Glenn Greenwald counters the current and massive hysteria over Iran's test-firing of missiles:

Bush is very close to launching a military strike against Iran.

Please watch this short video to see what your president

is planning to destroy.

Of all the current international events and situations, this is the one we should most closely monitor:

Israel May Attack Iran, Pentagon Official Tells ABC (Update2) By Ladane Nasseri and Thomas Penny July 1 (Bloomberg) -- Israel is increasingly likely to attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, a U.S. Defense Department official told ABC News. Iran's government dismissed as propaganda the ABC report on the unidentified Pentagon official's comments. Israeli government officials declined to comment on the report. In the U.S., Pentagon spokesmen Bryan Whitman declined to address the report. ``I don't comment for Israel,'' he said. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he had ``no information that would substantiate'' the ABC report and criticized the official for not speaking publicly. An Israeli strike might be triggered by the production of enough enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear plant to make a bomb, ABC cited the official as saying. A second possible trigger would be the delivery of a Russian SA-20 air-defense system, the installation of which would make an Israeli attack more difficult, the U.S. official told ABC. Oil rose on concern any conflict would cut supplies from OPEC's second-largest producer. Crude oil for August delivery increased as much as $2.95, or 2.1 percent, to $142.95 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Former Israeli Air Force General Isaac Ben-Israel, now a lawmaker in Israel's ruling Kadima party, told Germany's Spiegel that his nation is ``prepared'' for an attack if diplomacy and United Nations sanctions fail to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Ben-Israel helped plan Israel's 1981 strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor, the magazine said. Before Bush Leaves. A strike on Natanz would only temporarily damage Iran's nuclear program and could spark a wave of attacks on U.S. interests, ABC said in yesterday's report, citing unidentified Pentagon officials. The U.S. and many of its allies have accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists its production of enriched uranium is intended to produce electricity and is legal under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Israeli government may want an attack to take place before President George W. Bush leaves office, Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said today in a telephone interview. ``There is no doubt that such an operation is being considered, but it's not going to happen tomorrow,'' Kam said. ``We still have some time. The Bush administration may be more sympathetic to an Israeli operation against Iran than whoever the next president may be, so it could happen before the end of the year.'' Israeli Maneuvers More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter planes took part in maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece during the first week of June, the New York Times reported on June 20. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Israel last weekend for meetings with Israeli military leaders, ABC said. Israeli Defense Ministry spokesman Shlomo Dror, in a telephone interview from Tel Aviv, declined to comment today on the ABC report. International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors made more than 14 visits to Natanz over the last year, the Vienna-based UN organization said last month. The IAEA said Iran hadn't taken any steps toward making the highly enriched uranium necessary for a bomb and had stockpiled about 150 kilograms (330 pounds) of lower-grade enriched uranium suitable for power plants. "Iran certainly wouldn't be able to produce enough uranium at Natanz for a bomb,'' British American Security Information Council Co-Director Paul Ingram said today in a telephone interview from London. ``It would be impossible under the current safeguards arrangements to reconfigure the facility to produce highly enriched uranium.'' It takes around 25 kilograms of 90 percent enriched uranium- 235 isotopes to build a bomb. Iran currently has enough uranium to produce less than 4 kilograms of the material, Ingram said. To contact the reporters on this story: Ladane Nasseri in Tehran at lnasseri@bloomberg.net; Thomas Penny in London tpenny@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: July 1, 2008 10:47 EDT

