In the aftermath of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at the United Nations where he expressed contempt for any potential sanctions against his nation's nuclear program, President Bush has called for stepped up pressure for sanctions against Iran to sway the economically challenged nation to stop its nuclear ambitions, ambitions many believe to be a cover for the development of atomic weapons.

According to the AP, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is seeking a consensus among UN members so as to ratchet further pressure against Iran, but this may prove somewhat difficult.
With the newly anti-Iranian leadership in France as well as a pro-sanctions Germany as members of the UN Security Counsel, the US has solid allies on their side in terms of seeking sanctions against Iran. However, China and Russia are permanent members of the Security Counsel and have the ability to veto any sanctions against Iran. This may lead to a coalition of the US, France, Britain and Germany leading an anti-Iran coalition of sanctions if the perpetually impotent United Nations remains....more impotent.

France has been making some serious noise about military action against Iran to prevent their developing, possessing and using a nuclear warhead. The rhetoric almost makes the French sound manly but until they actually fight I'll withhold judgment. They've backed off the talk recently but still sound as if they have at least half estrogen and half testosterone coursing through their foie gras clogged arteries, which is a huge improvement from when Chirac was at the helm.

Anyway, back when the US invaded Iraq, the liberals and assorted other inane folks on the left screamed that we were acting "unilaterally" even though we had numerous nations allied with us including, but not limited to: Spain, Britain, Australia, Poland, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Japan. The hand-wringers always said that France wasn't involved so it wasn't really a coalition and didn't give damn that they were disparaging those who actually were allied with us in liberating Mesopotamia.

Well now that the French seem to have morphed into a testosterone-fueled beast ready to take on the mad Mullahs, will those who called our coalition a sham support an invasion? Even though it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chirac was protecting cronies who were working in concert with Saddam to enrich themselves and didn't want the Oil for Food spigot turned off, they still screamed that idiotic unilateral screed. Will those wretched folks now support an invasion of Iran because the French do? I guess we'll soon see.

Iran is a major problem, they are fighting us in a proxy war in Iraq as is Syria. Should they get nukes, the Straits of Hormuz will be a constant battleground and we'll have to invade to keep it open as a huge amount of oil flows through that thin body of water. The fact that the French are rattling, well maybe not sabers but silverware is a testament to just how important this issue is.

Recently, video footage has surfaced of two gay Iranian men being publicly executed by hanging in Iran. Their crime was merely the fact that they were gay, and in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death. Also punishable by death is any dissidence to the policies of the dictatorial government. Scholars, political opponents, college students and "enemies of the state" routinely disappear or are outright executed.

Is this the type of government that should be allowed to possess weapons that can incinerate entire cities?

Clearly, the issue of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a goal of the United States. (This is clearly a bipartisan goal as both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress recently voted overwhelmingly to condemn Iran) But what specific foreign policy can be taken towards stopping this regime in its acquisition of atomic bombs?

Fred Thompson has proposed influencing the World Bank from funding Iran. In an article that appeared in the Washington Times, Thompson stated: American taxpayers' money shouldn't be used so that Tehran can divert its own money into a nuclear weapons program." Newt Gingrich has also echoed financial strangulation as a way of curtailing Iran's ambitions. In other parts of the world, more hostile rhetoric has been brought up. France, for example, has been quite liberally throwing the word "war" around in regards to dealing with Iran. (France has a nuclear submarine stationed in the Persian Gulf)

If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons the entire face of the Middle East would change and the repercussions would have dramatic impact on the rest of the world. The nation would have the ability to threaten its neighbors and to deny oil to any country in the world that currently relies on Iranian imports. This would have dramatic impact on Europe and parts of Asia to a degree that most can not imagine and, certainly, neither the US, the European Union or other nations will allow it to happen.

Once again, the Uniters, those comic book hero characters in their own minds, have done it again. They've united the generals against a war with Iran. It seems fairly common now that a general retires and soon after starts speaking out against the Iraq debacle or the pending Iran fiasco. This time it's Gen. John Abizaid who most recently was the Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years. He said:

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

He went on to say there is basis for hope in dealing diplomatically with Iran and that Iran recognizes that it cannot compete with the US's arsenal. He took a shot at the White House and reminded his audience that war is only a very last resort. Even while Cheney is trying to goad the Iranians into war, it's becoming clear there is little stomach for yet another war at the Pentagon. There will always be those who fear any other nation who might, possibly, some day in the future, threaten our vaunted superiority but it isn't Iran. Their attempt to build a bomb may well be a self defense mechanism. Our nation has been undercut but not by them or North Korea but by the Uniters.

Our military is hurt and way overextended. They squandered every resource and world opinion is we are allowing ourselves to be led by incompetents. The definition of kakistocracy is : Government by the least able and most unprincipled. That's what we have all right. Thank you General for joining many recent retired military in speaking the truth.

