1. "Because Iran is aiding and abetting our enemies in Iraq, we are justified in attacking Iran as a matter of self-defense.I used to think that no one could be this idiotic. Now I have watched Cheney/Bush at work for six years, and I no longer feel that merely being an absolutely stupid move is no bar to this administration. When attacking Iraq has been nothing but a disaster, these people think that they can solve the myriad problems they have added to the ones that were already there in the Middle East and Iraq by attacking Iran.
2. "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons in order to dominate the Middle East to the detriment of our friends in the region -- a goal that it simply cannot be allowed to achieve.
3. "After years of describing Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as the greatest threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East, he now introduced a new menace: the resurgent Shia branch of Islam led by Iran."
Once again, the social and economic problems that exist in the Middle East appear to the NeoCons and the Bush/Cheney people as problems with nations. Yet Iraq was an artificial nation held together only by a viscious dictatorship that buried all the sectarian differences. Remove the dictator Saddam and all the rest of the problems are unleashed.
But somehow, an attack on Iran will redound to the benefit of the U.S.? Has anyone ever pointed out to Cheney/Bush that the USSR was highly unstable before WW II, but that the Germans unified all the Soviets by attacking the USSR? We did the same thing by attacking Iraq, and that, together with the massive sectarian differences in that nation, is the basic source of the problems we have unleashed by attacking Iraq?
What will make the attacks on Iran any different? We will unify both the Iranians and all the Muslims against us, make the occupation in Iraq even worse, and finish the destruction of our own military forces.