U.S. Vs. Iran Coming Soon?

Newsmax.com opens a major can of worms by reporting that a U.S. strike on Iran may be nearer than you think.  The article even goes so far as to suggest that such an attack is not only on the table, but that it is likely.  An unnamed source says that Cheney's recent whirlwind tour through the Middle East was helping lay the groundwork, as is Israel's recent military exercise (the biggest in the nation's history):

Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned Tehran about expected attacks on the Jewish state.  "An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation," he said.

He predicted that in a future war, "hundreds of missiles will rain on Israel," but added that Iran "is definitely aware of our strength."

In addition to long-range missiles Iran has been developing to strike Israel, Israel's military strategists see the Iranians using terror groups they back like Hamas operating from Palestine and Hezbollah from Lebanon to launch attacks.  Iran has supplied Hezbollah with an arsenal that now contains "tens of thousands of missiles," according to the Washington Post.

The article outlines a number of reasons why this action is becoming increasingly likely:

A number of signs indicate that, contrary to the belief President Bush is a lame duck who will not act before he leaves office, the U.S. is poised to strike before Iran can acquire nuclear weapons and carry out the threat of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map":

# According to intelligence sources, the administration now rejects the National Intelligence Estimate report issued in December that asserted Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003.

The French daily Le Monde reported in March that newly surfaced documents show that Iran has continued developing nuclear weapons. In late 2006, U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted a phone conversation in Iran's Defense Ministry in which the nuclear weapons program was discussed.

# The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, resigned in March amid media reports that he broke with President Bush's strategy on Iran and did not want to be in the chain of command when the order comes down from the President to launch a strike on the Islamic Republic.

Democrats suggested he had been forced out because of his candor in opposing Bush's Iran plans, and Esquire magazine contended that Fallon's departure signaled that the U.S. is preparing to attack Iran.

# According to a Tehran-based Iranian news network, Press TV, Saudi Arabia is taking emergency steps in preparing to counter any "radioactive hazards" that may result from an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Saudi newspaper Okaz disclosed that the Saudi government has approved nuclear fallout preparations, and the Iranian network reported that the approval came a day after Cheney met with the kingdom's high-ranking officials, further stating that the U.S. "is now informing its Arab allies of a potential war."

# The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has stepped up criticism of Iran, telling Congress last week that Iranian support for Shiite militias posed the most serious threat to Iraq's stability. He told senators : "Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way." Last week, the U.S. said Iran was providing insurgents with missiles that were killing Americans and hitting targets within the U.S. occupied Green Zone in Baghdad.

MSNBC Commentator Pat Buchanan said Petraeus' remarks to Congress lay the groundwork for a U.S. attack on Iran.

# President Bush said in a speech at the White House on April 10 that Iran, along with al-Qaida, are "two of the greatest threats to America."

Congress has apparently been briefed on the increasing threat from Iran, so they're in on the big secret.  It seems incredibly unlikely that Bush has the political capital left to launch a strike against Iran unless he has some absolutely iron-clad evidence.  Petraeus may have provided that last week in his testimony before Congress.  Any military action against Iran will likely be accompanied by feigned outrage by Democrats, but don't forget that any such action will have to be voted on by Congress.  How can they vote in favor of war but step in front of the TV cameras and complain about it?  Easy: they're Democrats.  But voters need to hold them accountable.

We'll see if tensions continue to escalate, and if any action does in fact occur.  If so, you heard it here first!

There's my two cents.