Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come: Jorge Hirsch mounts an argument that war with Iran is on a clear trajectory.

"The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used? And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes."

Dan Plesch considers the evidence and tries to evaluate whether we are going to war with Iran or not. He points out that "The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack"; however the prospect is still real because "A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe.... For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere."

In short it is a high stakes gamble, but for an extremist Administration that is increasingly embattled, a roll of the dice might just be the ticket.

The role played by Britain and Australia, and even by the EU and much of the world, can only be described as appeasement of US aggression. What does it take for countries to signal through all channels a clear, unambiguous NO!

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come: Jorge Hirsch mounts an argument that war with Iran is on a clear trajectory.

"The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used? And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes."

Dan Plesch considers the evidence and tries to evaluate whether we are going to war with Iran or not. He points out that "The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack"; however the prospect is still real because "A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe.... For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere."

In short it is a high stakes gamble, but for an extremist Administration that is increasingly embattled, a roll of the dice might just be the ticket.

The role played by Britain and Australia, and even by the EU and much of the world, can only be described as appeasement of US aggression. What does it take for countries to signal through all channels a clear, unambiguous NO!