We’re most likely not going to have a big war – with Iran – before Bush leaves office. But it seems we may be in for a bunch of small wars, or near wars, involving Lebanon, Hezbollah, Israel, Gaza, peripherally Syria and in the background Iran, upheaval deeply threatening to a country like Jordan whose internal stability is a balancing act.

There was some mention of the USS Cole being deployed off the coast of Lebanon this week, but you can find some context here:

In reality, the Cole is a show of support to Administrations allies in Lebanon and Israel, and a warning to Syria, Iran, and the Lebanese militia Hizballah to stop meddling in Lebanon’s political crisis. It’s perhaps also a warning for Hizballah to think twice about retaliating against Israel for the assassination of its operations chief, who was killed by a bomb in Damascus earlier this month.

Even with the country busy watching the presidential nomination, I wonder how long this might stay under the radar (some are reporting the Saudi embassy in Lebanon is urging nationals to leave the country). I do imagine, however, that it could throw a monkey wrench into things come November.

Rozen’s place might be a great site to keep in your bookmarks for the next few weeks.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Interesting. More here.

The usually insightful Clay Benntt, at the Christian Science Monitor.

Josh Marshall has some incredible insights of his own, regarding Bush Co. attempts to mislead us into another war cook the intelligence again prove Iran is supplying arms to our enemies in Iraq:

Now, given the black market traffic in arms in Iraq right now, it’s not at all a stretch to believe that weapons are dispersing from Iranian proxies like SCIRI (who we’re holding up as our allies) through black market channels to Sunni insurgents who are in turn using them against US troops. Indeed, it seems like a more probable theory than the conclusion that the Iranians are acting in concert with the Sunni militants who are involved in an on-going campaign of indiscriminate slaughter of Iraqi Shi’a civilians.

So, to summarize, as Gen. Pace said, we seem to know that Iranian-made weapons are turning up in Iraq and being used against Americans.

For context, how many US-made weapons do you think are now being used against US forces. Indeed, how much US weaponry sent to Iraq specifically by the US are in turn being used by insurgents against US forces.

Please, please before we attack another country can we at least make sure (and actually be sure, not be lying about it) that the country poses a real threat?

A. Richard Norton:

Remember that in 1990–91 and then again in 2003 the very fact that the United States assembled a formidable array of forces in the Gulf region became an argument for using those forces and launching wars. The United States will soon have two carrier task forces on station, and perhaps a third carrier task force will soon be deployed. It will be difficult for the United States to step down from its combative perch without Iran accepting some fairly significant concessions.

While many leading Iranian officials fully understand the gravity of the situation, it is nonetheless possible to imagine a series of real or contrived clashes that lead, perhaps unintentionally, to a serious aerial and naval campaign against Iran. Or—to put it simply—to yet another U.S. war of choice.

Wayne White:

I am extremely wary of a military campaign against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. If military action is taken against that infrastructure, there would be nothing “surgical” about the proceedings. The airstrikes associated with contingency planning suggest that such maneuvers, in addition to hitting a number of widely dispersed atomic-development targets, would have to take out much of Iran’s air defenses in order to clear paths to the targets.

Bahman Baktiari:

As of last year, for the first time, a majority of Iraqi Shiites support armed attacks on U.S.-led forces,  and if the United States attacks Iran, Iraqi Shiite militias will direct their anger at American soldiers and military personnel. Beyond this, we need to recognize that Iran has a complex political system and a young, critical society.

You worthless passel of cowards. They’re laughing at you. You know that, right?

The national Democratic Party is no longer worth the cement needed to sink it to the bottom of the sea. For an entire week, it allowed a debate on changing the soul of the country to be conducted intramurally between the Torture Porn and Useful Idiot wings of the Republican Party, the latter best exemplified by John McCain, who keeps fashioning his apparently fathomless ambition into a pair of clown shoes with which he can do the monkey dance across the national stage. They’re laughing at him, too.

The New York Times has the right of it here, limning the pathetic gullibility at the heart of the “compromise.” There is nothing in this bill that President Thumbscrews can’t ignore. There is nothing in this bill that reins in his feckless and dangerous reinterpretation of the powers of his office. There is nothing in this bill that requires him to take it — or its congressional authors — seriously. Two weeks ago, John Yoo set down in The New York Times the precise philosophical basis on which the administration will sign this bill and then ignore it. The president will decide what a “lesser breach” of the Geneva Conventions is? How can anyone over the age of five give this president that power? And wait until you see the atrocity that I guarantee you is coming down the tracks concerning the fact that the president committed at least 40 impeachable offenses with regard to illegal wiretapping.

