Let's take a closer look at the "Attack Iran!" option, if it is indeed an "option."

Let's look at the facts: (1) Iran (more specifically, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is 'threatening" to develop nuclear power, not nuclear weapons necessarily, (2) MA also rants and raves about Israel every chance he gets and (3) Iranian extremists have likely infiltrated Iraq (making the same mistake that the US is making) in support of the Shiite militias there.

As a result of the above "facts," a likely Israeli/US bombing raid on nuclear installations in Iran appears to be in the cards. Indeed, the news that the Pentagon is sending a second aircraft carrier to increase the already huge US naval build-up in the Gulf region (and the Eastern Mediterranean), increasingly suggests that Bush's last gasp in the Middle East is not just the extra 21,500 US troops to try to bring "victory" (whatever that is) in Iraq, but a long-planned settling of some old grievances with the real Biblical era enemy, Persia (a.k.a. Iran).

In a previous posting I pointed to many reports that the Pentagon (under Rumsfeld at the time) believes that after only five nights of bombing, the nuclear targets could be destroyed. One of them cautioned that "because of the gaps in US intelligence on Iran, there can be no certainty about how much of the Iranian nuclear program might survive. Furthermore, to limit likely retaliation, the target range would have to be substantially expanded. Iran's medium-range ballistic missiles that have recently been moved closer to Iraq would have to be hit, as well as 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. And in order to protect Gulf shipping, Iranian cruise missile sites, diesel submarines, and other naval assets would need to be targeted. In addition, Iran's two chemical weapons production plants would no doubt be added to the hit list."

That was before Christmas, wasn't it?

Now think back to 2002. Isn't the rhetoric about Iran (going back for about a year) and aren't the recent maneuvers just a little bit reminiscent of Bush's rush to war in Iraq at that time? And the revelation this week of a US military raid on the Iranian consulate in the Iraqi town of Irbil is only one additional twig being tossed on the fire.

But the real question that should be asked, I think, is "if the United States is looking at Iran-after-Iraq, why?" That is, why is George Bush so eager to attack Iran?

I can only come up with two possibilities: One is that President Bush clearly sees his role in the Middle East in messianic terms. Think about it -- first Babylon and next Persia! That might explain why he has pursued the Iraq War after each strategy or tactic had gone pffft. He obviously does not let common sense stand in his way as regards his manifest destiny. That is probably also why Joe Lieberman, an otherwise reasonable liberal and anti-war person, is so gung-ho when it comes to our activities in the Middle East.

The other possible rationale for Bush's eagerness to attack Iran is (you guessed it!) OIL.

Iran just happens to be the third largest oil producer in the world. Saudi Arabia is #1, Iraq is (would be) #2 and Iran is #3.

And the beauty of such a plan is that blowing up a couple dozen Iranian facilities would allow Bush to crow to the world and to the American people (the most gullible of them would drool) that "I have saved the world from the Iranians." And he could achieve his manifest destiny without needing to produce verifiable evidence. He might even get support from the Israelis who would be only too willing to share with Bush the Apocalyptic Dream ... until whenever it no longer suited their purposes.

And that last little remark isn't just idle chatter. The Israelis have long memories and surely remember just who it was that allowed their fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to be so cruelly exterminated. Guess what? It wasn't the Arabs. I wouldn't want to be around when scores start being settled with the weaponry we have provided the Israelis.

Just how many nuclear and/or thermonuclear bombs does Israel have anyway? In all my years with the highest of clearances, I never was able to get a handle on that question or even the question of their having just one Hiroshima-style atom bomb. Best kept secret in the world, I'd say.

Yes, brother Richard, we indeed live in "interesting times."