"A roadside bomb killed 4 US troops, bringing the total dead in Iraq on the American side to 4,000. The thing I most mind about the deaths of those brave warriors is that our government has not been honest about why they died. We don't know the answer to that question. We've been lied to. "The Bush administration still has not told us why they died. It was not to protect the US from "weapons of mass destruction" < snip >. It was not to spread democracy. It may have been to nail down a major petroleum-producing country for US geostrategic goals (ensuring its resources were available to the US and could be denied if necessary to growing rivals such as China). If so, one has to ask whether the objectives (which were hidden from the American people) were the top priority for the US, or only for the petroleum industry; whether those objectives have been achieved; and whether there was another way to attain them. No such debate has ever been held. Was it in part to ensure Israeli security, as Mearsheimer and Walt argue (and Craig Unger implicitly argues, below)? If so, that should be stated, it should be debated. Even the former head of Shin Bet did not agree that it increased Israel's security. It is not right to ask men and women under arms to die for their country without telling them exactly how they are benefiting their country. For all we know, they have died so that Bush and Cheney could throw goodies to their "base," so that Halliburton could escape bankruptcy and Hunt Oil could get new development contracts...." - - - Juan Cole

Now that all U.S. Intelligence Agencies conclude that Iran hasn't had an active nuclear weapons program since 2003, guess what excuse Bush is going to use to justify bombing Iran. No, really, guess. Because I have no friggin' clue. And as Josh Marshall says:

"....it shows us once again, for anyone who needed showing, that everything this administration says on national security matters should be considered presumptively not only false, but actually the opposite of what is in fact true, until clear evidence to the contrary becomes available. They're big liars. And actually being serious about the country's security means doing everything possible to limit the amount of damage they can do over the next fourteen months while they still control the US military and the rest of the nation's foreign policy apparatus.

An example of appallingly bad analysis:

"....Since no one takes analysis seriously, it's hardly surprising that no one takes the possibility of a nuclear Iran too seriously either. There is no enthusiasm for sanctions, though they will probably be tried and will probably fail: Why would anyone ditch a lucrative trading partner because of some missiles they don't believe in? As for the "military option," the surest way to sell newspapers in Europe, at the moment, is to print an article hinting that the United States is about to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. The very suggestion causes outrage, not because of rampant pacifism -- "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus" -- but because most commentators (and, off the record, most diplomats) believe it would fail. Either it would " fortify Iran's nuclear hawks," or it would kill thousands of civilians while leaving the Iranian nuclear program largely intact, or Iran would strike back in Iraq-- or all of the above. Should the Bush administration try it anyway ("one last display of fireworks," as a British friend of mine put it) international support would be minimal, fury maximal, diplomatic consequences appalling. Even European politicians who wanted to show support would be cowed by the antipathy of their voters. Thanks to Iraq. "What, then, are we left with? Fingers crossed, that those who say Iran's nuclear bomb is years away are right. Fingers crossed, that maybe Iran really does just want a civilian nuclear program. Fingers crossed, that if Iran gets nukes, its government will behave responsibly. Fingers crossed, that all of the other crises whose resolution has been hampered or damaged by Iraq -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, the broader Middle East -- will somehow solve themselves, too. Fingers crossed, that it will all come out right in the end, after a decade or two. Just like Iraq.

"The very suggestion causes outrage, not because of rampant pacifism..." - European pacifism is tritely dismissed (even though it is the predominant ideology on that continent!).

"Thanks to Iraq." - Because the million-plus civilians killed so far by the U.S. in Iraq has created the apathy of Europeans against the U.S. (well, duh!), it would be more difficult for the U.S to garner support for bombing the shit out of Iran.

Jesus, what a mind-numbing warped analysis by a respected journalist. Would someone please stop the deliveries of the Neocon Kool-Aid to Washington D.C.? Please?

In response to Bush's bold reference last week to Iran and World War III, Scott Ritter wrote an excellent analysis of the Administration's current and dangerous state of mind (excerpt):

