandals which threaten everything the Bush Regime has built up since they stole the presidential election in 2000.


SATURDAY UPDATE: ATRIOS LAYS OUT THE BUSH PLAN FOR HOW TO DEAL WITH IRAN

Atrios laid out a very feasible timeline for how Rove plans to deal with Iran.

Winter/Spring - The clone army of foreign policy "experts" from conservative foreign policy outfits nobody ever heard of before suddenly appear on all the cable news programs all the time, frowning furiously and expressing concerns about the "grave threat" that Iran poses. Never before heard of Iranian exile group members start appearing regularly, talking about their role in the nuclear program and talking up Iran's human rights violations.

Spring/Summer - "Liberal hawks" point out that all serious people understand the serious threat posed by serious Iran, and while they acknowledge grudgingly that the Bush administration has fucked up everything it touches, they stress, and I mean stress, that we really must support the Bush administration's serious efforts to deal with the serious problem and that criticisms of such serious approaches to a serious problem are highly irresponsible and come only from irrational very unserious Bush haters who would rather live in Iran than the U.S.

Late Summer - Rumsfeld denies having an Iran war plan "on his desk." He refuses to answer if he has one "in his file cabinet." Andy Card explains that you don't roll out new product until after labor day.

Early Fall - Bush suddenly demands Congress give him the authority to attack Iran to ensure they "disarm." Some Democrats have the temerity to ask "with what army?" Marshall Wittman and Peter Beinart explain that courageous Democrats will have the courageous courage to be serious and to confront the "grave threat" with seriousness and vote to send other peoples' kids off to war, otherwise they'll be seen as highly unserious on national security. Neither enlists.

Late October - Despite the fact that all but 30 Democrats vote for the resolution, Republicans run a national ad campaign telling voters that Democrats are objectively pro-Ahmadinejad. Glenn Reynolds muses, sadly, that Democrats aren't just anti-war, but "on the other side." Nick Kristof writes that liberals must support the war due to Ahmadinejad's opposition to gay rights in Iran.

Election Day - Democrats lose 5 seats in the Senate, 30 in the House. Marshall Wittman blames it on the "pro-Iranian caucus."

The Day After Election Day - Miraculously we never hear another word about the grave Iranian threat. Peter Beinart writes a book about how serious Democrats must support the liberation of Venezuela and Bolivia.

Good one, right? Oh but Atrios left out the part that actually deals with Iran, you say? No he didn't; he's just reporting the Bush plan. Bush (Rove) doesn't do planning past election days. Or haven't you noticed?