Antiwar.com: It's All About Iran, Washington wants war

[al bupp]

What do people around think of the central assertion of this opinion piece that we cannot rely on the Democratic party to offer much resistance to wider conflict w/ Iran?

As American troops storm what is, or was, an Iranian consulate – at least that's what the Iraqi government calls it, in spite of American denials – and the president accuses Tehran of arming and aiding Iraqi insurgents, the answer to the question "Why are we in Iraq?" should begin to dawn on even the dullest. The answer: Iran. We're in Iraq so we can go after the mullahs in Tehran, and, perhaps, those other Ba'athists in Syria.

All indications point to a strike at the Iranians before Bush leaves office. The appointment of a Navy guy, Adm. William J. "Fox" Fallon, at present head of the U.S. Pacific Command, to oversee U.S. operations in the Middle East, is widely seen as a sign that war with Iran is on the table, if not yet a sure thing. A U.S. attack on Iran would be a naval and air operation, and Fallon, a former deputy director for operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyadh, is surely qualified for the job. As Pat Buchanan put it, "What Fallon does not know about securing streets, he does know about taking out targets from the air and keeping sea lanes open in a time of war."

...

For months, Antiwar.com has been reporting growing indications of a U.S. strike on Iran, and certainly such a move, contra Dean, is politically doable. After all, Dean and his fellow Democrats won't say boo about it, except, perhaps, to chide them for not doing it soon enough – and certainly Gen. Tira won't have to push Hillary all that much, since her present position is more hawkish than the Bush administration's. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no piker when it comes to Iran, either).

more at: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10328