Iran Post

So White House automated robot Dana Perino was asked about the Sy Hersh article today, and she predictably refused to address the substance, simply going on about his "anonymous sources" (which are apparently terrible, unless the source is Scooter Libby). But this was the telling part to me:

PERINO: Look, the president has said that he believes there is a diplomatic solution that we can use to solve the Iranian problem. And that’s why we’re working with our allies to get there.

QUESTION: That’s what he said before we went to Iraq, too.

QUESTION: But what’s the — can you answer as to the substance of whether or not the White House asked? I mean, if it’s not true, then you can say Sy Hersh is wrong and CNN was wrong to air it. You can say it.

PERINO: We don’t discuss such things.

"We won't discuss such things" because if we did, you'd understand that it's full steam ahead on Iran, and you might actually report the same things the British press is reporting.

The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

An air warfare conference in Washington last week was told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organise combined exercises designed to make it easier to fight together.

Gen Michael Mosley, the US Air Force chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if President George W Bush chooses to bomb Iran.

This apparently means the Air Force would have Arabs help on bombing runs in Tehran, flying side by side with American forces. Does anyone believe the Jordanians or the UAE would actually do that? I think this is more about operations and basing, but still it represents a step forward. Which is obviously where this is headed, just take it from the guy who sat with Bush last week:

Podhoretz, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush in 2004, met privately with the President for 45 minutes recently. During the course of the meeting, Bush listened diligently as Podhoretz laid out the “the case for bombing Iran.” Podhoretz seems to have come away convinced that he made the case.

"I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office. Because he has several times said — at least twice to my knowledge — that if we allow Iranians to acquire nuclear capabilities, 50 years from now, people will look back at us the way we look back at Munich and say ‘how could they have let this happen?’"

Of course, N-Pod, who prays nightly for an attack on Iran, may just be saying that to continue the drumbeat.

But regardless, there's definitely some movement here. The generals have at least been mollified that this would be targeted and specific enough that they can grudgingly give their nod. By the way, this is all happening in the context of Iran helping the Iraqis to prevent precisely the thing that the Administration claims the Iranians are doing.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has secured a pledge from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to help cut off weapons, funding and other support to militiamen in Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Saturday.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said there were signs of a slight drop in the types of attacks associated with Shiite militants since the deal was reached last month, and he dangled the possibility that U.S. and Iraqi officials might be able to do something in return. But he said it was too early to tell whether there has been a real reduction in Iranian support.

"Honestly, and I really mean this, all of us would really welcome the opportunity to see this, confirm it and even - in whatever way we could - to reciprocate," Petraeus told reporters on a visit to the Baghdad neighborhood of Karada. "But it really is wait and see time right now still."

Here's the deal. This may be more of Petraeus' the surge is working crap, even though it has nothing to do with establishing a political solution, the entire point of the surge (and 1,000 dead a month in a country of 30 million, the equivalent of 100,000 dead of political violence on our streets, is nothing to write home about). But as Juan Cole noted, there are Iranian equivalents to Blackwater, nasty mercenary elements that have nothing to do with the central government who may be bad actors within Iraq. And tentatively, at least, Iran is doing what it can to interdict their shipments of weapons. The notion that all EFPs in Iraq are coming from the Ayatollah's secret stash is ridiculous; in fact, I doubt they'd be that stupid. But the Cheney Administration is counting on American ignorance and our willingness to lump together all Muslims as one big bad guy.

As Digby notes:

So, there we have it. All the months of screaming into he void by many bloggers and others on this subject, culminating last week in the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment in which many Democrats, including our presidential frontrunner, signed on to the fundamental premise Cheney is using to justify the attack. (What an excellent move on their part.) [...]

Cheney isn't really a politician anymore and hasn't been one for a long time. He represents the people who really run things at times like this, the big money boyz, and their concerns are not so parochial as a Republican win. They run things no matter who's in office. (And anyway, they've set certain things in motion, pillaged the treasury so thoroughly and solidified their hold on the media and the Democrats sufficiently enough that they think a few years of GOP R&R is probably a good idea. They need to allow the Democrats just enough power to be blamed, in any case.)

The subtext of that, of course, is that they will browbeat the American people into either stifling their dissent against this action or risk being called traitors to the troops. Only treasonous betray-up bloggers would dare say a word.