Wigmar1 added a #11 to the list:

The US or Israel (with or without US knowledge) sets off a very-low-yield nuke in a remote valley along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The story would be that the terrorists got hold of one and "didn't know how to handle it." The device could be custom-built or modified to leave radiological traces consistent with whatever story is desired-- "It is a (stolen from Russia) (bought from North Korea) (Pakistani) (Homebuilt) nuke, and now we know the terrorists have access to nukes."

Americans shit their pants and get behind their Commander-in-Chief; the Western World sees Islam as a much greater threat and does the same; the US goes to a full war footing; Iran and mebbe Venezuela gets attacked immediately; the draft is restarted; oil goes to $100; and the Republicans dare us to vote them out in 2008, if there is an election at all.

My God, don't give them the idea... 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Two years ago Bush was chortling about "political capital," Juan Williams was calling Bush "One of the most successful politicians in history" or something like that, people were talking about a "permanent Republican majority," and the media treated Dems like the punchline to a never-ending joke (Ok, some things don't change).

The plain fact, and it's one people don't like to acknowledge even to themselves, is that the world is one seemingly random event or two away from radical changes. The events seldom happen, but they are out there waiting. Without 9/11 Bush could easily have been a one term (an un-earned term at that) president, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq and certainly wouldn't be in Afghanistan, and Dems would probably be sitting on a narrow majority in the Senate and a minority in the House. A flap of the butterfly's wings.

Yeah, I'm really nervous about the sorts of false-flag operations you all are suggesting in regard to Iran. It's a lot like the USS Maine, which if anything was probably blown up deliberately by US forces to foment the Spanish-American War. Or maybe the Lusitania, which was carrying arms but on which the British deliberately put British and American passengers (who themselves didn't know they were being set up by their own government).

I can see the scenario now: the United States or some combination of the USA, Britain, Israel, Australia and maybe some chump-change but eager-to-please collaborator in the Iraq War (former-Soviet Georgia for example) could be encouraged, in a "special mission," to stage a particularly nasty attack on the Green Zone, or to fire missiles/mortars at American ships in the Persian Gulf that either 1. severely damage a US aircraft carrier and kill dozens/hundreds of US sailors or 2. demolish and sink one or more US ships outright.

Even scarier would be 3. an outright, horrible terrorist attack on US/British/Australian soil, again either a flat-out false flag operation or one indeed carried by al-Qaeda, but *allowed to happen* by the US. (This IMHO has a very high probability. The scenario here would be diligent CIA or FBI officers who figure out and attempt to foil a terrorist plot on US soil, but they themselves are hindered and frustrated by higher-up US officials who actually want the terrorist plot to succeed-- as a way to abet war against Iran.)

Whatever the specifics, the Iran war hawks probably figure that the Americans would be made angry enough so as to allow a small and temporary, but valuable window of opportunity to support an attack on Iran. Once that happens, anyone who denounces the march to war would be attacked as "traitor" or "collaborator." Just like Goering said-- it works the same in a democracy as in a dictatorship.

This is already occurring to a significant extent. After all, the Republicans are claiming that Iranian agents are constantly killing and wounding hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. If so, this would probably constitute an overt act of war against the United States and American citizens, i.e. the ready-made casus belli for an attack on Iran.

IOW, my grim conclusion-- it's almost a certainty that war with Iran is coming, and it's coming soon.

Or, in still other words: If you don't know a foreign language-- especially an economically useful one in a highly developed country like French, German or Spanish-- then by all means, get some tapes and learn it now. Then find a nice plot of land somewhere in Europe to get set up and earn a nice salary in Euros.

Cuz those Euros will be your ticket to survival in about 5 years.

"Election dynamics"? These all to possible dynamics could alter things globally.

Cuba's the least of our problems. Stuck in the 50's, Cuba is the jewel of the Carribean with the best health care and highly educated population of hard working people ready join the 21st Century. The main issue here is gaming oligarchs, because once the curtain draws on the Castro's(Fidel & Raul), Vegas is in trouble.

America has two aircraft carriers and support in the gulf. Once the Nimitz move out of San Diego, the real show begins and the mind sweepers be the first Iranian targets, because Iran can shut off the oil flow from the gulf of Hurmoz in a matter of days and then, - the entire world is touched in major ways economically and stragically. Of course the west and America will win the day in the end, but the terrible unknown unknown costs will be crippling for everyone globally, and that's just in terms of oil supply.

The fascist Bush government puppet Maliki is already toast. It is only the fascist in the Bush government who hold the dim hope that Iraq will not divide into at least two, probably three autonomous and wildly conficting regions. Iranian backed Shi'a will dominate southern Iraq and the oil reserves and ports, Kurds the north and the pipeline feeding Europe, and the Sunni's in the central devoid of any share in the oil revenues will do every thing in their power to disrupt both regions. Again, it's all about the oil, and oil affects everyone globally.

