Wagging the Iranian Dog

If there's one thing we know about the junta currently occupying the White House, it's that they will do anything to win. Anything. This is a sociopathic administration. They have no shame, and there's absolutely nothing that they won't say or do to realize their goals.

That's why I think that this government is going to invade Iran later this year.

Look at it this way. Bush's approval ratings are in freefall. The Congress looks very much like it could fall into the hands of the Democrats this fall -- and if that happens, impeachment is a very real possibility.

So what's a right-wing junta to do? They have to do something. If they do nothing the Democrats will take over the Congress and begin impeachment proceedings -- and that could end up with Bush being impeached, convicted and removed from office.

Therefore, a little distraction might be in order. A distraction such as invading Iran to take people's minds off what else is going on in the country.

Why do I think this?

Look at the headline of yesterday's Wall Street Journal, for one thing. It reads: WHITE HOUSE PUTS IRAN AT TOP OF LIST OF THREATS TO U.S.. The subhead states: Strategy Report Also Affirms Policy of Pre-Emptive Action; Al Qaeda Danger Evolves.

The White House released its National Security Strategy yesterday. If you read between the lines, you can see the White House already starting to make the case for invading Iran. The rationale? An Iran with nuclear weapons is a threat to the entire region, including Israel, and we can't alllow that to happen -- therefore, we are going to act preemptively to prevent them from acquiring and activating nuclear weapons.

Sounds far-fetched? Listen to the language of the report itself (the quotes come from USA Today):

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community, yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons.''

"The United States has joined with our European Union partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.''

Now combine that with this quote:

"There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to pre-empt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use pre-emptions as a pretext for aggression.''

You can almost hear the talking points already. We will not permit Iran to let loose a nuclear holocaust over our fair country. Therefore we had to act -- and act we did. Our cause is just and righteous, and if we stay the course we will prevail with the help of almighty God. Pay no attention to those neocons behind the curtain.

Willl it work? If Bush invades Iran by, let's say, late August or early September, it might give him enough time to squeak out a win in the mid-term election and keep control of Congress, thereby avoiding impeachment.

And if this all sounds far-fetched to you, consider the following dialogue between psychologist Gustave Gilbert and former Nazi bigshot Hermann Goering, who was awaiting trial at Nuremberg at the time this interview took place:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Keep this in mind if we go to war with Iran later this year.

Tom Moran