Spank - yep!

By the way, your sig - I trained under Rip 23 years ago. Great, great guy.

Guess we'll see how stupid the public is - you know, the whole "fool me once" thingy... they BETER ****ing find the goods this time... if we end up with another Iraq situation it's gonna raise a lot of eyebrows...

Gates, they're so desperate to keep the petrodollar alive, I'm not sure they even care anymore.

Thats the way I read it too.

I wonder if an ultimatum of some sort will be given to Iran from either Israel or the US in the coming weeks.

Public opinion polling shows that a slight majority of the public thinks that military action should be taken against Iran "if Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon."

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

It isn't anywhere near public approval for the Iraq War on the eve of its launch but notice that it is several percentage points higher than a few years ago. A good sized majority in 2010 (71%) thinks that Iran already has nuclear weapons. A huge majority (77%) supported sanctions in 2009.

Perhaps most importantly, the most recent polling (Jan 11-16 of 2012) shows that 56% of the public have heard "a little" or "nothing at all" about Iran in the media.

Methinks that more propaganda will be needed first before a US-led strike would be launched and I think the polling shows such a campaign has a good chance of being successful. The public doesn't really know what's going on (as usual) and those with an opinion think Iran has nukes, is a threat, and would support military action.

Trader, seems to me an ultimatum is exactly what's happening... kinda like watching a snake coil before the strike in slow-motion. Lots of opportunities for things to go wrong here.

www.eurasiareview.com/03022012-iran-bracing-for-war-oped/
Iran Bracing For War? – OpEd
Written by: VOR
February 3, 2012
By Ilya Kharlamov
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday
that as of March 2012, Tehran will increase its military
spending by more than two-fold. Meanwhile, US strategic
bombers have already been deployed in Qatar in a sign that
a military operation of Western countries and Israel against
Iran may be on cards. Its regional and global repercussions
will be unpredictable, experts warn.
The United States and its allies continue to dispatch troops
and military hardware to the Gulf region. More servicemen
have been deployed to the Omani island of Masirah where a
US military base is operating. Additionally, more than 10,000
US soldiers have been stationed in Israel to test this Middle
Eastern country’s missile defense system. Another 15,000 US
servicemen have been based in Kuwait.
Hundreds of concrete-piercing bombs have been supplied to
a US military base on the Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean,
and two US aircraft carrier battle groups are currently on a
mission in the Gulf. They are expected to be strengthened by
one more aircraft carrier, the Annapolis nuclear-powered
submarine and the Momsen destroyer. A US military base in
Qatar already sees the stationing of several bombers, cargo
planes and long-range drones. In the meantime, France and
Britain have also dispatched their troops to the United Arab
Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
All this indicates the US’ and Israel’s readiness to use force
against Iran, believes Professor Sergei Druzhilovsky of the
Moscow State Institute of International Relations.
“A military conflict [in Iran] may well be on cards,
Druzhilovsky says, referring to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya
where the US military practiced military aspects of blitzkrieg
and pinpoint attacks. The problem, however, is that unlike
Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has no fifth column, a group of
people who are, along with America, ready to topple the
regime. In this regard, pinpoint air strikes on Iran are
irrelevant because there is nothing to bomb in the Islamic
Republic, and because the main goal is to depose the regime
which remains a major irritant both for America and the
West. And the question is whether Iranian people are ready
to fend off an aggression or not,” Druzhilovsky concludes.
Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence agency has alleged that Iran
has enough enriched uranium to make at least 4 atom
bombs, and that Tehran’s statements on a peaceful nature of
its nuclear program are little more than a bluff. Such
misinformation is needed to tarnish Iran’s political image
and justify a military operation against the Islamic Republic,
believes Vladimir Sotnikov from the Moscow-based Institute
for Oriental Studies. In an interview with the Voice of Russia
aired on Friday, he also said that the military operation
against Iran is likely.
“The situation is tense, and the beginning of a military
operation of Israel or the United States against Iran may be
in the offing, Sotnikov says. On the other hand, the start of
an active phase of the pre-election campaign in the US may
prompt President Obama to decide against getting involved
in another military conflict now that such conflicts in Iraq
and Afghanistan are yet to be resolved. As for Israel, it may
well refer to the use of force against Iran which is believed
to be Israel’s arch-foe . Meanwhile, harsh sanctions, which
were earlier slapped on the Islamic Republic, have already
damaged the Iranian economy. If these hotheads ignore
warnings by Russia, China and other responsible members
of the international community and decide on a military
interference against Iran, the consequences will be serious.
This is fraught with not only a regional conflict but a
humanitarian catastrophe in the entire Middle East as well.
This is a threat to international stability,” Sotnikov warns.
Economic implications will also be unpredictable because
global oil prices are all but sure to skyrocket, analysts say,
adding that the EU embargo on Iranian oil will ride
roughshod over interests of both Iran and EU countries.
Although avoiding a new military conflict is still possible,
hopes are fading with every passing day. On February 21, a
delegation of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
experts is due to arrive in Tehran to discuss Iran’s nuclear
program. Herman Nackaerts, head of the IAEA delegation,
said that the IAEA wants Tehran to elaborate on all
contentious issues pertaining to its atomic program. Many
remain downbeat about the results of the discussion given a
recent report by the IAEA where the UN nuclear watchdog
alleged that Iran’s nuclear program aims to obtain a nuclear

this is an interesting move by the Iranians....they increase the uncertainty in the market (increasing price), while still not going with a full embargo (full retard) and allowing the cash to keep coming in by selling oil to 'some' of the EU countries and embargoing others. Meanwhile they keep playing along the rest of the world including the US.

TEHRAN - Iran will certainly stop exporting crude oil to some European Union countries in response to the recent oil embargo on the country, Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi said on Saturday.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/economy-and-b....

I wonder how many people in the US would still support military action if they understood that gas prices will skyrocket if war breaks out?

As a country, we still support war (esp here in the South). Ready, fire, aim!

Doesn't look good at this point.

Americans talk about an Israeli strike on Iran, but prepare own offensive
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 4, 2012, 11:16 AM (GMT+02:00)

http://debka.com/article/21708/

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has been outspoken about a possible Israeli offensive against Iran taking place as of April and one American TV channel theorized simplistically Friday, Feb. 3, about Israel's tactics. At the same time, no US source is leveling on the far more extensive American, Saudi, British, French and Gulf states' preparations going forward for an offensive against the Islamic Republic.

Tehran too is gearing up for conflict: The Iranian Guards Ground Forces chief Brig. Gen. Mohammad Pakpour Saturday, Feb. 4 announced the start of a three-week exercise in southern Iran and the Strait of Hormuz under conditions of war. debkafile: The "exercise" is in fact an Iranian military buildup ahead of a possible American or Israel attack.

debkafile's military sources report a steady flow of many thousands of US troops for some weeks to two strategic islands within reach of Iran, Oman's Masirah just south of the Strait of Hormuz and Socotra, between Yemen and the Horn of Africa. (DEBKA-Net-Weekly 526 of Jan. 27 was the first world publication to reveal the massive concentration of American might on the two islands.)
This concentration was held by the White House as sufficiently urgent to relent on its refusal to admit the ousted Yemeni leader Ali Abdullah Salah to America for medical treatment. He won permission in exchange for his consent to the Socotra military buildup.

There are now two potential triggers for a Middle East confrontation with Iran. They are closely interrelated: The urgent need for action this year to preempt Iran's nuclear bomb program before it is too late and the Syrian army's appalling and escalating butchery of civilians.
Even as world powers haggled over a bogged-down UN Security Council motion for ending the loss of life, a continuous Syrian bombardment beginning early Saturday, Feb. 4, is estimated to have left a record 350 dead and up to 1,300 wounded in the Homs district of Khaldiyeh. The casualty figures continued to climb Saturday as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov threatened a "scandal" if the Western-Arab text were put to the vote.
Bashar Assad was clearly determined to wipe out every family and home in the defiant Homs suburb in case the world body agreed on a ceasefire resolution.

