Not that this will stop them

The outcry against an invasion of Iran is picking up both volume and speed, though it's heartening to note that this time the conventional media are not so quick to pick up the Bush Administration's drumbeat to war:

Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.

The acknowledgment comes amid shifting administration messages on Iran. After several weeks of saber rattling that included a stiff warning by President Bush and the dispatch of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf, near Iran, the administration has insisted in recent days that it does not want to escalate tensions or to invade Iran.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.

"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.

Earlier this week, U.S. officials acknowledged that they were uncertain about the strength of their evidence and were reluctant to issue potentially questionable data in the wake of the intelligence failures and erroneous assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, retired generals are speaking out as well:

Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran.
They said such action would have "disastrous consequences" for security in the Middle East and also for coalition forces in Iraq.

They said the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme must be resolved through diplomacy, urging Washington to start direct talks with Iran.

The letter was published in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper.

It was signed by:

Lt Gen Robert Gard, a former military assistant to the US defence secretary

Gen Joseph Hoar, a former commander-in-chief, US Central Command

Vice Adm Jack Shanahan, a former director of the Center for Defense Information
"As former US military leaders, we strongly caution against the use of military force against Iran," the authors said.

No one should be fooled by half-hearted assertions by the Bush Administration that it wants to avoid war. As Digby notes, Robert Gates' assertion that we are not about to go to war with Iran strongly echoes Donald Rumsfeld's similar assertion in 2002 -- and we know how THAT turned out.

Blue Wind noted correctly in the comments that John Edwards has been far too willing to indulge in saber-rattling in Iran during his recent trip to Israel. We all know how willing Hillary Clinton is to prove that she has testicles by shooting off at the mouth as well. It's important that whoever is the Democratic nominee in 2008 understands what a dangerous game this is, and pandering to the Zionist leanings of certain American Jewish voters ought to take a back seat to, oh, say, the safety and future of the entire world. I'm not one of the bloggers who sees AIPAC conspiracies everywhere, but anyone who actually believes that a spreading war in the Middle East somehow "protects" Israel is delusional. And saber-rattling at Iran is such a dangerous game, it seems the height of irresponsibility to pander to the emotions of American Jews for votes by going along with an insane Bush policy.

There's also the issue that no one wants to talk about: just how much of our foreign policy should be devoted to the protection of Israel? I've been appalled at the bile and spew I've seen from some corners about AIPAC conspiracies everywhere. The irony is that a war with Iran will be perceived as being driven by the interests of a country that was carved out in the Middle East after WWII to assuage the guilt of western nations that allowed Hitler to carry out his Jewish genocide -- and will therefore exacerbate the very anti-Jewish sentiment that the creation of the state of Israel was designed to address. To many Jews, Israel is necessary because when all the anti-Semitism that still lurks under the surface bubbles to the top, they will at least have someplace to go.

When I've asked the vocal AIPAC ranters if they think Israel should be dismantled, the land returned to the Palestinians, and all the Jews banished into a disapora, they almost never say "Yes". This indicates a certain shallowness of intellectual argument in which it's easier to just keep railing against Israel than to face the issue of what our responsibility is given that Israel is there, we helped put it there, and to what extent we are responsible that country's safety -- especially when that safety is not only illusory, but also may threaten the rest of the world.