According to this article in the UK Telegraph, and I've heard it said before, President Bush is determined that by the time he leaves office, Iran will not have the capability to make nukes. So far, this has meant ever increasing diplomatic pressure, but is military action necessary?

It appears that the final pieces for a military offensive are falling into place. The French are on board now, thanks to a recent election. Israel bombed a high value target in Syria, which may or may not have been nuclear material, they won't confirm or deny. Syria has links to Iran and North Korea. Iran has been overtly working against us in Iraq. And now rumors are that Rice is on board with the military option:

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

Read the article for the rest. It is quite possible that this election cycle the question of Iraq may take a back seat to that of Iran. It's hard to imagine Bush getting support from Americans and Washington DC for an attack, but a significant portion of the 70% of the public who rate him poorly do so because he isn't fighting hard enough.

One of the things some bloggers do is review both the traditional media and the new media (mostly online). One thing I've noticed is the disconnect between TV's nightly news and the new media. By the time one watches the news at night what little there seems dated and offers little depth or analysis. There are warning signs of a possible bombing or war with Iran and yet there's barely a murmur from the traditional media. I certainly would prefer to be wrong but it's not just me. It's not a left or right issue.

There are foreign policy experts

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.

Who said that? Bush on Aug. 28, 2007. What will be the threats we will be told about ? Iran's imminent nuclear capability/attack, links to 'terrorists', and attacking Americans in Iraq. Get ready for more of the same mushroom clouds, yellow cake weapons and terrorists. Facts be damned, this administration will stop at nothing. Of course, if this campaign to misinform the public is launched it can be challenged. But by whom and how? Follow below the flip for more analysis on more precisely who will launch and who might respond.

That is, more than they already have. Anticipating the Democrats' moves to force the announcement of a surrender in Iraq in September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced that Iran will fill the power vacuum left when the American occupiers leave Iraq. Man, does he read like a Democrat press releases or what!

"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."

I can't wait for the reaction from the Democrats over this statement, if there even are any. Let's see, first they'll blame President Bush, and then...well, they'll think of something, eventually.

Oh, I know! "The DNC has learned that Ahmadinejad has secretly hired Karl Rove as an adviser..."

There has been much speculation regarding the rather abrupt departure of Karl Rove. Most centers around the possibility of his indictment because he was involved in the CIA leak. Or the dismissal of the U.S. Attorney Generals. Or spying on Americans. Or rigging elections or (I could go on a bit, you know)

But there may be another reason. For starters, the stated reason (to spend more time with family) when his son is going away to college is an obvious red flag. But could there be a more altruistic reason? Could it be that Rove has lost the internal battle with Dick Cheney and chose not to stay?

According to VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) Cheney may be directing a military attack on Iran. The reason? His belief that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in a few months. The truth? Not even likely. According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate Iran will not have capability for several years at best but the current version

The latest National Intelligence Estimate regarding if and when Iran is likely to have the bomb has been ready since February. It has been sent back four times -- no doubt because its conclusions do not support what Cheney and Woolsey are telling the president and, through the domesticated press, telling the rest of us as well.

With American forces at a very low state of readiness wouldn't it be insane to attack Iran? Sure, but that hasn't stopped Cheney/Bush before has it? Wouldn't the American public and Congress deny the Bush administration the authority? Wouldn't the public outcry be overwhelming? Once again, history may repeat itself. Follow on the flip...

Iran is in the midst of solidifying their position as the regional power in the Persian Gulf. They have as a goal controlling all shipping in and out of that area by controlling the Straits of Hormuz and controlling Iraq upon our withdrawal. They are working apace at developing nuclear weapons and could have them within a year or decade depending on the source you believe. They are a theocracy with a population that is itching to gain more freedom from the Ayatollah-led government but facing severe crackdowns by that regime at any show of liberty and liberalism.

How can we deal with a regime that came to power and as part of their first official act was to kidnap and hold for 444-days Americans as hostages?

The rhetoric is starting to ratchet up as the US has said they will place the Iranian Republican Guards on a list of terror groups and has directly named Iran as a supplier of bombs and weapons to Shia insurgents in Iraq who are targeting US forces. It's getting to be a stickier situation:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they would not bow to pressure and threatened to "punch" the United States, in their first response to Washington's plan to list them as a terrorist organization, newspapers reported Saturday.

Local press in the Iranian capital of Tehran quoted Revolutionary Guards leader Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi saying that he could understand Washington's ire towards the group because of their recent successes against the United States.

"America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future," he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan.

That is a direct threat aimed at the U.S. and more importantly, it is an admission by the Iranians that they have indeed been quite active in hurting U.S. troops. In other words, they are provoking us and know that we can't react because of the political climate in the U.S.

Last week, Sen. John McCain stopped by the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) summit in Washington, D.C. CUFI, whose founder's, um, remarkable views on Israel are detailed here, got to hear some war-mongering talk on Iran from the Arizona Republican.

