Before giving my bleak answer to the question posed above, prior to detailing the admittedly nightmare scenario it derives from, let me first tell you where I’m coming from. I think neocon true believers view the world as a giant version of the board game RISK. In that game one empire triumphs, while all else lose. They believe a war larger than the one we momentarily are confined to, one fought to secure strategic Middle Eastern oil reserves which America "needs" for our future, is inevitable. And by triggering that war sooner rather than later, the cost to win it, by their accounting, will be lower than the tab putting it off would add up to. But the American public is reluctant; we have seen too much war already, and few are willing to now pay the price that an expanded war entails. So what is a good Neocon to do? How about the following:

Build up Iran into a major strategic threat to America. Point to a bloody Iranian hand directing every setback for American policies in the Middle East. Build on every possible fear that each supporter of Israel has that Iran is hell bent on destroying Israel ASAP. Blur every distinction possible between Iran's current leadership and Al Qaeda's current leadership by making them all out to be birds of a feather out of their mind fanatics willing to sacrifice everything on this earth to further a demented religious ideology. Stress that unlike Bin Ladin and Hussein, the Iranians really will soon have nuclear weapons in their trigger happy hands. And always keep repeating: "You simply can’t talk to them until they start acting like adults and meet our preconditions for direct negotiations".

As that propaganda mission nears critical mass, paint a rosy picture of how easy it still would be to take out Iran's nuclear capacity at this point with some well placed bombs and cruise missiles, and maybe a few brave special ops forces working with our newly embraced brave Iranian resistance movement (no longer terrorists) members behind enemy lines. Repeatedly emphasize that the only thing Arabs really understand (or Persians "same difference") is a clear willingness to draw a line and use force to back it up. Confidently predict that with their false bravado exposed as impotent in the face of American resolve, Iran's current regime will be torn apart by dissension and finally repudiated by the masses of Iranians now living in oppression under their harsh rule. Return to the fear argument to close the deal, saying anyone who opposes dealing with a growing Iranian threat until after it grows much stronger is either crazy or a jelly spined Democratic liberal.

In other words; recycle and trot out the exact same campaign that bulldozed Democrats into standing aside and letting Iraq be invaded. The only difference this time, now that Americans are revolted by the rising American casualty toll inside Iraq, is the claim that we won't have to bloody our hands on the ground in pursuit of the grand victory that awaits us if we have the fortitude to strike Iran from the air while we still are able.

For now neocons are concentrating on the next step of their strategy to protect and project America’s global interests; namely to bomb Iran. Personally I doubt they believe any of the bombastic false bravado that they peddle to the public about this. Well maybe a few do, those among them furthest divorced from reality, but I expect most neocons know full well that attacking Iran is the prelude to a larger war, not the elimination of the gravest threat now facing America. They are simply counting on most Americans not figuring that out in time to stop them.

The war that an attack on Iran will usher in will cease to be elective in the eyes of most Americans. It won't remain an option, after that point, to say on second thought maybe it was a mistake to attack Iran, we regret it, and if we could take back the bombs we would. Unlike Iraq it won't be an option, once the magnitude of the mistake becomes apparent, to simply withdraw our forces from Iran's borders and suggest that everyone go back to playing by the old rules again.

This time Americans will be attacked both at home and abroad, and not just soldiers, and not just on specified battle fields. We won’t be "fighting them over there to keep from fighting them here". The soft underbelly of America's economy will be effectively targeted by far more significant forces than Bin Ladin's dour band. In other words we will have a real war on our hands, against large numbers of determined enemies who will hate us with a passion and fight with that passion against us.

Throw in the fact that Israel will inevitably come under increasing attack as well, which is precisely what the Israel right is counting on. They too see further war in the Middle East as inevitable, and with America under attack along side them, they will call on their American allies to join them in smashing common Islamic foes. At that point there no longer will be a viable alternative to defending ourselves militarily. Americans will quickly discover that Peace is not an option being offered us, regardless of who we blame for throwing prior chances for peace out the window in the first place.

That is when a draft will be reinstituted. They will call it "mobilizing to defend America". That is when social benefits, suddenly deemed unaffordable during a time of war, will be cut. They will call it "tightening our belts". That is when taxes will be raised on all Americans, though the wealthy won’t feel much pain, having previously pocketed a steady parade of tax cuts for the past twenty five years. They will call it "shared sacrifice" And that is when tough talking authoritarian minded Republicans will position themselves as the only ones with the balls (yes that chauvinistic term is intentional) to do what must be done to protect America from very real enemies. And they will call that "strong leadership".

Remember, neocons want this war. Remember, neocons believe the only alternative to waging and winning this war is the waning of our American Empire. Like a pusher they will dangle a "limited surgical air strike" on Iran before the public as a patriotic cheap thrill, but we won't have any choice but to pay whatever the price once America comes under fierce attack in the aftermath. The neocons want to lock us into a wider Middle Eastern war, and the surest way to do that is to attack Iran. As an added bonus some neocons even view war with Iran as a perfect tonic to bolster their battered movement. Admittedly the bombing Iran part is but one of the bullets ticked on his larger list of recommendations, but have a quick look at what Mr. Muravchik has to say here:

Published November 1, 2006

TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives

FROM: Joshua Muravchik

RE: How to Save the Neocons

"...Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office. It is all but inconceivable that Iran will accept any peaceful inducements to abandon its drive for the bomb. Its rulers are religio-ideological fanatics who will not trade what they believe is their birthright to great power status for a mess of pottage. Even if things in Iraq get better, a nuclear-armed Iran will negate any progress there. Nothing will embolden terrorists and jihadists more than a nuclear-armed Iran.

The global thunder against Bush when he pulls the trigger will be deafening, and it will have many echoes at home. It will be an injection of steroids for organizations such as MoveOn.org. We need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes. In particular, we need to help people envision what the world would look like with a nuclear-armed Iran. Apart from the dangers of a direct attack on Israel or a suitcase bomb in Washington, it would mean the end of the global nonproliferation regime and the beginning of Iranian dominance in the Middle East."

http://www.aei.org/...

For those who think the picture I paint above is too extreme to take seriously, I ask you this. How much are you willing to bet? What are you willing to lose later if you are wrong, in return for holding onto your calm certainty now that it's not going to happen? What odds does it take to justify your complacency, five to one against an American (or Israel with full American support) attack on Iran? Perhaps you find the odds closer to ten to one against it, if so does that leave you secure enough about the future to feel no need for concern now? Or maybe you think I'm a whacko alarmist, me and Wes Clark and Sy Hersh and Noam Chomsky and a bunch of other crazies just like them. If the odds really are 100 to one against this pending war, is that reassuring enough to return to quarrelling over primary candidates and forget all this fretting over preventing a war with Iran?

One chance in a hundred is the same odds cited for a flood rising to the so called century mark in any given year. With a big storm already raging, and with numerous dark clouds gathering by the second on the near horizon, how comfortable are you going to sleep on the flood plain of that once in a century storm? The 20the Century saw two World Wars. The 21st century has none to show for itself so far, but it's still fairly early. One isn't really over due yet, so why should anyone think we might be approaching the brink of one now? And no one listens to neocons anymore, do they?

The name for the following site I believe is self explanatory: StopIranWar.com

http://www.stopiranwar.com/

General Wes Clark and VoteVets.org need our help to stop this war. Here is the full passage that the title of this Diary is taken from. The subject was a possible U.S. air strike on Iran: