To: carranza2 who wrote (241944 ) 9/16/2007 10:12:15 PM From: Nadine Carroll Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500 Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions." Well, the US proxy, Israel, just bombed the Iranian proxy and member of the Arab League, Syria. Did you hear a whisper of protest from any other Arab League member? Me neither. Sometimes, the most significant pronouncements in the Middle East are those that don't get made. The dog that did not bark in the night..."There are an awful lot of lower level officers who are very angry about the deaths from explosively formed projectiles said to come from Iran. There is a certain amount of military pressure to do something about this," said Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That said, it is very difficult for us to do anything without much better evidence. In that respect, border control is a sensible solution." Iranian shaped charges for the Mahdi Army, Qods forces and Hizbullah inside Iraq, what kind of "better evidence" is he talking about? Does the case require an invasion on a brigade or division level? I doubt the Iranians are will to make the case so clear-cut, even though they have been acting like they have nothing to fear. They seem to want the confrontation.