"Military action isn't our preference," McCain told his audience in Washington, DC. "It remains, as it always must, the last option. We have some way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures. But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that, my friends, is a nuclear-armed Iran."

The maverick of 2000 is continuing his shift toward unqualified conservatism, telling the crowd that he is "a Christian, proudly pro-American and proudly pro-Israel." Had he palled around with fundamentalists in the millennial year of Y2K, he might have won the Republican nomination. Is it too late for a "Second Coming"?

Folks, we really need to cross our fingers that the mad mullahs in Iran see reason sometime soon. If they keep up with their attempt to get a nuke it's going to go very badly for us and them. Apparently Vice President Dick Cheney is not at all happy with the progress of talks with Iran and the ineffectiveness of the sanctions currently in place. He's pushing for taking care of the problem before the Bush administration runs out of time:

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Israel can't sit around and do nothing. They're sitting in a country the size of a postage stamp. One nuke in Tel Aviv and they are done. Even the threat of a nuclear attack may lead to mass emigration. But the risks of attacking Iran are great as well, their people may rise up and support their government, the government may be angling for this attack so they have an excuse for retaliatory attacks of their own all across the globe and including in our own country. This is one of those situations where all the choices are bad. We may be forced to choose the least worst option.

The one ray of hope is within Iran. It's not a single entity dictatorship, it's an oligarchy, ruled by a religious elite. They can crack, they can be split, they can fight each other. We can only hope that they back down or can be forced to back down by an uprising of their own people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States since it seized the hostages at the United States Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Iran has been in a shooting war with the US, via its proxy Hezbollah, since the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. The above pic is of a plaque, located around the corner from my house, commemorating a Warwick, RI Marine lost in that blast.

Unfortunately, we've never really fought back, even now when we are faced with incontrovertible evidence of Iran's current attempt to destabilize Iraq and drive us out. While concrete proof (including captured members of Iran's al-Quds force, who then claimed diplomatic immunity) continues to mount, Bush Administration officials for years have continued to downplay Iran's link to terror in Iraq, saying that there was no evidence that Iran's leadership knew of the IRG's involvement. That's laughable on its face, since nothing happens in Iran without the mullahs' approval.

This changed yesterday (U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.'s), when a United States General came out and announced that we had captured a Hezbollah member who has officially spilled the beans:

Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner, the military spokesman here, said an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, a force under the control of Iran's most powerful religious leaders, had used veterans of the Lebanese Islamic militia group Hezbollah as a "proxy" to train, arm and plan attacks by an array of Shiite militant cells in Iraq.

It's about time that we acknowledged Iran's involvement. Now, what do we do about it?

Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the Iran Counter Proliferation Act convincingly, by a vote of 37-1. It's remarkable that a bill received that kind of bipartisan support in today's political climate, and shows how seriously members of Congress (and the House in particular) view the threat of Iran. I view the chances of any sanctions program working to stop Iran less than zero, but steps like this must be undertaken before we move towards tougher steps. According to Brian Faughnan over at The Weekly Standard, the bill:

...repeals the administration's authority to waive penalties under the Iran Sanctions Act, blocks the import of all Iranian products, provides for the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, and increases funds for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Sounds like sensible and long overdue steps to take. But the White House opposes it! I usually support the fact that foreign policy is the sole territory of the Executive Branch under any president, but this has the fingerprints of the broken down State Department all over it. Here's their reasoning:

...it's opposed by the Bush administration, which argues that it would undercut multilateral efforts--particularly the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

Hmmm. When, exactly, was the last time that the United Nations Security Council, and the UN in general, was successful in anything it undertook, especially a sanctions program? The State Department and the Bush Administration should stop worrying about the United Nations and start worrying about Iran. I hate supporting the House in this, but go Tom Lantos!

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) is the first Democrat that I am aware of to state the reality of the situation with Iran: If they don't respond to diplomatic efforts to stop causing trouble in Iraq, we're going to have to move from diplomatic to military efforts.

As Lieberman put it:

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

The Indepedent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.

"I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," Lieberman said.

In a development that is getting surprisingly little attention, the London Telegraph is reporting that a Syrian Parliament member made a pretty definitive statement to Al Jazeera TV this week:

Israeli intelligence officials have been warning for weeks that Syria is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-tank weapons, antiaircraft rockets, and other missiles, and bolstering its presence along the Israeli border. Mohammad al Habash, a Syrian parliament member, meanwhile, told the Al Jazeera satellite channel this week that his country was actively preparing for war with Israel, which he said he expected to break out this summer.

Within the last week or so, Iran has also stated publicly that 1.) Israel's destruction is imminent (Ahmadinejad: Israel will be destroyed); 2.) If Israel strikes Lebanon Iran will strike Israel (Iran to Israel: Don't Attack Lebanon); and 3. If Israel strikes Syria Iran will strike Israel (Iran warns Israel of 'unimaginable losses' if Syria hit).