This administration has shown that not only are they comfortable with scaring the world into submission by playing the mad guy pulling on the pin of the grenade, "do as I say or we'll all die". Occasionally they feel the need to commit a bit of drive-by just to make them feel better.

Think about it. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was a bust. This was a pre-condition for Plan A. So Plan B invovles the US going around Saudi, Egypt, Kuwait and all its other tame Sunni puppets stirring them up about the fact that, with Iraq going badly a Shi'ia ascendancy was occuring; blatantly asking for support in rooting out the menace at its source. Now we have a "surge" whose only concern seems to be with inflaming tensions in the Shi'ia enclave of Sad'r city whilst bolstering border patrols in case of "Iranian incursions".

They are not pouring petrol on the flames of the Iraqi civil war, they are not goading Iran into invading Iraq in support of Shi'ia brothers. Even the BBC last night, accepted that the US is nakedly formenting regional conflict. I'm quite sure that the same PNAC commentators who were certain that the US would be greeted with flowers and that the Iraqis would happily stand back whilst Halliburton looted the treasure are saying how Iran is going to be a walkover, that there will be no bad consequence from this madness. But why ? Why this whole belligerent nonsense ? Does Bush realise he will surely cross the Halys with this ? This isn't bringing about End-Times: Aside from knowing that even the WH thinks the fundies are nutters, it still requires a level of planning they are incapable of achieving. Is this still merely the simpleton pursuit of a west-leaning democracy in Iran and Iraq ?

The whole nuclear farrago is a confection whipped up by friends-of-aipac on behalf of preserving Israel's regional nuclear dominance. Sure, it might happen, but not in any timeframe that requires precipitate action. It is quite certain that the hoary cobwebbed spectre of Condi's "mushroom cloud" is being pushed out yet again to dangle before a still-hypnotically-compliant msm in order to frighten the public one more time (Judy Millar to ride the NYT over the precipice once more for olde tymes sake ?). But does the WH still believe Iran must be stopped and, more to the point, stopped now ? The Dems are still having issues with getting their act together in DC, is he moving whilst he still can ? Quite basically, what does he hope to gain from this ?

Sure, as LondonBear points out on Kos; with Perez claiming the cluster bombs were dropped on Lebanon by "rogue elements" is one left to wonder if "rogue elements" in Israel are now threatening to accidently deliberately nuke Tehran ? There is the possibility that the US is saving Israel's ass by conventionally attacking Iran to prevent Israel escalating to nuclear ?  Again, I think this requires a level of political-military awareness entirely absent in the WH, but it might be a subsidiary thread of coincident motivation.

So, I have a lot of questions and few answers. Everything they want to happen becomes less likely if they use the military option. Everything, everywhere actually becomes a lot, lot worse if they do this. But with the Senate only able to pass a neutered rebuke to the WH over the catastrophe in Iraq, the idea of preemptive action to save the US from its President's stupidity is impossible.

keep to the Fen Causeway