I'm wondering if the timing isn't right for a different reason...

I've been tossing around a thought for a while now, and it's still ill-formed...but the idea is that having had a Republican congress for six years, while extremely convenient in the short-term, has been excessively costly in the long-term, because the Democrats have not had to be on board. They've been able to dodge any responsibility for Iraq, and thus are positioned dead opposite it, no matter what Bush does.

Had the Democrats controlled Congress, I think we'd probably still have gone into Iraq, and while I know they would have turned against the administration at every chance they had, they'd still be more on board with the overall concept. It took six years - six full years - for Johnny Boy Edwards to come out and say he screwed up in voting for the war. If his party had been in power instead of in opposition, I doubt he'd ever had said that...votes are powerful things, and difficult to run away from...

I'm sure there are a million counter-arguments, and they're probably right - just looking at Nixon/Ford and Reagan, the Democrats can submarine foreign policies they were integral in creating. But I do wonder...

Anyway, if there is something to that, perhaps now that the Democrats would have to step up to the plate and actually bear some responsibility for something like going after Iran, maybe this is a better time for it to start...had the Republicans still held the power to give congressional support without any Democratic support, you'd know going in that half the country would forever be against it...

Ach, I'm probably all wet...

It may have less to do with domestic politics than with foreign policy realities.

Iran has long been the primary Islamofascist villain. It's reasonable to assume - or at least I hope it's reasonable to assume - that this administration has a longer-term strategy for dealing with Iran.

Iran's economy relies almost entirely on oil exports. But their infrastructure is deteriorating and production is down. The Saudi-influenced glut has reduced oil prices, squeezing the Iranian economy. Meanwhile, Iran still imports refined oil products like gasoline, making them susceptible to blockade.

Iran's populace is young and restive. They don't like the mullahs or Ahmadinijad. Saturday mosque attendance is down drastically. When Ahmadinijad appears on campus, he has to pack his venues with paid supporters. His party suffered in the latest election. There have been assasination attempts.

For some reason, nuclear enrichment centrifuges have not been started on schedule.

Are these events happening on their own, or are they being manipulated towards a specific moment?

Things could get interesting, if we have some real Iranian smoking guns, and then Bush asks Congress to authorize a blockade....

If the US and Iran are headed towards a military confrontation, how is the administration likely to prepare for such an event?

One rumored reason the Battle of Baghdad went so quickly is that Iraqi commanders were bribed not to fight. The mullahs can rely upon their Revolutionary Guard, but can they rely upon their professional military?

This brings up a possible reason for the reluctance of Reaganites in the administration to show their cards on Iran.

Reagan's real objective in the Iran-Contra Affair was to make contact and coordinate with Iran's America-trained military elite. That's why he used intermediaries like General Secord, who knew most of them personally. The ultimate goal would have been a military coup.

At the last minute, Iranian arms dealer Manucher Gorbanifar discovered that he was a front - and thus a walking dead man - and blew the whistle loud and long. The US media did the rest.

Let's hope that history doesn't repeat.

I think President Bush really believes that with the right approach, he can get the Democratic Party in Congress to like him, or at least cooperate with him. He did it in Texas.

Sometimes a banana is just a banana. I think this is one of those times. Bush has, at best, one last chance to get things right in Iraq. There are a handful of things that have to happen if that is to be done - things that should have been done long ago. One of those is getting serious about Iranian and Syrian efforts to foment the chaos.

You can fool most of the people some of the time and I think that is exactly where we are in this country right now. Some very foolish but powerful people have succeeded in convincing the American public that our efforts in Iraq are "no longer worth it". The plug may soon be pulled.

Bush senses it's now or never and I think that, more than anything explains the timing. Getting serious about Iran, the push for security in Baghdad, pressuring Maliki over the militias - all of it happening now, and I think all for the same reason.

I think you would be interested in this video about Bernie Meyer who has traveled the world portraying Gandhi:

http://pugettown.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/