THE MOST IMPORTANT STORY OF OUR TIME: The forthcoming attack on Iran

Both Xymphora and an Indymedia contributor named Jebelia have argued that the Bush administration's next target will not be Iran -- as I have predicted -- but Syria. Their basic argument: The United States and Israel actually wanted the dissolution of a secular state in Iraq. They wanted a de facto alliance between Shiite theocrats in both Iraq and Iran.

(By the way, Jebelia's comment is attached to an extremely interesting piece by Clayton Hallmark, which ties Niger-gate ever closer to the P2 axis. More on that later, I hope.)

As Mr. X argues:

Israel's obvious enemies are mostly Sunnis. If you're going to be fighting Sunnis, the obvious trick is to create a new ally, a Shiite empire consisting of Iran and Iraq. The minor annoyance of Iranian support to Hezbollah is far outweighed by the advantages of creating a new and very powerful player in the Middle East, a player who, for religious reasons, probably hates your enemies more than it hates you.

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

It's all too easy for outsiders to work themselves into mental knots as they try guess the neocon game plan. As is often the case, those given to overly-complex hypothesizing run the risk of overlooking the obvious. Let's get back to basics.

Everyone in Israel understands that Arab antipathy toward the Jewish state will always outweigh any resentments between Sunnis and Shiites. I understand that Jews have historical ties to Persia -- ties which go back to ancient times, when quite a few Israelites hoped to replace the Romans with the more lenient Parthians. (Parthia, or Persia, was the empire next door -- the one they don't teach you about in school.) No doubt, many older Israelis long for the good relations their nation once had with the quasi-psychotic (but U.S.-friendly) Shah of Iran.

But those days aren't coming back any time soon. Not while the current government remains in power in Tehran.

The folks who run Iran now are heirs to the revolutionaries who ousted the Shah, a secular tyrant in the Saddam Hussein mold. From the U.S./Israeli point of view, problems with Iran began only after a Shiite theocracy seized control. If that theocracy metastasizes into Iraq, those problems will compound.

That's the reason why both Reagan and Bush wanted no clear winner in the Iran/Iraq war. That's also the reason why Bush the elder -- with uncharacteristic wisdom -- held back from toppling Saddam Hussein during Gulf War I: At that time, destroying a secular government in Iraq would have created a power vacuum, which, in turn, would have strengthened the forces of theocracy. Since Shiites are the majority in Iraq, any such theocracy would have allied itself with Iran.

That, of course, is the scenario taking place right now.

I disagree with the presumption that Israel's "obvious" enemies are Sunni. Such may be the case in the fairly near future; much depends on how the succession game plays out in Saudi Arabia. If that nation remains under the thumb of U.S.-friendly rulers, then Israel would have much more to fear from a potential Iraq/Iran Shiite "empire."

(Before continuing, I should mention two further points: 1. Since Syria and Iran have a defense pact, distinctions may be moot; any American attack on one country may well draw in the other. 2. Iranian theocracy is slowly sliding toward democracy, a process which may take another generation or two -- if the U.S. does not meddle.)

So the quandary comes down to this: If Bush the Elder understood the likelihood -- and the danger -- of a Shiite empire, why did the neocons push for the current war?

Upon taking office, Dubya reportedly did not even know that Islam had Sunni and Shiite factions. But Shrub is little more than a front man for his neocon advisors/handlers, who do know the relevant history. So why did they engineer the toppling of Saddam Hussein, despite the above-cited dangers?

I believe they did so because an attack on Iran was always Phase Two of the scheme -- a scheme the neocons concocted well after the conclusion of the first Gulf War. If America topples the government in Tehran, the threat of a spreading Shiite theocracy ends.

The very fact of the attack on Iraq has always presupposed the existence of a long-standing plan to attack Iran. Doing one nation requires doing the other. Once the United States gains control of both governments, Shiite fundamentalism will end and we will "own" oil reserves comparable to those in Saudi Arabia, a country which may soon lack stability.

Such was the plan. Such, I believe, is still the plan, despite the problems in Iraq.

The facts on the ground do much to justify this viewpoint.

We have already noted the uncontradicted report (authored by former CIA man Phil Giraldi) that Cheney tasked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a nuclear attack on Iran after the next major terrorist act -- regardless of Iranian guilt or innocence. Now we have Ray McGovern's latest column, which draws, in turn, from this Washington Post piece.

Whatever plans Dick Cheney and his neo-conservatives may have had to conjure up a nuclear threat from Iran as "justification" for military action have been sharply undercut by some timely leaks to the Washington Post. In a redux of President George W. Bush's spin on the "grave and growing" danger from Iraq, Cheney protege and newly appointed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is on record warning that Iranian "deception" must not be allowed to continue much longer: "It will be too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons."

Not for ten more years, report sources close to the U.S. intelligence community in yesterday's lead story in the Post. Several government officials with access to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran have told journalist Dafna Linzer of its main judgments. By doing so, Linzer's sources seem determined not to sit idly by as our country is misled once again into a war favored only by "neo-conservatives" in Washington and their counterparts in the far-right Likud government in Israel who share a vision of remaking the map of the Middle East.

The welcome rationalism of Linzer's sources will soon be forgotten.

Those Voices of Reason will lose their vocal chords in the aftermath of a major terrorist incident within the United States. Indeed, Linzer's intelligence contacts remind me of the "sober" intelligence sources who told the truth about Iraq to Robert Novak in October of 2001. (See the posts directly below this one.) Soon thereafter, Novak, the administration, and much of the nation decided to disdain sobriety.

If it happened in 2001-2002, it can happen again -- especially if a portable nuclear device demolishes a portion of Chicago or some other American city. Long time readers will know why I've predicted such an event.

In that light, it's worth noting that the United States Northern Command will be conducting drills for just such a nuclear attack in August. As you no doubt know, similar exercises were being conducted on September 11, 2001. Many have argued that "exercises" of this sort could provide cover for a real-world attack. (True, a few have mounted reasonable sounding counter-arguments; I would like to see a debate on this topic.)

There are also reports -- rumors, really -- that August leaves have been cancelled for an unnervingly large number of serving military personnel. Are these whispers true? I'd appreciate feedback from those in the know.

Incidentally, the current leaders of Iran must have come to conclusions similar to mine. The latest reports indicate that they have wisely backed away -- again -- from their nuclear program.

One wonders if this move will spare Tehran. Fully cooperating with U.N. inspectors did not save Saddam Hussein.

One final mystery remains. Just which Iranians were dealing with Ledeen and Chalabi? Ghorbanifar is one answer, but who else? Obviously, someone in Tehran hopes to function as the future puppet ruler of Iran -- presuming there's anything left of Iran to rule after Cheney & Co. finish with the place.