I know. I know. There have been numerous diaries on the subject already. However, more fuel gets added to the fire by a Sunday Telgraph UK article already on the web today and a Sunday NY Times article also posted to the web this evening.
Their titles are enough to scare me:
Bush setting America up for war with Iran
and
Hawks Appear to Gain on Iran Policy
More on both below the fold.
From the Telegraph:
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
And from the NY Times:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been arguing for a continuation of a diplomatic approach, while officials in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office have advocated a much tougher view. They seek to isolate and contain Iran, and to include greater consideration of a military strike.
Mr. Bush’s language indicated that the debate, at least for now, might have tilted toward Mr. Cheney. By portraying the battle with Iran as one for supremacy in the Middle East, Mr. Bush turned up the language another, more bellicose, notch.
Given that Bush, Petreaus and Crocker all this week made strong accusations about Iran's "malign" influence in Iraq, and Iran's "proxy" war in Iraq, it appears the campaign to push us toward war has begun.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
These raids would be designed to provoke a major Iranian response which would then become the excuse for airstrikes.
In its report to Congress on Friday, the administration accused Iran of providing Shiite militias with training, money and weapons, including rockets, mortars and explosively formed projectiles, which the administration said accounted for an increased percentage of American combat deaths. The report said that "coalition and Iraqi operations against these groups, combined with a growing rejection of Shia violence by top government of Iraq officials, has led to some progress in reducing violent attacks from Shia extremists."
The administration's actions seem to fit the pattern laid out in several published stories already diaried here, as well as those laid out in the Telegraph story -- a gradual escalation of rhetoric to begin building the case for military action against Iran.
Again from the Telegraph:
A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.
--snip--
Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
The Telegraph article also repeats the assertion from a previous London Times article that the US has drawn up plan for airstrikes within Iran that target many, many more facilities than just their nuclear facilities.
Cheney is winning the debate within the Whitehouse and Rice is moving closer to the use of force against Iran.
More from the NY Times:
Mr. Cheney and hawks in his office, however, have become increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of progress in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Allies of Mr. Cheney continue to say publicly that the United States should include a change in Iran’s leadership as a viable policy option, and have argued, privately, that the United States should encourage Israel to consider a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
And from the Telegraph:
The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
I'm scared.