Two things of recent note: 1) the members of the Security Council, plus Germany, are discussing sanctions again. The result will probably be some rather weak additions, spun for U.S. domestic consumption to appear to show "progress". 2) The U.S. State Dept. continues to emphasize the "diplomatic pathway".
In addition Cheney APPEARS to be more isolated, as even George Will campaigns against neo-con policies. And the physical realignments (ethnic cleansing) of the sects in Iraq probably do equate to reduced violence. In that context it may well be that the Shiites need less aid from Iran, and my guess is that, despite all militant rhetoric, everyone there will welcome a chance to back off somewhat - including Iran. They may be playing the U.S. like a kazoo, but their tactics require the occasional break from high-adrenaline alert, too.
Doesn't mean that conditions can't evolve or change drastically in the next year. It doesn't even mean that we are not being played for suckers by an administration devising some kind of "false flag" incident. Let us hope not and continue to resist the war(s) for anti-imperialist and pro-humanity reasons. paul spencer
That, and/or, as Colman and Paul note below, they are simply realists.
In response to ThatBritGuy above:
He can always be fired and replaced with someone more compliantly on-message.
Actually, he has been saying this for some time now, and in fact he replaced another guy who was getting off message (and again more recently and publicly about Iran.).
As I commented on Sunday, it's the military that has the sanest assessment. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
