Aware of the obvious conclusions, he argued that "Iran, however, is different from Iraq. We're in the early stages of diplomacy ... We're working closely with Britain, France and Germany ... The results of this approach now depend largely on Iran." That, in a way, is true. Iraq was an easy target. It had been softened up by sanctions for decades and Saddam was deeply unpopular with the general population. Iran has three times the population as well as an economy and war machine in far better condition than Saddam's. If US imperial goals are to be achieved there, it needs the help of Europe -- particularly given the quagmire in Iraq.
Scott Rider, the ex-UN weapons inspector who was proven utterly correct in his pre-war claims that Iraq did not have WMD, has recently claimed that Bush has already approved an Iran invasion and that it is slated for June 2005. Would the Bush Junta be insane enough to invade? Would they really invade in the height of summer?
Given the quagmire in Iraq, this would appear unlikely and illogical. But the neo-cons are hardly logical and are more than willing to waste billions to send US troops to kill and be killed. So when Bush states that "this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table" it is the second sentance which should be taken seriously. After all, in 2002 he states "again, all options are on the table, and - but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction."
But perhaps this is all camoflague, to draw attention from Syria? Syria is weaker than Iran and could be invaded as a proxy to further isolate and put pressure on the Trehan regime. One thing is sure, the neo-con war machine is willing to go. Whether it can remains to be seen. With European support, it will.