TED KOPPEL: BUSH MAKES IRAN SOUND ALL NEXTY

So, one of the things that's been rumbling around since the beginning of the Iraquagmire is a possible attack on Iran or Syria. Because of their close proximity to Iraq it makes sense from a lot of angles to consider them as possible next targets. The thing is that the US Military is stretched fairly thin. Most experts agree that an attack on Iran would be foolish--Syria not as bad, but not much smarter than attacking Iran.

But is there evidence of such an attack out there for us to see? You bet and this doesn't come from some crazed Internet-type. This comes to us from veteran newsman Ted Koppel. Check out this cutting from [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6836561|his NPR commentary from January 16, 2007] available over at NPR.org:

It was easy enough to miss — buried, as it was, almost two-thirds of the way through the president's speech the other evening — but I think the United States is actively preparing for the possibility of war with Iran.

...

He said that success in Iraq requires taking steps against Iran and Syria:

"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. Add we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Now, that is hardly a declaration of war; but then President Bush went on to list some of the other steps he has ordered: the deployment, to the region, of an additional aircraft carrier and the strike group that goes with it, and also the deployment of Patriot air-defense systems — none of it particularly useful for fighting insurgents in al-Anbar province or Shiite militias in Sadr City. But if you were expecting a showdown with Iran, now that's another matter.

Makes some scary sense, doesn't it? Now I'm not thinking a war with Iran and/or Syria is a good thing. I'm just saying it makes sense from a strategic/tactical standpoint. Too bad it doesn't make any sense at all from a logistical standpoint. Well, when I say "too bad" I mean to say "thank God." Sadly, it's also too bad that Bush won't let a stretched-to-thin-military stop him from invading a country.

Scuttlebutt is that we'll see an Iranattack before April.

OH YEAH, almost forgot to mention this. [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-01/17/content_5615540.htm|A January 16, 2007 article] at Xinuanet.com (the Chinese government's news service) reported that:

Iranian troops have shot down a U.S. pilotless spy plane recently, an Iranian lawmaker announced on Tuesday as the Islamic Republic was facing increasing military pressure from its arch rival -- the United States.

The aircraft was brought down when it was trying to cross the borders "during the last few days," Seyed Nezam Mola Hoveizeh, a member of the parliament, was quoted by the local Fars News Agency as saying.

The lawmaker gave no exact date of the shooting-down or any other details about the incident, but he said that "the United States sent such spy drones to the region every now and then."

Unmanned drones, I would think, would be used to get high resolution photos from closer than satellites could give you high resolution photos. In other words, the US is serious about surveillance when they send unmanned drones over not-yet-enemy territory.