....With the Department of State and the Pentagon now considered unfriendly ground by the remaining hard-core neoconservative thinkers still in power, policy formulation is more and more concentrated in the person of Vice President Cheney and the constitutionally nebulous “Office of the Vice President.” Cheney and his cohorts have constructed a never-never land of oversight deniability, claiming immunity from both executive and legislative checks and balances. With an unchallenged ability to classify anything and everything as secret, and then claim that there is no authority inherent in government to oversee that which has been thus classified, the Office of the Vice President has transformed itself into a free republic’s worst nightmare, assuming Caesar-like dictatorial authority over almost every aspect of American national security policy at home and abroad. From torture to illegal wiretapping, to arms control (or lack of it) to Iran, Dick Cheney is the undisputed center of policy power in America today. While there are some who will claim that in this time of post-9/11 crisis such a process of bureaucratic streamlining is essential for the common good, the reality is far different. It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this has never been truer than in the case of Cheney. What Cheney is doing behind his shield of secrecy can be simply defined: planning and implementing a preemptive war of aggression. During the Nuremberg tribunal in the aftermath of World War II, the chief American prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, stated, “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Today, we have a vice president who articulates publicly about global conflict, and who speaks in not-so-veiled language about a looming Armageddon. If there is such a future for America and the world, let one thing be certain; World War III, as postulated by Dick Cheney, would be an elective war, and not a conflict of tragic necessity. This makes the crime even greater. Sadly, Judge Jackson’s words are but an empty shell. The global community lacks a legally binding definition of what constitutes a war of aggression, or even an act of aggression. But that isn’t the point. America should never find itself in a position where it is being judged by the global community regarding the legality of its actions. Judge Jackson established a precedent of jurisprudence concerning aggression based upon American principles and values, something the international community endorsed. The fact that current American indifference to the rule of law prevents the international community from certifying a definition of criminality when it comes to aggression, whether it be parsed as “war” or simply an “act,” does not change the fact that the Bush administration, in the person of Dick Cheney, is actively engaged in the committing of the “supreme [war] crime,” which makes Cheney the supreme war criminal. If the world is not empowered to judge him as such, then let the mantle of judgment fall to the American people. Through their elected representatives in Congress, they should not only bring this reign of unrestrained abuse of power to an end, but ensure that such abuse never again is attempted by an American official by holding to account, to the full extent of the law, those who have trampled on the Constitution of the United States and the ideals and principles it enshrines....

Please take a few minutes and read the entire piece.

The drumbeat to attack Iran continues...

An inside look at the current political situation in Afghanistan and its relationship to Iran, and Bush's focus on attacking Iran:

What happens when Bush/Cheney give the orders and we start bombing Iran? I don't know, but here are a few thing I suspect may happen:

• First and foremost, thousands of Iraqis will die immediately.
• The Democrats in Congress will fall in lock-step with our new Fuhrer.
• Millions of Americans will protest in the streets, to the silence of the media and everyone else.
  
• Small plastic American flags will be dusted off and attached to the millions of cars of everyone else.
• The price of gas will jump to $4/gal. and then gradually crawl up to $8/gal.
• Our soldiers in Iraq will be increasingly targeted and killed/maimed.
• Iran which, in contrast to pre-2003 Iraq, actually has an air force, will target U.S. military installations in Iraq and ships and the waters surrounding Iran. Terrorists in Europe and the U.S. will come out of hiding and terrorize all major cities.
  
• There will be unthinkable, yet serious, planning by the Pentagon for using nuclear weapons against Iran.
• The now-subservient Congress will pass new military induction laws. (More silent protests will follow.)
  
• Bush will institute the now-legal marshall law and suspend federal elections.
• The tenuous stability in nations surrounding Iraq and Iran (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, etc.) will go up in flames and general mayhem, death and destruction will be the order of the day, with Israel in the middle of the mix.
• Oil supplies from the Middle East will plummet with worldwide gas rationing the new order of the day. Oil tankers will become prime targets.
  
• The U.S. economy will revert to that seen in the 1930's, where everything of common need will be scarce and rationed and black markets will evolve everywhere.
• Lawlessness in the streets will be common, resulting in the emergence of a new federal police state.
• A massive exodus of Americans into Canada and Mexico(!) will begin.
  

You think I'm nuts? Then tell me in the comments what you see happening after our bombs start falling from the Iranian sky.

