Bombing Iran. posted by Richard Seymour

More fun for the liberal imperialists can't be far away.

According to Juan Cole , it is highly likely that a re-elected Bush administration would attack Iran.  Most of you will recall that only a few days ago, the 9/11 Commission raised a new circle of hell by suggesting that 8 to 10 of the mainly Saudi hi-jackers that wreaked the attacks on the World Trade Centre were allowed to pass through Iran, unharmed.  Further, the commission claimed, Iranian officials knew they were there and issued specific instructions not to obstruct their passage.  As Cole notes, however, the sources are largely of the same caliber that supplied so much false or misleading information to politicians and press in the years leading up to the invasion of Iraq.  And since Al Qaeda detainees, also sourced, are going to be Wahabbis and therefore deeply hostile to Iranian Shi'ism, there is every likelihood that they are fibbing - especially as the Iranian regime supported the Northern Alliance against the Taliban.

Most importantly:

Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin has already admitted that a) the US has known for a long time that al-Qaeda operatives travelled through Iran, and b) that there is no evidence that Iran knew beforehand about the 9/11 plot.

However, Iran is to be blamed for terrorism somehow, and there must be a way ... pause ... got it!  Blame Iran for causing all the trouble in Iraq!  Yes, the Daily Telegraph reports that "Iraq" - by which they mean the puppet government* - is threatening to strike Iran if it continues sending all those goddamn foreigners into the country.  Now, I have no idea whether Iran really is sending its agents into Iraq to foment revolution, but am inclined to doubt it just because the Telegraph are saying it, and their record on publishing bogus stories is as bad as can be expected given that they are a notorious leaking post for British intelligence.  But if it is true, then it is almost completely without consequence.  It isn't as if Iraq would be stable, and the insurgency would not have happened had only Iran kept its hands off.  And if Iran has been involved, it is had no discernible effect on the levels of violence.  For the Shi'ite militias did not make a move until the occupying authorities acted to repress Muqtada al-Sadr's movement; and they have now more or less ceased their campaign for as long as US forces stay out of the cities and towns which they control . 

Still, one expects a growing chorus of calls for war from right-wing and even some liberal commentators.  The latter are still too busy wondering if it would be okay to bomb Darfur at the moment, but rest assured they will get round to it.  The question is, after the last global antiwar movement, would Bush or Blair even have the balls to risk it?  My guess is: no.