US vs. Iran: Is an attack inevitable?

...the order

they push up against the ecological limits that will, in the end, rein in any of earth's surviving "empires..."

the bargaining table, there will be be no attack. And the bargaining table's not such a bad place to be, given the more explosive options.

and their financial backers but, otherwise, correct. And the key to their schedule is this: How much oil remains in Saudi Arabia.

These people have got to be removed from office, and before January 2009.

The neocons, lacking patience, should have only waited and bided their time. When oil runs out, after 2031, then all parties in the Gulf region will have to resort to Plan B.

See Plan B 2.0

Please read
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch1_ss3.htm

So, as much as being a 'declining empire', the US can lead the way into Plan B, also known by the plan expoused by Amory Lovins in Winning The Oil Endgame

www.oilendgame.com

and the writings of Richard Heinberg, Powerdown, etc.

.. if this is true, it certainly lends credence to the notion that the decision to attack Iran has been thoroughly gamed and is more than just an option on the table.

The Hezbollah rockets were always a counterweight for Iran against attack. If Iran was attacked, nothing could stop the thousand rocket attack upon Israel. So when Israel entered Lebanon to wipe out the Hezbollah rockets, you can imagine they had planned it in advance with the US and UK. And had Israel been successful, Iran would have been more exposed to attack without that counterweight to deter an attack.

Today, Israel's top brass are split as to whether an air campaign can knock out the so-called nuclear sites given the ineffectiveness of same against the Hezbollah positions. Our Pentagon Officers obviously have studied this, and to push forward with an attack on Iran would have to come from the Office of the Vice President, Cheney, not based on real intelligence, but once again on lies to start yet another armed conflict.

No way a sane person looks at the size for Iran and decides they can invade and conquer that country!! No way!! But then again, we are not dealing with sane people any more!!

And people that know more about it will be able to say other companies that are also counting on it. Plus they already defied America and said they were going to have enriched uranium even though we said they couldn't and I think they changed their oil over to Euros or something else we said for them not to do and if countries that disobey us don't get bombed and occupied then other countries might think they don't have to either and that could also hurt the economy.

Not the regular people economy exactly, or I mean it wouldn't so much if we had a regular people economy, but it would hurt the economy of the big companies. Because you can laugh but it wasn't until like a year and a half ago that I had ever even thought about every time we bomb it is good for the bomb companies and also the ones that make the planes for bombing etc, and then there are all these other companies that make other kinds of weapons that we use for occupations and clampdowns and interrogations etc and those companies also want to make money, and we have had these changes in our economy so that those companies are pretty much it anymore, plus the oil companies also make money which is why we are doing so many military occupations in countries that have oil, plus some of the weapons also use oil, or some kind of related oil products or something so they have it all fixed.

The problem is that we don't really know what Iran has or doesn't have even though if you read about it you will find out that we have been doing secret operations there since like the 1950s at least because then there was this time when they were going to have a democracy but it was not going to be pro-Western enough to be good for the English companies that also make money there, so we put the shah and then we did some other stuff that is a touchy subject and there were some controversial problems that you can google and read about if you want to, and even today there are some things about the guy with that really long name that I can't ever remember how to spell right that make you go hmm.

But anyway, yes we are going to invade them and we might have already sort of started it but in the secret way like we did when we told the Kurds they could have a country if they would help us liberate Iraq and we are still telling them that even though we are not going to let them and some of them know it and that is causing some problems but others of them still believe us and it might even be them helping with the secret operations in Iran now, we don't know all the secret plans yet, or if maybe Israel occupying Lebanon might be part of the secret plans for Iran or whether it was for water and natural expanision of settlements or religious beliefs. So we just have to guess about all that for now.

OK I am editing to say that I left out that even though we have been doing the secret operations etc there that they are not always very reliable so we still don't know what they have, because Iran is really big, and they also have a very complicated situation there, and part of it at least is because of us but part of it is also because not everybody in Iran agrees about things, for instance the people in the country might say they liked the revolution because they got food and schools etc and brought good changes to their lifestyle and their culture wasn't really affected, but then you might talk to somebody in Teheran and they will say oh the revolution was just awful you know they said this or that was just to be revolutionary but then they said another thing later and so now we can't do this or that.

It is kind of like Afghanistan, you know you read about it and you find out that there are people in the country there that have a way different point of view than the people in the big cities.

The military is so bogged down in Iraq that it doesn't seem likely.

is not to conquer Iran but to knock it back 20 years, just like they did with Iraq. Instability helps B*sh's buddies as it keeps the oil price high, and destruction ensures something for Halliburton to rebuild (or at least embezzle the reconstruction funds).

American military lives are considered "fungible" and muslim lives as "collateral". As for their opinion on American civilian lives, I refer you to B*sh's (in)actions during 9/11 and Katrina.

The neocons are not normal human beings.

Just like bin Laden, the neocons telegraph their plans years in advance.

And they never budge from their path.

that doesn't want that war, doesn't want escalation of M.E. conflicts.
Those people to (like the neocons) do have a lot of influence on the course of global affairs.

than its current foreign policy is best. So, most likely, but not inevitable. This current approach of moving from a virtual empire left over from WW II and the Marshall plan to a conquer classical model of empire will fail. The more the politicans realize this will hasten problems and hasten decline of US influence, the better and they can seek intelligent directions to maintain US strength through co-operation.

Not so sure about that. Bushco's insanity is gonna destroy this country.