In this context, I would like to present the following considerations.
1. An attack on Iran is motivated by nothing but the US domestic political expediency and the unlimited appetites of the country's military-industrial complex. President G. Bush has no choice - his only option is a breakthrough. The problem does not originate from the total failure of his doctrine of the "war on international terrorism". If the US political elite represented by Bush based its decisions solely on the estimates of the damage to its public image that might be caused by the fiasco of the global anti-terrorist campaign, it would have extremely serious reservations about starting a new regional war. However, they are motivated by something else - they need to continue Bush's politics backed by a conglomerate of weapons suppliers, who established control over the country's oversized military spending. Should Bush recognize being defeated and withdraw the US military forces from the Middle East, the Democrat's elite would overtake the financial leverage, and a major redistribution of the military commissioning would follow. When such enormous funds are at stake, people's lives and those of entire nations become tokens in the game. For these operations, the destiny of the Middle East and its nations means absolutely nothing, just as the lives of the Vietnamese and the Cambodians showered with napalm and defoliants meant nothing either. One must be naïve to suppose that the Pentagon machine will stop and miss the new incredibly high profits.

2. The coming war between the US and Iran has to conform to certain parameters defined a priori. The US is tired of Iraq, and the public opinion in the country is turning increasingly anti-war. Therefore, the offensive against Iran has to be swift and victorious. This will save Bush's political group and give it a higher rating in the country. There can be no doubt that a successful aggression will make Bush extremely popular in the US - in this anti-Christian society the pagan god of victory has long taken the place of the Savior. A triumph will make the US public blind and deaf - it will remain unaware of the price of the US victory for the nations of the Middle East. The crucial circumstance is that only nuclear weapons can guarantee the US victory in this war. Knowing that the US failed to win even in Iraq, a country plagued by religious and ethnic strife, one cannot expect it to prevail in the united and spiritually strong Iran. Only the use of nuclear weapons can make it possible to cause severe damage to the Iranian control system hidden in bunkers and, importantly, to behead its leadership no matter how deep underground it might be hiding. Iran without its leaders and with a paralyzed system of control, with an army devastated by "baby nukes", is the only option which suits the US - it agrees to talk about peace only to a totally subdued offender. Such talks would let the US leaders' old dream of a Middle Eastern Disneyland, mastered by the US and Israel, come true.

Here are the facts which illustrate the process of the preparations for the devastation of Iran:

- The UN Security Council Resolution envisions that a further tightening of the sanctions imposed on Iran must take place after February 21, 2006. From the standpoint of the international law, this is a pretext (essentially, a poor one, but a one that does exist) to legalize an aggression against the country.

- Two US aircraft carrier groups armed with nukes are moving into the region. The US aircraft carrier groups have been on missions 5 times over the past 15 years. In 4 cases out of the 5, they launched military offensives. In March, 2007 both groups are to take their combat positions.

- Additional ground forces are shifted to the border between Iraq and Iran. Preparations for a new phase of hostilities are underway.

- In February, Patriot missile defense systems will be ready to defend Israel and the aircraft carrier groups from enemy airstrikes.

- British combat engineers are entering the regions of the future fighting, clearly in order to operate in the Strait of Ormuz, where Iranians are most likely to lay mines.

- The US and Israel launched a powerful information and propaganda campaign preparing the global public opinion for the aggression.

- CENTCOM's Commander John Abizade, an opponent of the war with Iran, resigned. His position was taken over by Admiral W. Fallon, a veteran of the 1991 Iraq and 1995 Bosnia campaigns.

- John Negroponte has been moved from his position as the First Director of National Intelligence for persistently resisting the use of force against Iran.

- T. Blair, the "staff peacemaker" for the Middle East, never mentions a peaceful settlement of the Iran dossier problem. He makes no attempts to find a way to resolve the crisis in a peaceful way, and this is highly indicative.

All of the above constitutes evidence of Iran's being prepared for sacrifice. Will a major provocation be orchestrated for this purpose? A number of observers opine that Washington needs one. We believe that what we will see is going to be a plain cowboy-style scenario like the one which materialized in Iraq. Media never stop debating the issue of the "Iranian atomic bomb" - just as they focused on "S. Hussein's weapons of mass destruction". It is time for them to start. It absolutely does not matter that eventually nothing of the kind will be found in Iran. Those who disagree will be silenced by force.

The question is - will such a "breakthrough" do G. Bush any good? The idea of attacking Iran was born in the primitive minds of those who, just for the sake of their profits, can sell the rope on which they will be hanged. This time it will be neither they nor their children who will perish in the nuclear Holocaust, and they'd rather not worry that by this they will take the entire mankind a step closer to the total catastrophe.

link to globalresearch.ca