Lastly and most alarming, China sitz on more than a trillion dollars in US treasuries backed by the good faith of the government. The House of Saud owns close to another trillion dollars in treasuries. The fascist Bush government has financed their machinations on borrowed money from primarily these two emerging, not too friendly powers. The nanosecond either government moves significant holdings out of dollars, and into any other denominations - America is toast. Interest rates through the rough, massive tax increases, and depression like constriction of the US economy to meet the debt demands. America is teetering on the economic precipice, that could radically injure America and send economic shock waves through the global economy. This little dark secret is the primary concern of markets far and wide who are hording wealth and hedging bets that wiser minds prevail in America, and some sort of sanity and equalibrium returns to the global economies. The downside is inponderable disruption in the worlds financial markets the ensuing realignment of forces globally - and well - it won't be pretty...or bloodless.

America either removes the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government and restores some sanity to settle the worlds boiling waters, - or the armegeddon all the religious prophets have warned us about for centuries may be closer than we think.

"Deliver us from evil!"

Tony F. has a good point, basically that not much is new, so these are already the dynamics. How about one much less likely:

13. Clinton and Giuliani misplace their scripts and have to say something. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

this sounds too racist to me so I rated it marginal. for all I know, the US killed their own just to sell the notion that the Iraqis are more violent than the US is... in order to justify a bloody surge.

Bush still may be the most successful ever... culture in the US is changing more than I can ever remember: public school policy is changing; FEMA policy is changing; police/military cooperation is changing; we now have a Canada/US/Mexico security partnership.

Bush is providing the necessary smoke screen and he's probably more than happy to be the straw man and/or lightning rod so his policies stick.

I'm concerned about this, too. But remember the old joke: "Just because I'm paranoid doens't mean they're really NOT out to get me!"

Let's not be so naive as to assume that some in the Iranian power structure are not less crazy as our guy. (Damn. Double-negatives are a bitch, aren't they?)In other words, there are those in Iran who have as much to gain by continued turmoil in Iraq as does Bush, and who have a similar apocolyptic vision of the clash of civilizations as does he. They and he have a common interest in provoking increased hostilities between our two nations, as it would fulfill their vision of the end of days.

The question is, how do we protect our legitimate interests -- our troops' lives, for instance -- without getting sucked into this Alice in Wonderland world the crazies in our respective government are trying to gin up?

thanks for making me laugh! this also means that my anxiety about history repeating itself is unfounded and I should start believing that history doesn't repeat itself.

J. McCutchen

Doubt Cast on Dire Scenarios

The case for adding troops in Iraq -- and keeping them there -- rests on one basic assumption: As bad as things are now, they would become catastrophic if the United States leaves.
President Bush in his State of the Union address Tuesday warned that an early U.S. exit would create "a nightmare scenario" for America...."It's remarkable how little time people have spent examining the assumptions," said Kurt Campbell, a former national security official in the Clinton administration, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Indeed. Most people, perhaps, but by no means everyone. Bush fearmongered his way in and - surprise surprise! - he's fearmongering a way to stay.

- "When you sit down and scrub that carefully, it's not a certainty by any means," said Bruce Riedel, a former Bush national security official now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Take Iran. "Iran has very close ties to every single Shia and Kurdish politician, militia and political group in Iraq," Riedel said. "They're already in there. They have a huge intelligence presence inside of Iraq. It's hard for me to see why, after we left, they would need to put in ground troops. They've already got their influence there, and their side of the civil war, the Shia, is likely to prevail in the long run."

It would be good to point out what hints of "apocalyptic" lunacy we should have detected in recent Iranian behavior. Care to indicate? On the most serious bone of contention with the "West" -- the prospect of a nuclear arms race -- the Iranian leadership is acting as rationally as any actor in a game-theoretical model. We have pointed to Iran as one of our prime targets (the "axis of evil" speech); we show no effective restraints, moral or otherwise, against wanton killing of non-Americans; our current leadership has a demonstrated inability to grasp what it is in our best strategic interest and seems guided by their own fabrications about "undoing the 60s" and such. This inept, though extremely powerful country -- us -- has invaded next door, and is yet to get a full hold of a particular reason why. And last but not least, as a matter of policy we are now fomenting provocations and incidents with Iranian "agents."

Under these conditions, Iranians would have to be delusional fools not to be at least considering the option of serious rearmament. Additionally, it appears that their one representative fool, Ahmadinejad, is actually not particularly beloved by the clerics. Somehow this reborn Hitler can't even get his own local candidates elected to office. Meanwhile, we now know that the Iranians have sought "comprehensive" negotiations with our country since before we became mired in Iraq. They have provided tacit but key support to our Afghanistan operations, and they are one of the natural antibodies, in the Islamic world, to the Wahabi jihadism.

You don't have to like Iran, or to wish to accommodate its moves for hegemony. But could you tell me what signs of "apocalyptic" dementia you see in their actions, as opposed to, say, in the average Cheney interview?

When ever the wingnutsia accuse democrats of flip floppinig, every voice on the leftshould and must retort (after peels of uproarious mocking laugher) with some commentary pointing out the Bush governments flip, flop, fliping in regard to Amed Chalabi.

