Friday July 13, 2007, may be an unfortunate day for Iran: the US Senate declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote gives President Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran.

At a time when there is posturing about foreign troop withdrawal from Iraq, the US Senators relied on unproven speculation, such as what appeared in a recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon, which relayed unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. Senator John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote. The allegation, of course, is of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq.

The amendment was the brainchild of Joe Lieberman, supported by Senators McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman. It was introduced on July 11 as a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.
Lieberman did not mince words: "The amendment states that "the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States," and demanded that the government of Iran 'take immediate action' to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran's anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

As reported previously, there is no hard evidence that Iran is involved - let alone the primary agent - within Iraq. Still, over the past six months, the American government - primarily helped by the British - has been spinning a tall tale, in which the insurgency and attacks directed against American soldiers in Iraq are portrayed as being organised by Iran - specifically the upper echelons of the Iranian government. This included a hilarious press conference, where some of this "proof" was paraded to reporters.

It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and this time, it was a New York Times article that was used as pretext for the amendment.
On July 2, 2007, the New York Times headlined: "U.S. Ties Iranians to Iraq Attack That Killed G.I.'s", arguing that evidence obtained from two Iraqi Shiite captives and a Lebanese man who has been held in one of Bush's secret prisons, proved that Iran's Qud Force are arming and training Shiite militia groups to attack American and Iraqi government forces.

As the case against Iran's involvement is largely spin over substance, it should not come as a surprise to hear some objections, such as those by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States should not be taken as an "authorization of military action". But claiming Iran is "committing acts of war" surely warrants retribution by the US? And hence his addendum that this is not be seen as an authorisation to act seems very much like an illogical condition that can be easily ignored.

This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. "Conspiracy theorists" may argue it is an ingenious plan: you invade Iraq, but have no pretext for war against its neighbour Iran. You proclaim that installing democracy in Iraq is going to be swift and easy, but instead, it becomes long and torturous. Slowly, you began to hear reports that though one should never have gone to war with Iraq, there seems to be someone out there who is intent on destabilising Iraq. Who? Iran. And hence, to stabilise Iraq, "we" wake up to the reality that we need to stabilise the Middle East region, and specifically silence Iran, a nation that has allegedly claimed Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth and which has displayed its hostile intent by kidnapping British sailors and starting a nuclear programme - which will "obviously" lead to "the bomb" in a matter of years.
In fact, despite this amendment, you might be amazed that United States is largely already at war with Iran. The US government are directing covert ops and terrorist attacks inside Iran, with the help of groups that the US government has declared terrorist renegades. It is kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq and holding them hostage. There is an armada on Iran's doorstep, put there for the express purpose of threatening Tehran with military action. The US Congress has overwhelmingly passed measures calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And now the US Senate has unanimously declared that Iran is waging war on America, and has given official notice that this will not be tolerated. It is only a very small step to move from this war in all but name to the full overt military assault.

Going to war with Iran might be seen by many observers as madness. But nations can "go mad", hurtling themselves toward ruin, embracing self-destruction, lusting for violence and death, sick with nihilism - although this sickness is always painted in the colours of patriotic fervour or religious zeal, or both...
Now draw these dangerous streams together, and you have a portrait of the blunt and brutal group-mind at work in the leadership of the world's most powerful nation. The folly, fantasy and death-fetish of the Bush Regime were "revealed" in the mainstream media by the quasi-official Establishment oracle, Bob Woodward. His latest insider portrait, "Plan of Attack", offers a few tastes of the bitter truth behind the Regime's mad, ruinous war crime in Iraq.
The corrosive nihilism at the heart of the enterprise ate through the gaudily-painted surface most tellingly in a single anecdote. Woodward asked George W. Bush how he thinks history will regard his adventure in Iraq. Bush, gazing out the window, shrugs and waves the question away. "History, we don't know," he says. "We'll all be dead."
It also came at a time when the media revealed that the US Surgeon general was "gagged by the White House". The British "The Independent" reported on July 12, 2007: "When Dr. [Richard] Carmona [the former surgeon general] tried to address the subject of embryonic stem-cell research, deeply controversial among the religious right, he said he was 'told to stand down and not speak about it'." He added: "Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect." It sums up a White House that is manned by religious zealots, who ignore science and the political realities of the world, trying to impose a "new world order".

Some have highlighted that war with Iran is unlikely, because the US does not have sufficient troops, as well as Bush being in his final 18 months as US president. But "conspiracy theorists" picked up rumours from the White House that Bush said that he would create a situation in which whoever came to the White House after him, would have no choice but to continue - he (or she) would have his back against the wall. But it may come as a surprise that all of the Senate's Democratic candidates for president voted for Lieberman's Iran War amendment: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Joe Biden - suggesting they are not totally against a new war, as the voters may feel. Worse: it seems the course is set, and an important step taken.