It ain't over.

Sy Hersh just published a story in The New Yorker on the Bush White House's evolving plans to attack Iran. I imagine the fact that they are contemplating such madness will come as a surprise to no one, but Hersh describes a recent shift in the administration's rationale from "counterproliferation" to "counterterrorism", and this does raise some troubling possibilities. Their efforts to blame Iran for all of their troubles in Iraq have kicked into high gear over the past few months, and Hersh reports that they appear to believe that, with respect to public opinion, they are getting more traction with this argument than they had with the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran. (Apparently the American people are not as anxious to march lemming-like to the tune of that particular drum as they were in 2002-03.) This, of course, means that the Bush team is, once again, fixing the facts around the policy - deciding what they want to do first (e.g. bomb Iran), then working up a marketable rationale to generate public support. And the standard of proof for this particular fear-mongering is much lower than what is required for a smoking gun/mushroom cloud appeal.

As we've seen in recent years, Hersh's reporting is never to be taken lightly. Bush/Cheney is very likely to attack Iran before they leave office. But for those who take some comfort in the knowledge that their exit is a mere 15 months away, take heed - our troubles won't end on 01.20.2008, no matter what those bumper stickers say. Here's why:

• Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is a hawk on Iran. This is what she told AIPAC in February: "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.... In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table." Not exactly Joan Baez on this issue. What's more, she supported the Senate's non-binding resolution to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization - a key building block in Bush's revised strategy for attacking Iran. Like the regime change resolution on Iraq in 1998, the intent is clear - prelude to war.
  


• Neocons have a long reach. As Hersh reports, Commentary's Norman Podhoretz recently had a 45-minute session with Bush to encourage him to bomb Iran. His son in law, the odious Elliott Abrams, is one of Bush's point people on Middle Eastern affairs - he played a role in Israel's bombing of Lebanon last year. Podhoretz is a big fan of front-runner GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.
  

So, as Edward G. Robinson said in The Ten Commandments, "Nyaah... Where's your Moses now?" (or something like that). Don't think regime change at home means policy change. Both parties are chock full of people who will clamor for the chance to put those bombers into action. (Our air force may be dropping plenty of bombs on Iraq, but they're not nearly as tied down as the army and marines. And the navy still has both hands free.)

By all means, vote. But don't think for a moment that will be enough.

luv u,

jp