The New Nation - Internet Edition

IT is now speculated credibly that the US plan to attack Iran may be implemented within Bush's tenure. President Bush recently alleged Iran's provision of weapons to Iraqi insurgents that "kill American soldiers". Recently, one research at AIPAC's (American-Israel Public Relations Committee) web site suggested that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are training terrorists, from "Afghanistan to Gaza" including Iraq. Within days, based on that report, Bush also labelled Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. This is the first time that a "state actor" of a sovereign country was branded "terrorists" by the US. This statement can mean many things including a possible attack on Iran.

Along with the AIPAC's "research", if we evaluate Israeli Military Intelligence chief General Amos Yadlin's statement presented to the Israeli cabinet that "Israel faces five adversaries in what could result in an " imminent confrontation". Iran was on the top of the list along with Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda. US naval exercises in the Gulf were the early steps of the possible attack, in which two US Naval striker groups, USS Enterprise and USS Iwo Jima, participated, both of the striker groups are assigned on America's "war on terror". These exercises were so close to the Iranian coastline that "Time" reported one could partly see them standing on the coast. The recent US arms package to the Middle Eastern countries and Israel is clearly formulated out of Iranian "threat".

Back in 2005, when Hirsh's report suggested possible US attacks, many analysts and commentators ruled it out giving a few reasons such as Iraq's already a disaster and the US cannot afford another venture. But if one analyses why Bush may be prompted to attack Iran one might feel that Bush will not reserve his "problems" for the next administration to resolve. The Bush doctrine has neo- conservative ideology and Bush would want to make sure that it is continued and transferred to the next administration. Attacks on Iran will undoubtedly provoke a chain of reactions in the region, but the next administration won't have any choice.

AIPAC is also important for both Republicans and Democrats for the coming US elections. An attack on Iran will win AIPAC's much needed support for Republicans. Israel is growing impatient and after its "defeat" at the hands of Iran-backed Hezbollah is looking to make it "square". It would really want to decrease Iranian nuclear capabilities for its own "security and survival" (General Yadlin's statement is a clear example) after the "failure of UN sanctions over Iran". Again, Bush has numerously stated that the war on terror is a "long war" and he would want to make sure that the next administration keeps it this way. Attacks on Iran will be another phase of the war on terror, and since Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan are considered the new "frontline on terrorism".