..out of the dark

The question is - as usual - are there any amount of rational explanations that can be given for this late redistribution of the "allied" forces left, or is this, as explained in the last post, an expression of the aimless horror they insist on calling the current american foreign policy.

For further reading, see:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/doubly-informative-op-ed.html
Regarding the previously mentioned op- ed that was censored, during what the Bush- administration no doubt sees as a critical point when it comes to their "strategy".
And
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-administrations-provocations.html
, on the escalation towards Iran.

And to shamelessly leech on to what Glenn writes, I could add to his very good analysis that we can quickly expect the Iranians to sail extremely close to the wind as far as rhetoric is concerned, but that they never will actually express the wish for any aggressive moves. They also do have the IRNA for a reason, and there will be serious vetting going on right now, as slip- ups may be fatal. And it will be done by people who know what they're doing, who know the kind of phrases that will invariably send americans into a rage, etc. But this will be the only countermeasure they have revealed so far. Similarly, there's no predicting what kind of expatriate "insiders" are telling Washington, there's no predicting what the "reformists" will do in response to a choice where they may have to "cut their losses" and accept certain concessions. There's no telling how the local economical interests may be goaded into full clash with the guardian council and their rather detached making of foreign policy.

And of course, there's no way to truly assess how an early attack now will shape the reactions to such an action - before the deliberations are prepared. And this could easily preempt a more well- measured response from certain regional powers in the same way apathy and shock was the general feeling with the attack on Iraq. Something which I am sure plays an important role in the preparation for a potential attack.

In other words, if the excuse for an attack comes - in the form of an air- strike or a sabotage- mission - there will be trouble of the kind that only Bush and Ahmadinejad dreams of in their eschatological day- dreams. And sadly, we will have to trust the americans *crosses fingers* - as we did ahead of the elections - to make an attack on Iran so politically untenable for the Bush- administratin they will be unable to get away with it in any circumstance.

Unfortunately, Bush is increasingly starting to compare himself with Truman (in his usual intellectual attitude and grasp of history)... and at this rate is probably going to advocate dropping nuclear bombs on Aserbadjan to get christmas snow in the long run (which will save christmas and make people nice in Iran, too). Or as he would say - stand against popular opinion and do unpopular things for the hell of it, in order to be vindicated by history in the long run.

Now, you may notice that I haven't actually started to swear at George just to make it seem as if I only have a bone to pick with the President. And that is because he is not forcing and enabling people around him to drag us all over the next cliff. It is not George who are cheering his righteous wars along. George does not force people at gunpoint to agree with his foreign- policy plodding simplifications. George is not saying that any decent human being should give their maniac president the benefit of the doubt (until the world blows up).

George Bush merely took the opportunity to play at your narcississtic tendencies.

And may you never be forgiven for that.