While the American media has been obssessed with the Foley affair, and its coverup by the Republican leadership, John Leyne asks in an article in the
BBC News dated 10/06/06:
Why did Condoleezza Rice come to Israel and the West Bank earlier this week?
By all accounts, the US secretary of state had no fresh ideas to offer to revive what used to be called the Middle East peace process.
So why bother? And why should her visit to Israel and Palestine raise quiet consternation in Europe and the Middle East?
Many Arab and Israeli commentators have found the same answer: Iran.
As reported by Dave Lindorff in
The Nation, the US is said to be moving to position a strike force in the Persian Gulf:
The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.
Thus, the visit by Rice to the Middle East may be intended to give the US cover for a potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:
"For the Arab moderates and for the Europeans, some sense of progress and momentum on the Arab-Israeli dispute is just a sine qua non for their ability to co-operate actively with the United States on a lot of other things that we care about." -- State department counsellor Philip Zelikow, 9/15/06
With the Republican party damaged by revelations that the House leadership chose to ignore warning signs of a child predator, the NIE estimate revealing the obvious, i.e. that the war in Irag has fueled terrorism, that Iraq is spiraling into civil war, the Bush administration may be looking to an attack on Iran as a means to dramatically change its political fortunes prior to the 2006 mid-terms.
Too far-fetched?
Remember, positing a far-flung threat to America to rally Americans (and the press) in support of the President has worked before. It worked in 2002. It worked in 2004. Why change a winning formula?
Look for more threatening rhetoric in the upcoming weeks, including claims that Iran poses a "clear and present danger" to the US and its allies and has "defied" the international community:
Quoting again from the BBC article, which also notes that Kissinger has been a "behind-the-scenes" advisor to the Bush administration:
In an article in the Washington Post two months ago, Dr Kissinger argued for taking a tough line against Iran's nuclear programme.
Otherwise, he warned, "every country... will face growing threats, be they increased domestic pressure from radical Islamic groups, terrorist acts or the nearly inevitable conflagrations sparked by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".
Couldn't happen? It can, and it could very well be the "real" October suprise.