What do you do when you don’t finish the job in Afghanistan and have most of your resources mired in an Iraq quagmire? Easy, you ramp up for a war with Iran.

Sadly, most of America is not talking about this and, when it is, the conversation is based on a huge lack of information.

We have been told by this administration that Iran’s enrichment program is about their creation of a nuclear weapon. However, despite their being an oil-rich nation, Iran is actually under an energy crisis. So, it is plausible that they are doing this based on energy needs.

So, what of the President’s claims about nuclear weapons? So far, this is unsupported. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.S. intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program has been unreliable at best.

“Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that’s come to us has proved to be wrong,” a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency’s intelligence stream as “very cold now” because “so little panned out.”

The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the emerging regional power on several fronts: its expanding nuclear effort, its alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and its backing of Middle East militant groups.

The CIA still faces harsh criticism for its prewar intelligence errors on Iraq. No one here argues that U.S. intelligence officials have fallen this time for crudely forged documents or pushed shoddy analysis. IAEA officials, who openly challenged U.S. assessments that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear bomb, say the Americans are much more cautious in assessing Iran.

American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran’s nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.

Now, before we say,”but,it’s the U.N.” or “no one in the U.S. is disputing this claim”, chew on this. The Sunday Times (via their Washington bureau) is reporting that, at present, 4 to 5 U.S. generals and admirals are prepared to quit if Bush orders a strike on Iran. The military leaders, it seems, don’t see an imminent threat from Iran and feel it unconcienable to send an already-stretched military into such a conflict.

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”

A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.

So, while the march to war is on, again, ask yourself: where’s the proof?

Popularity: 44% [?]