And the Democratic Party was nowhere in this debate. It contributed nothing. On the question of whether or not the United States will reconfigure itself as a nation which tortures its purported enemies and then grants itself absolution through adjectives — “Aggressive interrogation techniques” — the Democratic Party had…no opinion. On the issue of allowing a demonstrably incompetent president as many of the de facto powers of a despot that you could wedge into a bill without having the Constitution spontaneously combust in the Archives, well, the Democratic Party was more pissed off at Hugo Chavez.

This was as tactically idiotic as it was morally blind. On the subject of what kind of a nation we are, and to what extent we will live up to the best of our ideals, the Democratic Party was as mute and neutral as a stone. Human rights no longer have a viable political constituency in the United States of America. Be enough of a coward, though, and cable news will fit you for a toga.

However, because I know it is vital for the Democrats to “recapture” the good Christian folks, there’s a passage from Scripture that seems apropos: “When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.”

I don’t understand why Democrats don’t understand the dynamic between Bush and McCain by now. McCain will pontificate on issues and live up to the media image as “his own man,” before caving to the administration. Every single time. And whether Congress stands up to Bush or not, the president is going to do what he wants anyway, because he isn’t bound by the Constitution, only empowered by it.

But the Democrats should not have been silent on this issue. While Reid and Dubin put on their little show on the floor of the Senate, they should have been screaming that we’re debating how much torture the United States will be allowed to perform on people. Torture, which never works for obtaining information; which we have always been against; which is now more prevelant in Iraq than when Saddam was in power. Our leaders reached a compromise on torture.

How principled a nation can we be, when we allow compromise on such a concept? And how can the Democrat party stand for anything, if it won’t stand against torture?

I’m glad it’s the weekend.

As reported in an article published by The Hill, headlined, “Revolt over Wilson bill rocks panel,” a number of moderate Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are upset that Wilson has agreed to weaken their efforts to make the administration more accountable to civil and human rights standards by changing her bill to placate Bush and preserve a warrantless surveillance program with few oversight requirements.

That’s from the first post on the subject, while there’s a more national perspective here.

Bill Richardson has won international acclaim for his unique diplomatic efforts over the years.

He’s won the release of Americans held captive in the most difficult global hot spots – a U.S. pilot shot down over North Korea, three Red Cross workers held hostage in Sudan, captives in Iraq and Cuba.

A few days ago, the governor of New Mexico pulled off a similar achievement that is quite outside his job description.

Richardson negotiated the release of three people from the war-torn region of Darfur, Sudan – a Chicago Tribune journalist on assignment for The National Geographic along with his driver and interpreter.

I’ve seen Richardson’s diplomatic efforts criticized in the past, but here’s the thing: diplomacy doesn’t work at all if it isn’t tried. Of course, I’m probably an “appeaser” for advocating we sit down and talk, but, as Richardson (and others) has showed, sometimes positive things develop.

We can’t be hypocritical about foreign relations. We can’t advocate democracy as the ultimate goal for those in the Middle East and then ignore the results of democratic elections (see Hamas). We can’t urge Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites to stop killing each other opposing factions to work out their differences when we can’t be bothered to do the same with those we dislike.

Sometimes, diplomacy actually works — when it’s given a chance.

“I am very concerned about reports I have heard of fictional events inserted into ABC’s upcoming “Path to 9/11” film. As a former senior member of the Clinton Administration, I know first hand of the efforts that were made to capture and eliminate Osama bin Laden. This includes the trip I made as United Nations Ambassador in April 1998 to Kabul, Afghanistan. During this trip – the first by a U.S. cabinet official to Afghanistan since 1974 – I met with high ranking officials of the ruling Taliban regime and directly requested that bin Laden be expelled or extradited. The Taliban refused, but I know this sort of muscular diplomacy got bin Laden’s attention since he threatened to kill me.

This was only one of many, many efforts made by the Clinton Administration to combat terror at home and abroad.

On the fifth anniversary of the worst attack our nation has ever experienced, we shouldn’t be pointing political fingers; we should be recommitting ourselves to the sort of strong, bipartisan diplomatic efforts that have served our country well in the past.”

See my original post on the subject here.

