Plan of attack

The relentless drumbeat of war with Iran continues as we begin a new week.

There's Seymour Hersh's latest piece, which says President Bush has created a Pentagon panel to plan air attacks on Iran that could be carried out within 24 hours of getting the order.  (Actually, the bigger headline from the article is that Team Bush is shoveling money into Lebanon that's winding up in the hands of militants linked to al-Qaeda, all in the name of undermining the Iranian/Shiite power surge unleashed by the invasion of Iraq).

Over the weekend, there was a report in the London Telegraph that Israel is seeking permission from Washington to fly over Iraqi airspace so Israel could carry out airstrikes against Iran.  (Isn't this something the Iraqis should clear?  I thought Washington granted them "sovereignty" more than two-and-a-half years ago.)  But it's worth noting that the reporter on that story, Con Coughlin, was the conduit for much information before (and after) the Iraq invasion fed to him by neocon ideologues and their allies that turned out to be bogus.

Then again, there might still be something to it, considering a Kuwaiti newspaper report that Kuwait and two other small Gulf countries have agreed to Israeli overflights in case it's the Israelis that carry out the attack.  (I suppose I should say "initial" attack, because if the Israelis go first, Washington willl surely follow in the name of defending its ally from Iranian retaliation.)

Most intriguing perhaps is the story in the Times of London that says as many as five U.S. generals and admirals are ready to resign in protest if Team Bush attacks Iran.  Even if they don't get up the gumption to do so, the fact they've planted this in the media is surely a sign that the uniformed military is extremely concerned about the consequences if Washington launches an attack.  (It also lends further credence to the notion that Israel would strike the first blow.)