7-09-08, 9:13 am

Ill-tempered neo-con extraordinaire, John Bolton, is pushing for war with Iran. On Sunday, June 22, he predicted longingly to FOX News that Israel would wait until after the November 4th general election to launch an attack on Iran. '[T]he most likely period,' he said, 'is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President.' Of course, conflict between Israel and Iran, Bolton hopes, would entangle the U.S. – and the next presidential administration – in full-scale war with Iran as well.

Bolton has been pushing for war with Iran for nearly a year now. In May, Bolton appeared to accept the risk of a full-scale war with Iran when he characterized airstrikes against Iran as 'the most prudent thing to do.' He also hinted a couple of weeks later that Bush is probably planning to launch such attacks, and described the possibility as the 'responsible' thing to do.

Bolton's push for attacks on Iran focused on Israel leading such attacks after a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released late last year stated that Iran had given up its quest for nuclear weapons in 2003. In typical paranoid Bolton style, he told reporters that the NIE report amounted to 'a quasi-coup by the intelligence services' cooked up by a conspiratorial cabal of anti-Bush intelligence officials. Prior to the release of the latest NIE on Iran, last August, Bolton told a FOX News program that he 'absolutely' hoped Bush would launch an attack on Iran. But now their best hope appears to be to push Israel into a war with Iran.

Right-wing commentator Bill Kristol took the Iran war chatter a step further when he hint on FOX News this past weekend that Bush might consider using an attack on Iran as an 'October surprise.' Kristol argued that if it appears that Obama is going to win the general election, Bush should consider an attack in order to prevent a situation where diplomacy and other non-military measures against Iran are no longer on the table.

Israel seems all too happy to giving the world the impression that it is prepared to attack Iran, as CBS reported over the weekend. A massive military exercise in the Mediterranean Sea earlier this month was a signal both to the U.S. and to Iran that it was prepared to take push matters forward.

Are these threats merely the last squawks of disgruntled neo-cons who have lost their influence in Washington? Certainly important sections of the military community disagree with the Bolton-Kristol claim of the prudence and wisdom of an attack on Iran. For example, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Admiral Michael Mullen told the National Journal last week, 'I would like to have a healthy dialogue with Iran, but many different administrations over a period of decades have been unable to achieve that. But I do think engagement would offer an opportunity, certainly, to understand each other better.'

Other Pentagon insiders have emphasized that the U.S. has neither the capacity nor the need to launch military action against Iran.

On the congressional front, however, lawmakers are considering steps that could increase the likelihood of U.S. hostilities against Iran. Members of both parties in Congress have out of hand dismissed the findings of the NIE and repeat Bush administration talking points on Iran: that it is still trying to make nuclear weapons and that its nuclear energy program is a secret.

These are points, however, which the International Atomic Energy Agency seems to dispute strongly. According to Asia Times, IAEA 'reports clearly confirm that all of Iran's enrichment-related facilities are under the agency's 'containment and monitoring,' or that IAEA inspectors have had nine 'unannounced visits' at the enrichment facility in Natanz since March 2007.' Other experts, says Asia Times, have pointed out the fact that Iran's nuclear energy program is nowhere near weaponization, if that is indeed the aim.

Such open flouting of the IAEA's procedures and findings by U.S. government officials and others prompted IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to threaten resignation if an attack were made. 'If you carry out a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course in building nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West,' ElBaradei said.

House Concurrent Resolution 362, introduced by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) earlier this month, calls on the president to intensify sanctions against Iran. The bill demands that 'the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities' using a naval blockade against 'the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.'

Note: the bill does not appear to block the purchase of oil from Iran.

While the bill also does not specifically authorize military force, it sets the conditions and prepares an excuse for military action down the road. Indeed, if its logical outcome is achieved, a naval blockade of Iran, it could be viewed as an act of war. This fact has prompted organizations such as , Friends Committee on National Legislation, and United for Peace and Justice to urge opposition to the bill.

As most Americans seek a way out of the Iraq war and are prepared to hand power over to the Democratic Party with a mandate to do so, the drumbeat for war against Iran may just be the last resort the Bush administration has at it disposal to forestall such a political realignment. It is unfortunate that some Democrats feel the need to go along with a policy that could block their efforts to regain power in the 2008 elections.

Other Democratic leaders, however, are taking a stand. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has warned the Bush administration that a drive for war with Iran could prompt impeachment hearings. Wrote Conyers in a letter to Bush last May: '[I]t is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued.'