Our military sources report that the Saudis this week wound up their own intensive preparations for war. Large forces are now deployed around Saudi oil fields, pipelines and export facilities in the eastern provinces opposite the Persian Gulf, backed by anti-missile Patriot PAC-3 batteries. American, British and French fighter-bombers have been landing at Saudi air bases to safeguard the capital, Riyadh.

Israel has accelerated, expanded and focused its military drill regimen for the coming conflict. Tuesday, Jan. 31, a division-scale exercise practiced the drafting of reservists under projected heavy missile bombardment of military bases, induction centers, national highways and towns from at least three directions: Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, as well as Iran.
Thursday, Feb. 2, Military Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. Avivi Kochavi disclosed that 200,000 missiles and rockets, including thousands of long-range projectiles, were currently pointed at Israel, the only country in the world facing a threat on this scale.
Two weeks earlier, the IDF Paratrooper Brigade staged its biggest exercise in over 15 years: More than 1,000 paratroopers jumped from the sky over southern Israel together with their departmental and squadron commanders. Israel sought to demonstrate that it commands enough fighting manpower to operate deep inside enemy territory, as well as the planes for delivering the combatants.

In his sermon to followers Friday, Feb.3, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made it clear that Iran's allies would be involved in any confrontation and Israel was a prime target: Iran, he said, is ready to help anyone who confronts "cancerous" Israel. He also warned Washington, "The war itself will be ten times as detrimental to the US."
Khamenei credited Iran's help for achieving Hizballah's "victorious" attack on Israel in 2006 and for Hamas' "success" in beating back Israel's anti-missile operation in Gaza that year.

The Supreme Leader was clearly egging on Iran's allies, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami, to go for Israel again.

debkafile's Middle East analysts challenge the hypothesis heard in Israel and other places that the massive war preparations going forward at this time are backing for sanctions, contrived to propel Iran to the negotiating table and accept a deal for halting its nuclear weapon program.
Our sources stress that these military preparations are for real and are taken very seriously by all the governments concerned because Tehran is far from being intimidated by threats.

Khamenei confirmed authoritatively Friday what other Iranian officials have consistently maintained, that Tehran will not give up its nuclear plans no matter how much pressure is brought to bear. Iran had its chance to cool some of the pressure by opening up to a team of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who visited Tehran last week - but chose not to do so.

In their three-day stay, the inspectors were denied access to any Iranian nuclear facility, notably the Parchin plant 30 kilometers southwest of Tehran, which is developing nuclear bombs and warheads - or even interview the scientists employed there.

While Israel's military preparations for hostilities with Iran are now widely reported, two gaps remain to be filled, says debkafile:
1. As the ayatollahs witness the vast US, Saudi, Israel, British, French and Arab Gulf war preparations around their borders, will they opt to watch and wait for the sword to fall, or will they try and get in first with a hammer blow against Israel, a course Khamenei hinted at broadly in his latest speech.
2. Are Washington and Jerusalem in alignment – or at least in tacit accord – on who goes first against Iran's nuclear installations? The reports and statements coming from US sources make it sound as though only an Israeli attack is in the offing. Informed circles in Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh and Jerusalem are not so sure.

Anyone think the motivation to strike Iran is driven by oil-for-gold transactions between Iran and India or China or other countries?

Of course - you threaten the petrodollar, well... just ask Saddam and Moammar how that worked out for them...

Yep. And wars make for nice distractions for the sheeple.

I think that any attack that is initiated will be done by Israel, most likely with the intention of drawing the US into a conflict after it begins. I don't see any way Iran can deliver this preemptive "hammer blow" against Israel. How exactly could or would they do it?

Israel knows that a strike on Iran's nuke sites will draw Hezbollah attacks on Israeli cities, and the US wouldn't stand by and let that happen. I wonder if that were to occur the US would then assume responsibility for going after Iran and defending Israel from Iranian missiles while Israel turned their attention to Hezbollah on their own border.

