You may have noticed recent news tidbits intimating that a Bush administration attack on Iran is coming sooner rather than later.  An article in this week’s Time Magazine says that “a genuine, eyeball-to-eyeball crisis between the U.S. and Iran may be looming, and sooner than many realize.”

Now Time Magazine is hardly a definitive source and the article itself acknowledges that “No one knows whether–let alone when–a military confrontation with Tehran will come to pass.”

But, just for the sake of argument, let’s suppose the article is correct and that Bush administration is planning to attack Iran in the relatively near future, which would make it the fourth war it has started since assuming power; the others being Afghanistan, Iraq, and the overall global war on terrorism, now the “long war.” Certainly, the address by President Bush Tuesday at the United Nations where he said in regard to Iran, “You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future. The greatest obstacle is that your rulers have denied you this opportunity…” sounds like a call for regime change.

It raises certain intriguing questions. For example, why do we need a military confrontation with Iran shortly before a hotly contested national election in which the ruling party is in danger of losing its monopoly of political power?  Has Iran’s uranium enrichment program made some breathtaking advance that we need to take military action before November 7?

Also, consider that the near future encompasses the next month. That means the holy month long holiday of Ramadan, which starts this weekend. A military strike against Iran during Ramadan would erase any doubts in the Islamic world about the intent of the United States vis-à-vis the Islamic world.
 
Furthermore, contemplating attacking Iran in the absence of hard evidence about the ultimate purpose of Iran’s nuclear program seems, well, insane (More on this in a moment). But suffice it to say, as McClatchey newspapers recently reported that U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials say Bush political appointees and hard-liners on Capitol Hill have tried to portray Iran’s nuclear program as more advanced than it is and to exaggerate Tehran’s role in Hezbollah’s attack on Israel in mid-July. After all it was just last week that the International Atomic Energy Agency complained in an unusual public letter that a past House Intelligence Committee report on Iran contains “erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated information.”
 
McClatchey also reported that some officials said they’re concerned that the offices of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney may be receiving a stream of questionable information that originates with Iranian exiles. Officials said Abram Shulsky has headed the Pentagon’s Iranian directorate.  Shulsky was head of the Office of Special Plans, whose role in allegedly manipulating Iraq intelligence is under investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general.

All the above leads one to the conclusion that, if viewed rationally, a U.S. attack on Iran in the near future would not be a rational thing to do. But there’s the rub, as Shakespeare put it.  What if the people making the decisions and calling the shots are not just another administration? What if it is something else entirely? And what might that be? I’m glad you asked. Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, once described the core Bush players as a “cabal” but I think it is worse than that. Try thinking instead about a cult.

Cults have a lot of different characteristics, depending on whose definition you choose but every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following five characteristics:
 

It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
 
It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
 
Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
 
It believes ‘the end justifies the means’ in order to solicit funds recruit people.
 
Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.

Remind you of anyone you know? For psychological coercion think of Bush dogma from global warming to Iraq. What, us worry? And, by the way, should you choose to do so you are out of a job or slandered as a de factor supporter of al-Qaeda.

Elitist, totalitarian society? Well, we are not yet there for a fully functioning totalitarian society but it is not for lack of trying Think the Patriot Act or massive data mining efforts like the past Total Information Awareness program.

Dogmatic, not accountable? Anyone seen President Bush take responsibility for condoning torture, deaths at Abu Ghraib, or a network of secret prison facilities? No, neither have I.

End justifies the means? Invading Iraq to fight al-Qaeda anyone?

Its wealth not benefiting society? Let’s see, we now have a morally bankrupt economy under the control of elitists and operated for their benefit. Income inequality grew last year, as the richest fifth of households took home 50.4 percent of all income, their largest share since the government began tracking the data in 1967.

Ah well, let’s count our blessings; at least the Bush administration isn’t offering free Kool-Aid.

Related posts:

1. Obsession with Nuclear Deterrent Doesn’t Add Up
2. Next Steps on Iran
3. Should We Engage Iran Out of the NPT?
4. Winning Turkey’s Support on Iran
5. Russia: whose strategic partner?