But probably they don't know for sure at this point; I expect that will mostly depend on a) whether Iran yields to the intense US pressure being put on them to freeze their nuclear program via the Western Europeans, Russians, and Chinese with whom the Iranians have important and developing economic relations, and b) whether the Bush administration can fashion a strong consensus for such action within the US ruling class, where there are powerful voices adamantly opposed to an attack, including many who previously warned Iraq would weaken rather than strengthen US global global power and who are still smarting from having had to fall in line behind the invasion.
The Washington Post, one of the house organs of the US bourgeoisie, has lately been running articles warning against military action - including by Israel as American proxy -the most recent of which was by Henry Kissinger on Tuesday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501200.html). This faction believes US economic power - exercised through its huge capital and consumer markets and the threat to block access to them - is more effective than military action in securing compliance from America's allies and enemies alike. On the other hand, there's a widespread feeling on the left, and even beyond, that the the US economic position is collapsing and its ruling class is so desperate, parts of it irrationally so, that it will do whatever it takes militarily to pursue it's imperialist agenda, especially in the energy-rich regions of the world. I'm not yet convinced, but Iran looms as a litmus test of that proposition.
* * * The imperial nuclear order BY Aijaz Ahmed Frontline May 6-19 2006
THE possibility of a nuclear strike by the United States against Iran has now entered mainstream political discourse in the U.S. This needs to be seen in the perspective of:
*U.S. determination to attack Iran but the virtual impossibility of achieving all its objectives through non-nuclear means;
*the predominance, at the highest levels of the Bush administration, of men who believe that problems of a global war and the consequent overstretch can and should be resolved by deploying "mini-nukes" - not retreat, but escalation to a higher level;
*the much wider spread of actual nuclear weapons among the key U.S. allies than is ever revealed in the mainstream media; and, most crucially,
*the immense nuclear superiority the U.S. has kept gaining since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent doctrine of "usable nukes" it has developed during the Bush presidency.
The thought of using nuclear weapons becomes thinkable because the U.S. has unrivalled capacity to do so, without any fear of retaliation either from its victims, Iran for instance, or Russia with its degraded arsenal and China with its very rudimentary capacity.
Full: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2309/stories/20060519000905800.htm