What does appear to be in force right now is a new harder-edged diplomacy, one aimed at further isolating Iran, with the ultimate hope perhaps that there will be a change of government.

Josh Marshall has a rather good post about this on TPM.

For an analysis on what an attack on Iran might cause see John Robb's AN ATTACK ON IRAN = CATALYST OF CHAOS.

For my money, the first wave and most parts of the second wave Robb talks about are near certain, with the third wave being more speculative, but definitely possible.

Psychologically, these people feed off power, chaos and death, and as far as they're concerned, the more of it the better.

Diplomacy seems to be a sideshow to the personal drama that's being played out in Washington. Iran is George's last attempt to make a difference. He knows that Iraq has fizzled, and he believes he need a more impressive legacy to take his place in the history books.

Of course attacking Iran will destroy the US as a world power. But at least George will have a real war and a real legacy. Right now, all he has to look forward to is creeping impeachment and a long slow withdrawal from Iraq, which is hardly the high-note ending he's hoping for.

The real question is how far the Repub moderates will go to make sure this doesn't happen.

There are some serious issues at stake in dealing with Iran and it's virtually impossible for anyone outside the rings of power (government and intelligence services) to make an evidence based case that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Likewise, it's very hard to prove in a deep sense that Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing.

Because of all that, before the Iraq invasion, Iran would have been seen as a "problem." And worse possibly even a problem with a "bombing solution" attached. However, all the logistical issues would have been cause for pause. Even more, the taboo about pre-emptive action, about violating sovereignty was cause for pause.

But after Iraq? I fear that the bar for "military action" has been lowered. The mere fact that the case against Iran is better than the case was against Iraq is making it hard to deter the continual arguments about "taking serious action against Iran."

I find this worrying.

In my defence, I would suggest that if the Bush-Cheney brigade had realised how bad the Congressional Elections were going to turn out and if they had the ruthless streak that I can envision on occasion, I think they would have done it.

My view is that they thought they could win the elections anyway, so it wasn't worth taking the risk that an Iran bombing would be seen as cynical political manoeuvering. I always thought they were going to lose the elections, so I felt they needed to gamble to get things on track.

we NEED it, because the honeywells and bechtels that are about to save us from coal-fired global warming are the luxiest lobbyists, but EVIL muslims are too irresponsible to be entrusted with it.

goes so well with compassionate conservatism, human rights, and democracy, right?

cheney is the nucleus of this...

i bet he never met a windmill he liked!

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

The mine-hunters Persée and Sagittarius, with their support and command ship, the Loire, have left Brest, heading to the north of the Indian Ocean. This force will cross in the area from February 15 to May 13, before returning home the next month. As the relations between the United States and Iran are more sensitive in this moment, the sending of the French ships intervenes within the framework of a usual deployment in the Gulf. "Every two years, a war force against mines is deployed in this area of the world in order to support the relations of co-operation and the navy of the United Arab Emirates, of Qatar, of Kuwait, of the Sultanate of Oman, Bahrain and of Pakistan", indicates the French Navy, whose capacities as regards anti-mine warfare are very appreciated since the war of the Gulf 1991. The Persée, Sagittarius and the Loire will take part, in particular, to two great exercises: MERCY 07 at the beginning of March with Pakistan and ARABIAN GAUNTLET, at the end of March, with Pakistan and Bahrain...

March: 15 French ships and 4700 sailors in the area :

Regarding the programmed deployments, in March, the French presence in Indian Ocean will reach a level not equalized since many years. Besides the force of war against mines, as from March, the French air and sea group will join the zone. It will include the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, the destroyer Blas de Lezo (Spain), the frigates Cassard and Tourville, the nuclear attack submarine of Casabianca  and the  of supply and command ship Marne. This last one will be back on April 24 in Toulon and replaced by the Somme, whose arrival is envisaged at mid-March. Two weeks earlier, the Dupleix frigate will also join the zone.

At the end of the month, the ship will integrate the third French force deployed in the Indian Ocean and take part in the maritime antiterrorist operation Enduring Freedom. The TF 150 (which should pass under French command on April 4) will be composed, in March, of the Aconit frigate and sloop PM Her, this last one replacing the Cdt Birot, which sailed again Monday through the Suez Canal. The BCR VAR, being used as the base of the admiral ordering the forces of the Indian Ocean, will be him also on zone. Lastly, the school group of the navy, made up of the helicopter carrier Jeanne d' Arc and the frigate George Leygues, will start his return towards Brest and will be in Djibouti on April 1. On the whole, 15 French buildings will cross in the area in March, that is to say more than 4700 sailors (3900 except school group).

roughly translated from :
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=103741

it is interesting to notice that such a naval group has a major strike capacity (both nuclear and conventional) through aircrafts, cruise missiles and other missiles.

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

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. . . .

Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the plan to expand the war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said that attacking Iran could touch off a regional - and possibly global - conflagration.

I really, really hope these guys are wrong, but I wouldn't anything past them now.