I've posted before about the confluence of events that all point to the U.S. trying to gather international support to "shut down" Iran.  Now they're pressuring the EU to close down two Iranian banks they claim are funding terrorists.  

As I see it, the NIE that declared Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2002 only delayed but didn't stop the Bush/Cheney military motives to "disable" Iran.  
Nor did the incident in the Strait of Hormuz where it was alleged an Iranian speedboat threatened to blow up a U.S. naval destroyer in the strait.  After some very irresponsible reporting by the NYT, thousands of reader comments doubted the assertion.  Long story short, the story from our own military wasn't true.  

On Sunday, the day Iran opened its first Oil burse, (one that doesn't plan to trade oil for dollars, but rather, euros)a report was released by the U.S. military and was carried on practically every newswire:  It alleged that weapons caches in Iraq appear to have growing links to Iran.  
In addition, there are reports that five undersea cables used for electronic communications into and out of Iran have been cut over the last month or so.  The cover story seems to be that these are random and coincidental occurrences.

And yesterday, it was reported, once again, that certain Iranian leaders advocate the complete destruction of Israel. 

On occasion, timing really is everything.  Patterns emerge. 
But let me be clear.
 I don't underestimate the dangers that Iran could pose.  And I don't know enough to declare that all actions taken against Iran by the U.S. are unwarranted.  In fact, many are.  

But I do know this;  I can't trust Bush/Cheney.  Too incompetent.  
With regard to Iraq, they didn't even do the wrong things right. 

 I also know I run the risk of being labelled a "supporter of terrorists" simply by raising questions about what kind of treatment Iran does or doesn't deserve. In the same way that Americans opposed to the war have been called "unpatriotic".

But let's not forget the fact that the U.S. overthrew the first democratically elected government in Iran.   We installed the Shah.  Let's also not forget that it was the U.S. that was responsible for the birth of nuclear power in Iran.   We helped build their program.  In fact, we encouraged them to build 23 nuclear facilities.  

It's hard to insist that we can't allow Iran to have the "knowledge that could lead to the building of a nuclear weapon",  when in fact,  we're responsible for giving it to them.  (at least, the beginnings of a program.)

There is a great deal of hypocrisy here, no doubt. 

Now how does this relate to the 2008 presidential election?
There are two mentalities "running for office".  One looks at the world in the eyes of a 20th century military superpower, bent on complete dominance.  An outdated, self-perpetuating idea that the United States is THE greatest country in all the world.  Period.  And no one will take that away.  

The other mentality has a more forward-thinking guiding philosophy: We are a great country among many great countries.  The days of playing king of the hill are over.  Yes, there are dangers in the world and we have every right to defend ourselves.  
But the future belongs to those countries that work multi-laterally, buying and selling goods, mutually beneficial relationships.  The future belongs to those countries that allow science and innovation to flourish.   
And most importantly, the future belongs to those countries that allow and enable their own citizens to flourish.  
Only wars that are absolutely necessary should be waged.
The world is bigger than fear.  
Which candidate understands that fighting terrorists is not a good enough reason for America to exist?