The recent incident in Iran with the bombing of a bus carrying Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops allegedly by a Sunni militant group called Jundallah (God's Brigade) has made wonder if all the talk about "if the U.S. will attack Iran?" should be changed to from a question to a statement, as in, "the U.S. has attacked Iran."
This incident, which Iran has blamed on militants supported by the U.S. in a counterpoint to all the blame Iran has been getting on the EFPs, plus the diplomats taken by U.S. forces on the night of the State of the Union address, and of course the "capture or kill" order given regarding Iranians--have all made me start to wonder not so much if we attack Iran, but what do we do now that a possible "undeclared war" might be underway?
The leading democratic candidates need to be all over this issue. Regardless of your candidate of choice, the issue of Iran will definitely be inherited by the next administration. And lightweight answers should not be accepted, especially if Bush is attempting to create a Gulf-of-Tonkin-situation, rationalizing the military action so craved by the neo-cons. The leading candidates in this oh-so-early campaign season need to state their disapproval of ANY military action in Iran, and the various committees should be questioning the military leaders(and intelligence agencies) as to what actions they are conducting against Iran.
We should not allow this highly deluded administration to create a war zone stretching from Pakistan in the east to Jordan in the west. If you think the Middle East is a mess now, just wait until Hezbollah declares open season on American targets, oil is literally "black gold" with prices to match, and the next 20-40 years are spent fighting and cleaning up the Bush legacy in a 2,000 mile long war zone.
Of course, this could all be reading to much into these incidents, but Scott Ritter thinks the U.S. is gearing up and war with Iran is inevitable. And boy, was Scott right about that other war he predicted...