Is the Long-mooted Iran Attack Imminent?

The picture at the side is, of course, Bridget Riley's Fission, which is at MoMA in New York. I want to acknowledge the Wallyg photostream site for it

During La Reentree, especially I suppose in the heated atmosphere of an election year, we should be careful of suggestions that the US is about to attack Iran. These have been rumours that have heralded the end of many a summer, and they seem to vanish in the breezes and cold that September brings in.

Yet tonight, a vast armada is in place in the gulf, and in the Black Sea, and near the Straits of Hormuz. Over the past few weeks, credible reports have suggested that Kuwait has activated contingency plans in preparation for an attack. Israel has prepared for the failure of Iranian negotiations. Tonight, British newspapers are reporting that Dutch intelligence agents have been withdrawn from Iran because of an 'imminent' American attack.

I also note that the US Strategic oil reserve seems to be very near capacity, and that it is being augmented every day. Currently, it holds around 700 million barrels of oil. The US Department of Energy points to a long term Bush Administration plan to increase it to 1.5 billion barrels. This is presumably why it is growing at a time of historically high oil prices. I hope that the alternative explanation--that the US is preparing itself for a war--is untrue.

The blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, which I first came across a few weeks ago, also seems to think that an Iran war is in the air. I may have misinterpreted a very 'fact- and link- dense site' there, by the way. Certainly, those who think that President Bush has recently, quietly, sought to put the United States on an unending state of war have more ammunition tonight.

Frankly, I think that a Persian war would be lunacy. I deplore the Iranian regime, and its hatreds and prejudices, but there are some cultures it is a very very bad idea to attack. That of Russia, in whatever guise, is one; China is another. Amongst the precious few lessons of history, picking fights with those peoples is folly. Iran is fighting double digit inflation and its ayatollahs and elected leaders are circling each other at the moment; do we need to give them something to rally around, or should we find subtle ways to avoid killing people ourselves?

I also think that the government of Iran is the effective owner, or holds controlling interests, in a slew of terrorist and radical movements outside of its borders which they would not hesitate to unleash on NATO countries. I note that Russia is also feeling isolated and angry with the west at the moment.

Even though one would think that Russia has no more interest in an emboldened Islamic Iranian Republic than anyone, Putin--a sort of modern Bismarck--seems to be playing with fire. He is more than mooting an offer of missiles to Iran. These would complement its Chinese weapons, which are already in place.

Most of all, it is folly to think that our leaders can proceed by putting near-molten pieces of metal at supersonic speeds through other people and buildings without some retribution. Even if you think that the West is decadent, that it is in the grip of a moral crisis born from a mixture of materialism and narcissistic disorder, and hardened by a fascism of mediocrity, surely you do not think that bombing Persians is going to change anything for the better?

To paraphrase Jefferson, 'I tremble for my culture when I reflect that God is just'. Our leaders in the political-media class seem to think that all we have to do is insult the powers of this earth by suggesting that they negotiate with the likes of David Milliband or Sarah Palin in the future, and that they heed them now.

When did we become so contemptuous? These two people alone are inadequate jokes whose heads would be thrown from departing limousines by the people we talk down to if they had their way.

Those Donegal mountains in my mind are looking very appealing tonight. In lieu, here's Jimmy Durante's September Song.