The Case for Attacking Iran

The current U.S. regime has already demonstrated it's unpredictability. As improbable as most people may consider it, it is striking how close the history being orchestrated for attacking Iran is to that which was orchestrated for invading Iraq. One noticeable difference is that it isn't so sloppy this time. The U.N. is on board, and a branch of the U.S. government has found the government of Iran guilty of terrorism.

Pretext Number One (terrorism), Exhibit A:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Iranian government is partly to blame for a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia, a federal judge ruled Friday

This time, Americans won't be taking to the streets, waving flags and screaming for bloody war. People are cautious, after having been thoroughly lied into Iraq. Of course, that doesn't mean the current U.S. dictator won't attack Iran, despite the risks it poses to the global economy. On the other hand, if the U.S. economy were going to collapse anyway, is it possible a new war could help energize and expand the military industrial sector that drives U.S. productivity.

Pretext Two (WMD) is already being hyped by U.N. sanctions. But, didn't Blix recently say he could find no credible evidence that Iran is anywhere near posing a nuclear threat? Two who first contested the U.S. pretext for invading Iraq, Blumenthal and Ritter, seem convinced the Bush regime is about to attack Iran. Could the unthinkable actually happen? There's little comfort in the U.S. and British military build-up aimed at Iran.