**** Israel. This has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with Israel.

Bullion, it's like a perfect blend of different things.

Quote:

**** Israel. This has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with Israel.

It has something to do with both. The Iran situation is much more about Israel than the Iraq War was, but remember Israel was a big cheerleader for that war too.

Iranian warships dock at Saudi port
Feb 4 02:27 PM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=....

Iranian naval ships docked on Saturday in the Saudi port city of Jeddah on a mission to project the Islamic republic's "power on the open seas," the Fars news agency reported.

The supply ship Kharg and Shaid Qandi, a destroyer, docked in the Red Sea port in line with orders from Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it quoted navy commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari as saying.

"This mission aims to show the power of the Islamic republic of Iran on the open seas and to confront Iranophobia," he said, adding that the mission started several days ago and would last 70 to 80 days.

The commander did not give other destinations.

Iran's navy has been boosting its presence in international waters since last year, deploying vessels in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden on missions to protect Iranian ships from Somali pirates.

Tehran also sent two ships into the Mediterranean for the first time in February 2011 through the Suez Canal.

Ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which have long been strained, deteriorated in late 2011 following US allegations that a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington had been hatched in Tehran.

Tehran has also called on Riyadh to reconsider its vow to make up for any shortfall in Iran's oil exports due to sanctions over its nuclear programme, saying Riyadh's pledge to intervene on the market was unfriendly.

Quote:

Asked in an NBC interview whether Israel was set to attack Iran, Obama said: "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do. I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program," adding Israel and the United States would work "in lockstep" on Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-israel-not-m....

Well, there's our answer...

Israel can and will protect and defend itself one on one with Iran. The battle between those two will be an eventual Israeli win. It's just that they'll need the cover from the US on the international scene to beat back the UN idiots and terrorist/dictator sympathizer's to use the aggression against Iran as a reason to impose sanctions against Israel. The UN is ****ed up. And politics makes strange bed fellows, now Obama is talking a possible parallel approach along side Israel on handling Iran. Someone earlier posted the petrodollar connection - this made sense to me why he would have a change of heart.

iranian's are focused on one thing now. the rest is just static.

the sanctions won't stop the iranian drive to atom-ville as fast as possible. if anything, all of this is reinforcing their desire to join the Big Boy Club with a nuke weapon. Do you think anyone would say boo to them if they had a nuke? what happens if tomorrow they said, 'we have a nuclear device. back off.' we know the answer.

Thus, logic says we have three lines drawing to an intersection: israeli self preservation and iranian desire for power and american foreign policy/energy policy. what happens at that intersection...who really knows.

http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=....

http://www.alef.ir/vdcepw8zwjh8ewi.b9bj.....

bob

Iranian Parliament's Website: Attack Israel this Year

Majlis says area between Lod and Jerusalem, Tel Nof Air Base should be targeted.

Iranian blog: 9 minutes are enough to finish Israel.

By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 2/5/2012, 6:56 PM

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/N....

The Iranian parliament's official website has published an article calling on the government to attack Israel before the end of the year.

According to Israeli TV Channel 2's veteran Middle East expert, Ehud Yaari, the article cites three reasons for the call.

First – a religious fatwa allowing such a strike. Second – threats from Israel regarding a planned strike on Iran. And third – Iran's alleged military capability to carry out such an attack.

The article specifies that the area between Lod and Jerusalem should be targeted, as well as Tel Nof Air Force Base.

The article seems to be part of a recent trend in Iran to step up the rhetoric regarding a possible attack on Israel. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Friday that Israel is a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut.”

“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hizbullah against Israel in 2006, and in the 22-day war” between Hamas and Israel in Gaza, Khamenei was quoted as saying.

He added, “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.”

On Saturday, press outlets in Iran also widely quoted a blog post by Alireza Forghani, a computer engineer, who called upon Tehran to "wipe out Israel" by 2014.