Scott Ritter explains how it's up to us to prevent Cheney from starting war with Iran (snippet):

".... The antiwar movement in America must make a strategic decision, and soon: Contain the war in Iraq, and stop a war from breaking out in Iran. The war in Iraq can be contained simply by letting war be war. There is no genuine good news coming out of Iraq. There won’t be as long as the United States is there. As callous as it sounds, let the war establish the news cycle, and let the reality of war serve to contain it. The surge has failed. Congress may not act decisively to bring the troops home, but it is highly unlikely that Congress will idly approve any massive expansion of an unpopular war that continues to fail so publicly. "Iran, however, is a different matter. Congress has already provided legal authority for the president to wage war in Iran through its existing war powers authority (one resolution passed in 2001, the other in 2002). Likewise, Congress has allowed the Bush administration to forward deploy the infrastructure of war deep into the Middle East and neighboring regions, all in the name of the “global war on terror." The startup costs for a military strike against Iran would therefore be greatly diminished. Sustaining such a conflict is a different matter, but given current congressional reticence to stand up to a war-time president, it is highly unlikely any meaningful action would be taken to stop an Iranian war once the bombs start falling. And we should never forget that Iran has a vote in how this would end; once it is attacked, Iran will respond in ways that are unpredictable, and as such set in motion a string of cause-effect military actions with the United States and others that spins any future conflict out of control. "The highest priority for the antiwar movement in America today must be the prevention of a war with Iran. The strategic objectives should include getting Congress to repeal the war-powers authorities currently on the books, thereby forcing the president to seek new congressional approval for any new war. Likewise, a concerted effort must be undertaken to counter the disinformation being spread by the Bush administration and others about the nature of the Iranian threat. Every action undertaken by the antiwar movement must be connected to one or both of these strategic objectives. This is not the time for one-off sophomoric newspaper advertisements, but rather for sustained action focused on generating congressional hearings and public debate across the entire spectrum of American society. From the colleges and universities to the churches and on to the public square of small-town America, public information talks, presentations and panels must be held. Communities should flood local media outlets with requests for coverage and appeal to regional media to run stories. Mainstream media will follow. Demonstrations, if useful at all, must be focused events linked to an overall campaign designed to facilitate a strategic objective. "We all should remember the fall of 2002. Many felt that there was no chance for a war with Iraq, especially once U.N. inspectors made their return. In March 2003, everyone who thought so was proved wrong. The fall of 2007 is no different. There is a sense of complacency when one speaks of the potential for a war with Iran. But time is not on the side of those who oppose conflict. If nothing is done to change the political situation inside America regarding Iran, there is an all too real possibility for a war to break out in the spring of 2008. "Sadly, there really is no alternative for the antiwar movement: Put opposition to the war in Iraq on the back burner and make preventing a war with Iran the No. 1 priority, at least until the national election cycle kicks in during the summer of 2008. If a war with Iran hasn’t happened by then, it probably won’t. And the national debate on Iraq won’t be engaged until that time, anyway. A war with Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq pale by comparison, and would detrimentally impact the whole of America, not just certain demographics. As such, it is critical that we all put aside our ideological and political differences and focus on the one issue which, if left unheeded, will have devastating consequences for the immediate future of us all: Prevent a future war with Iran."

NUKES ON A PLANE

More bu$h Orders

First, is bu$h off his rocker with this latest notice from the Whitehouse:

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

Then, a warning shot to Senator Hillary Clinton today from the DoD Under Secretary, Edelman:

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. … [S]uch talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.

I think we can forget about the "08" elections folks. This is all getting more and more spooky to me every minute. Yes, the 'tin foil hat' is on tight!

When our congress finally decides to impeach bu$h/cheney it will end up being too late! The bombing of Iran will have begun and full martial law will soon be in effect. And the media, republi-cons, and moderate Dems will all be saying, "I didn't see that coming?"

Gen. Wesley Clark on Lieberman

Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point. What our soldiers need is responsible strategy, not a further escalation of tensions in the region. Senator Lieberman must act more responsibly and tone down his threat machine.

Read Clark's full response here.

We are going to attack Iran on April 17th?