First up, in case you don't believe me (and why should you?), here's why I say we have four days. First, I saw this:

BOB Baer, the former Middle East CIA operative whose first book about his life inspired the oil-and-espionage thriller Syriana, is working on a new book on Iran, but says he was told by senior intelligence officials that he had better get it published in the next couple of months because things could be about to change. Baer, in an interview with The Weekend Australian, says his contacts in the administration suggest a strategic airstrike on Iran is a real possibility in the months ahead. "What I'm getting is a sense that their sentiment is they are going to hit the Iranians and not just because of Israel, but due to the fact that Iran is the predominant power in the Gulf and it is hostile and its power is creeping into the Gulf at every level," Baer says. He says his contacts have told him of his book: "You better hurry up because the thesis is going to change. I told them submission is in January but they said, 'You're probably going to be too late'."

Then, today, I saw this:

Today I received a message from a friend who has excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often been prescient. According to this report, as in 2002, the rollout will start after Labor Day, with a big kickoff on September 11. My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way: They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."

[via this diary; shame on me for not linking it earlier, I plead busy]

There's more at both links, if you care to go track it all down.

My modest and unqualified offerings begin here.

RESPONSE:

Strategic:

We can anticipate three basic thrusts from Bush's psy-ops war on his fellow Americans. (Hey, I told you they were predictable!) They are Iran's:

Nuclear threat

Connection to international terrorism

Responsibility for American deaths in Iraq

::

Nuclear threat:

Any response must advance your own narrative, not just gainsay the narrative of your opponent. For this reason, laying out all the technical reasons why Iran's capacity to build a nuclear weapon lay way off in the next decade would be barking up the wrong tree. The proper response to Bush and his enablers when they claim an immanent threat from Iran's nuclear program is to lead with variations on "there they go again."

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides the single greatest opportunity we have of preventing the further weakening of America's military and political position in the world and also preventing further death and destruction. "There they go again" plays on a sense of inevitability that Bush's enablers cannot respond to because they don't want to have that conversation ... ever. It also throws the focus back on the source of the story: the discredited Bush administration.

Yes, Iran is a different country from Iraq, but the information is coming from that same source that got so many Americans killed in Iraq and has nothing to show for it but a weaker America and a stronger enemy.

The drunk already crashed the Buick. Now he wants the Chevy. The proper response is not to give him the Chevy. What he needs is black coffee and a long time out.

Connection to international terrorism:

This is their weakest hand, so it is only likely to be played in conjunction with #'s 1 & 2. Bringing up Iran's support for groups we call "terrorist" because they're not the MEK requires that Bush and his enablers invoke events in far away countries at a time when even their base is increasingly concerned with events at home. There is no need to play the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" game with them, because it will only strengthen a hand that was weak for them. Instead, it's useful for any number of purposes to stress how much hasn't been done to improve America's defenses (especially our ports) besides putting a 50 cal. outside a petting zoo in South Carolina.

Why are we still vulnerable to these terrorist networks? What the hell has Bush been doing, almost six years into his "War on Terror"?

Responsibility for American deaths in Iraq:

Bush and his enablers in the corporate media have been hard at work at building this theme in the mind of low-information "US Americans and such as" for some time. That's their audience. The best response is a combination. First, recall all the times they've had to backpedal on this one before. Follow through with a challenge as to why they've done nothing about Saudi support for our enemies in Iraq. Delivered properly, this combination will leave you an opening to launch into your own narrative.

How is Bush going to occupy Iran when he can't even manage Iraq? How is he going to pay for this? Where are the military resources going to come from? How will we ever be able to leave Iraq now? Sadr just announced a six-month truce, what does an attack on Iran tell the Shi'ites?

They don't have any answers. They have no idea what they're doing. That's why Bush and his enablers can only prey on fear and ignorance.

There is one strategic key to the entire conversation: Bush and his enablers want to talk about big scary Iran in order to build support for a war. We, on the other hand, want to talk about the war first, because most people don't want it. They need to sneak up on the issue of war. We need to let people know that it's there now.

Tactical:

Do not use "we" or "us." The USA, us/we, are not going to attack Iran, Bush is. This approach aggravates the right's increasing isolation AND protects you from "blame America first" distractions. They're all alone and everyone hates them. Make them feel it.

If I see any of you writing about this, saying how big, scary, dangerous, hairy, and tough Bush/the Republicans are, I will secretly reach into your computer and delete all of that novel you're working on that no one else knows about. Never say 'ouch' to a barbarian, it only encourages them. They do this out of weakness, not strength. The only thing that makes these isolated and failed bed-wetter who want to bomb Iran look like manly men is some cringing leftie squealing next to them. Their base eats that up, since they'll support anything that you hate or fear, even if it means damaging their own country.

Time is not their friend. Always plan on inevitability. Bush is on his way out, which is a big part of why he's going this.

The pro-war fringe. America has left them behind. They're doing this partially out of spite, somewhere between scorched earth and sour grapes. Bombing brown people because of the bomb they don't have appeals to only a very small part of America. They used to hang black people from trees. Now they have abu Ghraib. Same thrill. Bombing Iraq helped them feel better about 9/11. Bombing Iran is supposed to help them feel better about Bush's failure in Iraq.

Corruption. Laundering money through ginned-up wars is a money-maker for these guys. It's the only carrot that keeps Bush's backers wandering Iraq.

.