Forghani called on his leaders to target Israeli sites using land-to-land missiles. Ballistic Sijil missiles should be launched at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, he suggested, as well as power stations and other vital infrastructure. Then, Shahab 3 and Ghader missiles should target the rest of Israel's population centers. Nine minutes would suffice for "total annihilation," he predicted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/0....

Executive Order to freeze Iran's assets in the US.

For all the talk, it seems they would have done this much earlier.

Return of Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine
February 4, 2012

Exclusive: Just as happened before the Iraq War, those who want to bomb Iran are scaring the American people with made-up scenarios about grave dangers ahead, new warnings as ludicrous as the “mushroom cloud” tales that panicked the U.S. public a decade ago, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/04/ret....

A weak point in the psyches of many Americans is that they allow their imaginations to run wild about potential threats to their personal safety, no matter how implausible the dangers may be. Perhaps, this is a side effect from watching too many scary movies and violent TV shows.

But this vulnerability also may explain why the current war hysteria against Iran is reviving the sorts of fanciful threats to the United States last seen before the Iraq War. Since right-wing Israelis and their neocon allies are having trouble selling the U.S. public on a new preemptive war in the Middle East, they have again resorted to dreaming up hypothetical scenarios to scare easily frightened Americans.


Vice President Dick Cheney from a poster by Robbie Conal (robbieconal.com)
For instance, in a New York Times Magazine article on Jan. 29 by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman – which essentially laid out Israel’s case for attacking Iran – Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s vice prime minister and minister of strategic affairs, is quoted as explaining the need to make Americans very afraid of Iran. Bergman wrote:

“It is, of course, important for Ya’alon to argue that this is not just an Israeli-Iranian dispute, but a threat to America’s well-being. ‘The Iranian regime will be several times more dangerous if it has a nuclear device in its hands,’ he went on. ‘One that it could bring into the United States. It is not for nothing that it is establishing bases for itself in Latin America and creating links with drug dealers on the U.S.-Mexican border.

“‘This is happening in order to smuggle ordnance into the United States for the carrying out of terror attacks. Imagine this regime getting nuclear weapons to the U.S.-Mexico border and managing to smuggle it into Texas, for example. This is not a far-fetched scenario.’”

But it is a far-fetched scenario. Indeed, there is zero intelligence to support this fear-mongering about such an Iranian plan. That the New York Times would publish such a provocative assertion without a countervailing pushback from serious U.S. intelligence analysts represents the kind of irresponsible journalism that the Times, the Washington Post and much of the mainstream U.S. news media displayed during the run-up to war with Iraq.

The fact is that U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded – and the Israeli Mossad apparently agrees – that Iran has NOT even decided to build a nuclear bomb, let alone that it would do something as nutty as give one to people outside its direct control to attack the United States, thus guaranteeing Iran’s own annihilation. [For more on the intelligence, see Consortiumnews.com’s “US/Israel: Iran NOT Building Nukes.”]

Bergman’s article, which covers nine pages, also manages to avoid any mention of the fact that Israel has a real – and undeclared – nuclear arsenal. The Times might have regarded this as a relevant point to include both to explain why Iran might feel it needs a nuclear deterrent and to put into context the actual strategic balance in the Middle East. Instead, the Times article poses the nuclear threat to the region as emanating entirely from Iran.

In a New York Times report on Friday, Ya’alon was back again, pushing the claim that Iran had been developing an intercontinental missile that could travel 6,000 miles and strike the United States. “That’s the Great Satan,” he said, using Iran’s epithet for the United States. “It was aimed at America, not at us.”

In response to that claim, even the Times felt obliged to add some factual counterweight, noting that “the assertions went far beyond what rocket experts have established about Iran’s missile capabilities, and American officials questioned its accuracy.” There is also the point that such a hypothetical missile attack on the United States would be detected immediately and ensure a devastating counterattack on Iran.

