from the Centre for American Progress …..

‘"President Bush's tough new stance on Iran and his military buildup in the Persian Gulf recall some of the drumbeats that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003," the AP reports. "As then, the Bush administration is making allegations about Iran without providing proof. It is suggesting Iran is sending weapons to Iraq, yet offering no evidence the supplies can be traced to Tehran." Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV), the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has warned that Vice President Dick Cheney and other ideologues within the Bush administration are trying to provoke a military conflict with Iran. "I don't think that policy makers in this administration particularly understand Iran," said Rockefeller. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who came to power with an agenda to eradicate poverty and tackle unemployment, "is now facing increasingly fierce criticism for his failure to meet those promises." There has been talk of his impeachment in Iran. At the same time, he has aggressively pushed ahead Iran's nuclear program, shrugging off U.N. demands that the country halt uranium enrichment. As a result, the United Nations in December imposed sanctions on Iran. Rather than capitalize on Ahmadinejad's weak political circumstances, the Bush administration's bellicose rhetoric and repeated threats -- which Ahmadinejad is more than happy to reciprocate -- serve to perpetuate his grasp on power by providing him with Iranian popular support for his confrontation with the international community. Ali Ansari, director of the Institute of Iranian Studies at St. Andrews University in Scotland, writes, "The reality is that while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the U.S. hawks are his best friends."

Rather than pursuing a course that leads to diplomacy, the Bush administration is instead taunting Iran. In his Jan. 10 address to the nation on his new Iraq strategy, Bush included "some of his sharpest words of warning" to Iran. "I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier group to the region," he said. Referring to the deployment of the carrier USS John C. Stennis, Vice President Cheney said, "That sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat." Shortly after Bush's speech, American forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq, detaining six people, including diplomats. Ansari called the administration's actions an "extreme provocation." Just weeks later, Bush confirmed he had authorized a Pentagon program to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq. Moreover, Pentagon officials said the Air Force is preparing for an expanded role in Iraq that could include aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants. "Within the Pentagon, many active-duty officers are wary of an aggressive military response to Iran, arguing that there is no need to risk starting another war." Alarmed by rising tensions between the United States and Iran, "Iraqi government officials fear their country is in danger of being dragged into the middle of a new conflict between its two main allies."

Concern that the United States may be on a collision course with Iran is driven by knowledge that the administration has harbored designs on confronting that nation for years. In a recent interview in GQ Magazine, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) revealed that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East -- not just in Iraq -- in the fall of 2002. The White House "sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region," said Hagel. In 2003, the administration rebuffed an offer by Iran to help stabilize Iraq. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said, "We thought it was a very propitious moment to (strike the deal). But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don’t talk to evil'...reasserted itself." Former administration insider Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative proponent of the Iraq war, said recently that Bush would attack Iran before he leaves office. "If he is told, 'Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,' I have very little doubt that this president would order the necessary military action," Perle said.

In recent months, administration officials have stridently claimed that Iran is stoking the violence in Iraq. "The Iranians need to know...that the United States is not finding it acceptable and is not going to simply tolerate their activities to try and harm our forces or to destabilize Iraq," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Recently, outgoing National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told the Senate, "Iran has been emboldened in its behavior during the past couple of years and has played a more assertive role and that certainly manifests itself in Iraq, where we have increasing evidence that they have been providing lethal assistance to extremist Shia groups in that country." The administration's talk, however, has not been backed up with any evidence. Bush's national security advisers have twice "ordered a delay in publication of evidence intended to support Washington's contention that Iran supplies lethal technology and other aid to militias in Iraq." In a press briefing last Friday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said the delay was due to the fact that the intelligence on Iran had been hyped. "The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," he said. While the newly-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq states that Iran is trying to cause trouble for the United States, "is not likely to be a major driver of violence." The Los Angeles Times recently reported, "[E]vidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq's troubles is limited. ... [T]here has been little sign of more advanced weaponry crossing the border, and no Iranian agents have been found." Three U.S. officials "familiar with unpublished intel" tell Newsweek that evidence of official Iranian involvement in Iraq is "ambiguous."

Responding to the administration's provocations towards Iran, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, "The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization." Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, agreed that "the president would need authority." Encouraging more resistance to the administration's current course, "three former high-ranking U.S. military officers have called for Britain to help defuse the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, saying military action against Tehran would be a disaster for the region." A coalition of U.K. unions, faith groups, and think tanks warn in a new report that an attack on Iran could further destabilize neighboring Iraq, undermine hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and embolden hard-liners in Ahmadinejad's government. It said an attack on oil-rich Iran could also drive up fuel prices, harming economies around the world. "The possible consequences of military action could be so serious that governments have a responsibility to ensure that all diplomatic options have been exhausted," the report said. "At present, this is not the case."’