This perception management disinformation warrior, convicted swindler, pathological liar, and narcissistic self absorbed Bush government parrot, went from the heroe's gallery in the first SOTU, to having his office raided and an arrest warrant issued for selling secret codes to the Iranians, to somehow reanimating in the Bush government good graces, as head of Iraq's oil ministry.

The hypocrisy would be terrifying were it not so hilarious.

With apocalyptic views of Armageddon, it does make me nervous to see reports of Israel upgrading the airport at Megiddo.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power — Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington and John Kerry — love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously.

It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either.

It is as easy to imagine Americans voting for someone like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice for president as it is difficult to imagine them voting for someone like Hillary. (Or Kevin Federline.)

I agree, KJ. "Cheap paths to power?" Nancy Pelosi and Arianna Huffington both worked personally very hard to get where they are, and owe their success to their intelligence and abilities. Yes, they married well (from a financial point of view) but there are plenty of women who married wealthy men and do nothing to distinguish themselves (Laura and Barbara Bush come to mind).

"Cheap paths to power?" Well let's be sure and include George and Jeb Bush, Ronald Reagan, who either were born into, or acted their way into jobs that they were hopelessly underqualified for.

Jan Knaus

The most urgent question surrounding Hillary's candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho thr Republicans if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts.

Sen. Jim Webb, who managed to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night without challenging the president to a fistfight (well done, Jim!), won his election last November by portraying himself as one of the new gun-totin' Democrats.

He once opposed women in the military by calling the idea "a horny woman's dream."

Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage.

He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?

My goodness, you ARE a shallow one, aren't you?

In case you didn't hear, your Swift-Boating accusations:

"Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts."

...have been proven wrong. Would you at least give him some credit since he never lied about fake WMD like someone else we all know?

I didn't think so.

I guess you also fancy yourself a mind reader:

"Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we...aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions)."
-- inside the parentheses is what he REALLY thought, huh?

"In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage."

You mean like health care, and the discrepancy between workers and CEO's? And that has to do with women voting ... how? Are you trying to say that because someone who had just come back from combat thought that women should not have to go there it must ALSO be true that he was not in favor of women's voting rights? Is that your point? Kinda lame, no?

"He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq."

Well, you've got him here, because George would never do that. It would only draw attention to his own embarrassing time in, and AWOL from "the military."

One question. Why use the word, "palavered," which would indicate a long, rambling talk -- again, Huh?

"As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war,"

Who said that? Who? Who?

"...how about telling the chick to butt out?"

Be my guest, but maybe try to do it with a little more articulate and truthful argument.

Jan Knaus

If Bill was all id, Hillary is all superego.
...and you are all WET.

You have demonstrated your inability to be taken seriously. Why don't you go sulk, or masturbate, or whatever it is you do when you're alone and no body's looking?

Any possibiility of educated discourse? Perhaps with a sense of humor?

All these sexual references are creepy...

One quote OF Hillary's which really stands out can be found on page 43 of her "Village" book, regarding her marriage to President Clinton. She wrote, "Bill and I worked hard at our marriage with a great deal of mutual respect and deepening love for each other." According to former intern Monica Lewinsky, Clinton’s relationship with her began in November of '95, just as Hillary's ghostwriter was finishing the book.

In case you think Bill only had this one "improper relationship" during the Clinton marriage, remember that he told Monica that he'd had "hundreds of affairs" since he'd been married.

If that's true, then it left Bill little time to "work hard" at anything but cheating on his wife. Hillary is either the most oblivious woman in the world, or she is lying about the state of her marriage in order to hoodwink the silly pre-feminist, non-New York Times readers to whom marriage still means something.

The next two years is going to be some of the best political circus in history.

Truly creepy sexual references deal with the reproduction of the Myxobacteria and Myxomycetes: the slime bacteria and slime molds, which are the only true moving blobs. The latter, which are now believed to be weird protozoa rather than true fungi, sometimes generate thousands on thousands of fruiting bodies, their gently waving reproductive mechanisms (the thing is more a giant cell than a colony, but not quite).

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Although I don't agree with some of your points I agree with the thrust of your case that any sane government in Iran would seek nuclear weapons in the light of the hostile US response to tacit cooperation in both Afghanistan and Iraq and refusal to acknowledge common interests against Wahabi jihadism.

The obvious conclusion would seem to be that the US does not want to acknowledge common interests with Iran against Wahabi jihadism or to acknowledge tacit cooperation with Iran and would rather prefer to be seen as being at loggerheads with Iran.

Some obvious reasons for this:

1. Iraq where such acknowledgement would only assist Baathist and jihadi propaganda mobilizing Sunnis against what they call the US-Iranian occupation.

2. Israel where such acknowledgement would only undermine efforts to persuade Israelis that the Palestinians are no longer their main enemy and peace should be made by withdrawing from the West Bank to face greater dangers from Iran.

When you see governments making great efforts to look demented, you should look for other motives. Both Iran and the US have good reasons to shout at each other a lot without actually being demented.