‘One Percent Doctrine’

But it should be clear what the game is. Israeli hardliners and American neocons want a return to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s “one percent doctrine,” as described by author Ron Suskind. That is, if there is even a one percent chance that a terrorist attack might be launched against the United States, it must be treated as a certainty, thus justifying any preemptive military action that U.S. officials deem warranted.

That was the mad-hatter policy that governed the U.S. run-up to the Iraq War, when even the most dubious – and dishonest – claims by self-interested Iraqi exiles and their neocon friends were treated as requiring a bloody invasion of a country then at peace.

In those days, not only was there a flood of disinformation from outside the U.S. government, there also was a readiness inside George W. Bush’s administration to channel those exaggerations and lies into a powerful torrent of propaganda aimed at the American people, still shaken from the barbarity of the 9/11 attacks.

So, the American people heard how Iraq might dispatch small remote-controlled planes to spray the United States with chemical or biological weapons, although Iraq was on the other side of the globe. The New York Times hyped bogus claims about aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges. Other news outlets spread false stories about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger and about supposed Iraqi links to al-Qaeda terrorists.

There was a stampede of one-upsmanship in the U.S. news media as everyone competed to land the latest big scoop about Iraq’s nefarious intentions and capabilities. Even experienced journalists were sucked in . In explaining one of these misguided articles, New York Times correspondent Chris Hedges told the Columbia Journalism Review that “We tried to vet the defectors and we didn’t get anything out of Washington that said, ‘these guys are full of ****.’”

Based in Paris, Hedges said he would get periodic calls from his editors asking that he check out defector stories originating from Ahmed Chalabi’s pro-invasion Iraqi National Congress. “I thought he was unreliable and corrupt, but just because someone is a sleazebag doesn’t mean he might not know something or that everything he says is wrong,” Hedges said. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Iran/Iraq ‘Defectors’ and Disinformation.”]

More Scary Talk

Even after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the eventual realization that the fear-mongering was based on falsehoods, President Bush kept up the scary talk with claims about Iraq as the “central front” in the “war on terror” and al-Qaeda building a “caliphate” stretching from Indonesia to Spain and thus threatening the United States.

Fear seemed to be the great motivator for getting the American people to line up behind actions that, on balance, often created greater dangers for the United States. Beyond the illegality and immorality of attacking other countries based on such fabrications, there was the practical issue of unintended consequences.

Which is the core logical fallacy of Cheney’s “one percent doctrine.” Overreacting to an extremely unlikely threat can create additional risks that also exceed the one percent threshold, which, in turn, require more violent responses, thus cascading outward until the country essentially destroys itself in pursuit of the illusion of perfect security.

The “one percent doctrine” is like the scene in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” as the lazy helper enchants a splintering broom to carry water for him but then cannot control the ensuing chaos of a disastrous flood.

The rational approach to national security is not running around screaming about imaginary dangers but evaluating the facts carefully and making judgments as to how the threats can be managed without making matters worse.

But Israel’s right-wing leadership and the American neocons apparently believe that the U.S. public is not inclined to rush off into another costly war if a realistic assessment prevails. Americans might be even less supportive if they understood that what Israel is actually after is a continued free hand to launch military campaigns against Palestinians in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

At more candid moments, that is what Israeli leaders actually indicate. For instance, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Bergman that the real worry was not that Iran would hurl a nuclear bomb at Israel but that a nuclear-armed Iran could offer some protection to the Palestinians and the Lebanese when Israel next decides it must inflict military punishment on them, as occurred in 2006 and 2008-2009.

“From our point of view,” Barak said, “a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations.”

But Americans are not likely to favor getting dragged into another war so Israel can freely use its extraordinary military might to pummel lightly armed Arab militants and the surrounding civilian populations. For such a cause, would Americans be happy to see gas prices spike, the fragile economic recovery falter, the federal budget deficit swell, and more American soldiers be put in harm’s way?

Almost certainly not. So, the propaganda target again must be that weak point in the American psyche, that tendency to let the imagination run wild with movie-like scenarios of danger and violence.