I could not agree more although I doubt we will drop any nukes.  I'm especially concerned because Bush is a lame duck warhawk who, I'm convinced, sees himself as above politics.  In short, "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" (Kris Kristofferson) and Bush has nothing to lose and the freedom to bomb.  I don't think, however, we will see a strike on Iran in 2006, but who knows?  My fears are greater than my hopes on this one.

Is this cunning GOP framing?

I haven't read the Hersh piece yet.

But the first thing that goes through my mind is: they're trying to relativize a conventional weapons strike on the Iranian nuclear plants as middle of the road.

They'll be helped with this, of course, by Bomber Bayh's saber-rattling: Bayh wasn't talking about a nuclear strike, of course, but he certainly gives some cover for a conventional one.

(And, either way, it would mean war with Iran, reintroduction of a draft, the US economy on a war footing - and other stuff too horrible to contemplate.)

Now would be the time for Dem voices of sense to be ruling out any preventive military action.

And not wait until it's too late, like with Iraq, and come over all What hit me? two or three years after, like dumbass Kerry and many more besides!

Oh, and in case you were wondering what Real Security says on Iran:

Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran...

There's a mid-term election coming. The Bush junta's freedom from prosecution and their ongoing ability loot the treasure without let or hindrance is at stake.

And they know that a nicely-timed war delivered the 2002 mid-terms.

I don't think there's any calculation going on in the White House more sophisticated than 'hey, it worked the last time.'

These guys don't do consequences. They don't do long term.

The world ends in November for them -- that's all they're thinking.

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in IRAN
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is IRAN;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those Ragheads -
The only good Raghead is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is IRAN;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Huh!

Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Iranians.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Iran.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Iran.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Iran.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Excellent...but how do we get our leaders (few of whom have shown the ability to stand up to the bullies in Congress) to listen to us?  We have had a chance to lean more "left" as a party this cycle, but it seems that we are trying to be moderate.

But the first thing that goes through my mind is: they're trying to relativize a conventional weapons strike on the Iranian nuclear plants as middle of the road.

The problem here is that some of Iran's nuclear facilities, most notably the fuel enrichment plant at Natanz(which is the meat of the matter), simply may not be vulnerable to conventional attacks. Hardened facilities buried deep underground. Which means that we could fail to take the place out and trigger a war with Iran in the bargain. Using a nuke would do the the job, though of course we would still have to fight Iran in the aftermath. Mazel fucking tov.  If 130,000 US troops can't whip 15,000-20,000 insurgents after three years, does Bush expect them to hold a 700-mile frontier against maybe 250,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards?

Jeepers!

The takeaway from the Hersh article - the reliability of which I'd caveat on principle - is that Bush is demob-happy and, embracing his lame-duck status, about to make himself a present of a really big war, regardless of what anyone says.

It's pure Dr Strangelove. Someone else used the quote - script:

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depending on the breaks.

I can't see how Bush expects the Iranians to limit themselves to terrorism and cross-border raids. (That's what I gauge he's gauging.) Surely this will be the entire Iranian nation on a Jihad against the kaffirs. Think Iran-Iraq war: millions engaged, millions killed or wounded.

This must surely entail a draft. Which I'd thought was generally agreed to be politically impossible.

Who's thinking out the political angles for the Dems on this?

My guess is that, even on nuclear strikes, the Dem leadership would find MCs split. (Matt was saying Casey said in the debate tonight that he would support such strikes.)

Most likely, they'll be their usual cowering chocolate soldiers.

But - just perhaps - the loudly expressed anger of a million moms and dads of kids with draft notices might just prove enough incentive.

Pray it's enough, and in time.

(Of course, if Bush persists and the Joint Chiefs demur, we're into unchartered territory. France, Algérie française, de Gaulle - a military coup. Or perhaps assassination would be cleaner.

It's that serious.)

My favorite quote is way at the bottom of the Hersh article:

The adviser went on, "If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle." The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, "the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck."

I think the neo-cons have a weaker hand than the think.

I do have a cynical idea to combat this thing: Let's all go out and buy up oil futures and oil company stocks. Drive the price of oil right up to $80, $90 or $120 with talk of oil crisis, terrorist attacks and Iran retaliation against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. War mongering, or immaculate bombings (where we are unscathed while demonstration our superior firepower), may get votes for our emperor, but financial crisis in the homeland economy and at the gas-pumps would be very, very unpopular.

Finally. Maybe we need some single-issue, anti-war candidates still standing for primaries in August. If the Bushies go too far, then the single-issue may prove a winner.

If there are to be any brave Republicans who come forward and say, "No mas, por favor," my $$$ is that the names will come from the following list of senators:

Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, George Voinovich of Ohio, Jon Kyl of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia, John Ensign of Nevada, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and my fellow Cubano, Mel Martinez of Florida.

By the bye, all the senators listed above also voted "nay" on invoking cloture on S. 2454, Securing America's Borders Act (SABA), the gem legislation introduced by fearless Majority Senate Leader Bill Frist.

First, FightingHistorian is right.  The attack can't plausibly be done without nuclear weapons.  I've been waiting for the administration to figure this out, thinking it would bring them to their senses.  Ahh, I'm so naively reality-based I actually believed that!

There's a one-word answer to this idea of attacking Iranian sites with nuclear weapons:  Pakistan.   There won't be enough of Musharraf's body left for even DNA testing once the crowds are done with him.  Pakistan's nukes will be loose within a few hours of an American nuclear attack on Iran.  It won't take long for them to reappear.  

(BTW Pakistan stores the nuclear material "cores" of the warheads separate from the warheads themselves. Stealing a core only isn't enough to make a weapon, though it's the hard part.  Oh, and did I mention Pakistani nukes are U-235, which is the easier material for terrorists to make a weapon out of once they have a core?  Osama has been praying that Allah would send him a nice big chunk--actually, two nice big chunks--of U-235.)