it's interesting to watch the administration try to hype the threat of iran, even in the fact of very little actual evidence. it's interesting because the administration's playbook seems to be identical to the one they used in 2002-2003. all they've done is scratched off the "q" and replaced it with an "n".
it's also interesting because there are three major differences between the pre-iraq war hype and the pre-iran war hype we're seeing now. first, is that we simply don't have the logistical abilities to do an all-out war on iran. that means that aside from fantasists, the only real military options are limited to air strikes and missile attacks. it also means that all the lofty goals touted by the pro-iran war people (overthrowing the ayatollahs, ending iran's nuclear program, getting a more pro-american/pro-israeli government there, ending its support of terrorsts) have a chance of success that approaches zero. you simply can't change a government or its policies by bombing them. once upon a time conservatives said things like that (back when they were criticizing clinton's iraq policies), but these days people like bill kristol and michael ledeen are true believers in the transformative power of blowing stuff up.
the second big change is that we all remember what happened and is still happening in the iraq war. and so our compliant press (that did quite a lot to hype the iraq threat last time around) is being slightly less compliant when it comes to iran. articles like this one didn't tend to get published in early 2003. it's nice when the occasional reporter actually does investigate whether what the administration says is total bullshit. it still doesn't happen as often as it should, but this still is an important difference.
and finally, unlike in 2002, there is actually a viable opposition in congress now. i don't think that congress will be able to cut off funding and force a withdrawal from iraq; it's just to politically perilous for anyone to de-fund soldiers in the field. but it's fairly easy to remove funding from an operation that hasn't happened yet. and unlike in the easy passage of the AUMF in 2002, an analogous resolution for iran probably would not pass.
anyway, most of you have probably guessed that i have a personal reason checking the direction of the political winds on this issue. right now i'm fairly optimistic that the u.s. won't attack iran this year.