All Guantánamo detainees, according to the Supreme Court, have the right to at least some access to the U.S. legal system. [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed], therefore, will pose an interesting test: Should his probable trial reflect the legal doctrine of the “fruit of the poisoned tree”–that is, will evidence obtained through torture be admissible in the military tribunals or not? McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 says “of course not!” but Bush indicated in his infamous “signing statement” that he thinks he has the right to torture whoever he pleases. Now Congress will face a very unpleasant question: Unless it rejiggers the military tribunals to bless torture/coercion, KSM and other Al Qaeda figures might in fact be set free by the courts. Is Bush so cynical as to force Congress into the odious position of either setting the stage for murderers to walk out of Gitmo or blessing torture? Of course he is! (emphasis his)

There you have it, in one paragraph. When we compromise our moral high-ground, something, somewhere has to give. Let’s review the situation:

• We capture high-ranking al Qaeda mastermind
• We torture high-ranking al Qaeda mastermind
• We transfer high-ranking al Qaeda mastermind from secret CIA prisons to Guantánamo, where he’ll likely face a trial or military tribunal
• We must now decide whether information gleaned from the torture of detainees is admissable in court/tribunals
• If not, we may be forced to set high-ranking al Qaeda mastermind free

I don’t know anyone who will be surprised that the Rome conference failed – it seems to have been designed to fail, to give the US the chance to appear to be “doing something” while giving Israel the time it wants to continue its offensive. But this policy is so transparent, such an obvious stalling mechanism, that it is probably making things even worse for the United States and for Israel: when you are faking it, you’re supposed to at least try to maintain the pretence so that others can at least pretend to believe you. The call for an immediate ceasefire has become more or less universal now, other than from the United States and Israel: even the pro-American Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which initially blamed Hezbollah for the crisis, are now loudly demanding an immediate ceasefire.

America is totally alone on this. And more than most Americans might realize, America is being blamed for Israel’s actions. The shift in Arab public discourse over the last week has been palpable. For the first few days, the split between the Saudi media and the “al-Jazeera public” which I wrote about at the time. Then for a few days, horror at the humanitarian situation, fury with the Arab states for their impotence, speculation about the endgame, and full-throated condemnation of Israeli aggression. But for the last few days, the main trend has been unmistakable: an increasing focus on the United States as the villain of the piece. (That the Israeli bombing of Beirut stopped just long enough for Condoleeza Rice’s photo op certainly didn’t help.)

digby had his own comments to add:

The situation in Lebanon requires American leadership and we have failed miserably to provide it. The various players are engaged in a struggle in which minimizing loss of life and face saving kabuki may be the best we can hope for at any given time. The megalomaniacal belief that if only the Israelis are allowed to “get tough” or the Americans “take it to the Iranians” or whatever other simplistic schoolyard impulses they have been operating under have led us to the point at which the US is taking on the character of a rogue superpower, not a global leader.

Still, Billmon is the go to guy on this stuff. As usuall, solid thoughts on what’s going on:

To me the whole thing sounds like cloud cuckoo land. It seems particularly so after today. My conversation with my friend pre-dated the strike on the UN observers, so I don’t know if it has changed anybody’s thinking. But to me it seems like such an enormous provocation that I almost have to wonder if some military crazies on the Israeli side didn’t do it on purpose — just to foreclose the possibility of anyone or anything getting in the way of a fight to the death with Hizbullah.

I know that sounds paranoid, but then this is the Middle East.

In any case, the chances of a face-saving NATO solution will go from remote to nil unless the IDF can quickly batter Hizbullah to the point where it’s willing to agree, or at least tacitly accept, the presence of foreign peacekeepers on its turf. And that’s going to require the Israeli Army to move a hell of a lot more quickly than it has up until now, and produce more tangible results than it has shown so far. It could get very bloody.

The one thing nobody — at least in my friend’s circle of sources — appears to be talking about is expanding the war to Syria and/or Iran. I don’t know if that’s because that part of the war plan is way too hush hush for my friend to have heard about, or because Syria and Iran truly aren’t in play, at least for the moment. Right now I’m not even sure the IDF could take on Hizbullah and Syria, which isn’t something I ever thought I would say. And Iran is still very big and very far away.

If all this sounds familiar — the half-baked war plan, the unexpected setbacks, the frantic search for foreign legions, the lack of an exit strategy, the rising tide of blood — it certainly should. We’ve already seen this movie, in fact we’re still sitting through the last reel. It’s a hell of a time to release the sequel.