neo-con plans

That's surely the question uppermost in the minds of Bush administration neocons as they seek to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat following Israel's costly and unsuccessful effort to destroy Hizbollah. Urged on by the Bush administration (while condemned by the rest of the world), Israel undertook its invasion not for the reason advertised (in response to recent Hizbollah attacks) but to deprive Tehran from using the Shiite militia in retaliation for the long-planned attack on Iran.

If the Lebanese fighters can be driven from the border area back behind the Litani River, they will be unable to launch missile attacks such as the 3800 provoked by Israeli's most recent invasion.

U.S. public opinion will more likely accept an attack on Iran if it can be sold as part of the "War on Terror." Bush has already depicted Israel's attack on Lebanon as part of that war, and the U.S. corporate media has dutifully portrayed the recent fighting as between Israel acting in self-defense and a "terrorist Hizbollah" acting as a proxy for Iran, the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism."

Perhaps a third of the nation is inclined to accept an attack on Iran and the apocalyptic scenario to follow as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy---hence welcome in preparing the way for the Lord.

Even if Iraq's a disaster, Afghanistan a growing problem, and the president widely perceived as stupid and dishonest, the neocon-driven administration just might get what it wants---its new Israel-centered U.S.-occupied creatively chaotic Greater Middle East---by the end of the president's second term.