They wouldn't. They couldn't - would they? These are the reactions from friends to my suggestion that an attack on Iran still looms large on the Bush administration's "to do" list.
For a while there it looked as though the plan disclosed by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in 2006 had been shelved.
A National Intelligence Estimate rubber stamped by 16 US intelligence agencies had trashed Washington's pretext that Iran was developing nuclear weapons in one full blow that was supported by positive reports from the UN's nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency. But it appears the blow was far from fatal.
I'm no tea leaf reader but there have been recent indications that the programme may once again be up-and-running under a different guise.
Firstly, Admiral William Fallon, who headed the Central Command of US forces in the Middle East, stepped down amid rum-ours he stood against war with Iran.
Secondly, there are reports of increased US naval activity in the region of Iranian shores with the USS Abraham Lincoln Strike Force en route to the area and US navy warships patrolling the seas off Lebanon.
Thirdly, Tehran, Damascus and Beirut are on a high state of alert, while Bahrain has put in a request for a sophisticated US missile defence system.
Further, according to the Saudi paper Okaz, Saudi Arabia is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the Kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors".
Coming a day after Dick Cheney's visit to Riyadh it's possible that one of the "experts" referred to is the US vice-president himself. Note, too, that both Cheney and Defence Secretary Robert Gates have recently been touring this area for discussions with leaders.
A fourth indicator was the recent attack on pro-Iranian Shiite militia in and around Basra by Iraqi forces backed up by the US military. It's no surprise that the elite wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guard was subsequently accused by the US of equipping their Iraqi comrades.
Earlier this month, General Petraeus blamed the Iranian Al Quds Force for funding, training and equipping anti-US Iraqi Shiites and stated rockets launched at Baghdad's fortified Green Zone were provided by Iran.
Certainly, the Foreign Affairs correspondent of the Daily Telegraph Damien McElroy seems convinced.
In an article titled "British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes" he writes: "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment."
Security drill
In the meantime, Israel began a five-day homeland security drill last Sunday. Hezbollah believes the exercise is a prelude to another conflict while the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has urged the Lebanese army to prepare for a possible attack.
The signs indicate a joint US/Israeli effort against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah may be on the cards but, of course, we cannot discount the possibility that the drum beating is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate Tehran.
There are many pundits so minded simply because a US attack on Iran would have such far reaching consequences it is considered neither logical nor feasible. Ordinarily I would agree with them.
A military assault on Iran is madness. It will destabilise the region, increase terrorism around the world, hike oil prices to unprecedented levels and slash already fragile economies.
But these are far from being ordinary times. Elements of the Bush administration led by Cheney are single-minded and ruthless when it comes to adhering to their long-held New Middle East agenda.
Now that Iraq is in their clutches from their point of view the only bulwark blocking their desire for total American hegemony of the Middle East is Iran.
If and when Iran is out of the loop, the puissance of anti-US Iraqi Shiites will diminish while funding and the supply of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas will eventually dry up.
That's the thinking but, in reality, there's many a slip between cup and lip as we witnessed during the 2006 Israel/Lebanon war when Tel-Aviv received a surprise bloodied nose and more recently during the Basra fiasco.
In this case, it's unknown how Russia, which currently has warships off Syrian ports, might respond. Moscow isn't itching for a fight but it would stand to lose much of its geopolitical and economic clout in the area should the US manage a total takeover and its already smarting over a White House initiative to bring Nato up to its borders and install an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
With only another nine months in office and a tattered presidential legacy, George W. Bush has everything to gain in embarking on another deadly adventure.
Iran may be his last roll of the dice with winner takes all. He's already one of the most unpopular US presidents in history so even if things go wrong he's got little to lose. He can just walk away and leave his successor and this stricken part of the world to pick up the shards of his failures.
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com
Your comments
I'm afraid (very afraid) that the final paragraph of Ms Heard's piece is exactly what's being planned in Washington.
Paul
Dubai,UAE
Posted: April 08, 2008, 14:23
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
