By Scott Ritter
"There is increasing discussion and speculation about the possibility of an American military strike against Iran prior to President Bush leaving office. The justification for such an attack is derived from Iran's continued refusal to adhere to Security Council demands that it suspend its enrichment of uranium (a program Iran contends is exclusively for peaceful energy purposes) and Bush administration assertions that Iran operates as a state sponsor of terror. While Iran denies any wrongdoing on its part, the Bush administration has successfully positioned itself, both domestically and internationally, so that it is Iran which must demonstrate its innocence of the charges made against it, as opposed to America proving its guilt.
There are those who say that such observations are moot. The Bush administration may want to act against Iran, this thinking goes, but is unable to do so due to an overstretched military strained by open-ended conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and a worsening economic situation at home brought on, in part, by soaring oil prices, and as such any military attack on Iran would be an act of madness. Such reasoning may not be enough to give pause to those within the Bush administration who cling to an ideology which links the national security of the United States to a transformed Middle East, one where regimes such as the theocracy in Tehran must be eliminated if there is to be any hope of long-term peace and stability. For these true believers, it is not action against Iran which would constitute an act of madness, but rather any failure to act........"