President Bush's national televised address on Iraq on Jan. 10, alongside several recent developments, indicate that the administration is seriously considering war with Iran. During his speech, Bush made the starkest accusations yet against Iran, alleging that it was "providing material support for attacks on American troops."

The following recent events have led to widespread suspicions that a US/Israeli attack on Iran is imminent:

Additional aircraft carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf.
US Patriot missiles just deployed to the Persian Gulf.
F16 fighter planes just deployed to the Incirlik base in Turkey.
The F-16's can deliver B61-11 nuclear bunker busters.
Increased number of US nuclear submarines in Persian Gulf.
Admiral Fallon named Centcom commander.
Israeli pilots training for Iran bombing mission.
Increased provocations against Iran, including the arrest of Iranian diplomats in Iraq.

Bush has described his plans to send Patriot-missile defense systems to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to protect US allies. The deployment of the Patriot missiles can be explained in light of a US plan to attack Iran.

Last year, Iran signaled to the GCC states that it would retaliate against the Arab sheikhdoms if the US attacked Iran using bases in the GCC countries.

Following an attack by the U.S. or Israel, Iran's most likely weapon would be ballistic missiles - the very same weapon that the Patriots are designed to strike. A first step towards going to war with Iran is therefore to provide the GCC states with protection against potential Iranian retaliation.

The increasingly confrontational pose struck by the US is in direct opposition to one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which called for the start of a dialogue with Iran and Syria in an effort to extricate the US from Iraq.

In his speech, Bush outright rejected the group's recommendations. Rather than talking to Iran and Syria, Bush virtually declared war on these states.

Bush said: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Asked whether that meant US troops could be sent across the Iranian border, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that option was on the table. "We have to recognize that Iran is engaging in activities that endanger our troops."

However, there is nothing in the October 2002 "Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" that gives the President authority to invade yet another country. (In fact, Congress could hasten the conclusion of this war by rescinding their authorization in a move similar to what occurred just prior to the end of the Vietnam debacle.)

A U.S. attack upon Iran mostly likely would involve the use of "bunker buster" nuclear weapons, directed at purported underground nuclear processing facilitates. Each of these weapons is estimated to be approximately 1/3 as potent as those dropped on Japan at the end of World War 2.

In order to stop an immanent U.S. nuclear attack upon Iran, Congress should pass a law making a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation in the absence of Congressional authorization illegal.

Congress knows full well what this President is capable of doing. If it does not act, Congress would be condoning Bush's planned attack on Iran. We have a small window of opportunity in which to persuade our Representatives to prevent a nuclear crime against humanity.

Matthew Hine
MatthewHine@comcast.net

* * *

George Bush refuses to dialogue with Iran and Syria over Iraq. Arguably, his position is based on belief that reality consists of two irreducible opposing elements: good vs. evil/bad, right vs. wrong, spirit vs. flesh, kingdom of light vs. kingdom of darkness. It's biblical. It's Plato.

Had the Platonist Saul/Paul not dialogued with the pagan Gentile world, Constantine would not have become a Christian, and Western history--ours--would be radically different.

Paul vehemently disagreed with Jesus' family who headed the Jerusalem, Jewish church. It refused to have anything to do--like meet--with Gentiles. It saw the Way dualistically: us vs. them. It died out in the first century A.D.

Winston Churchill said "Better to jaw, jaw than to war, war." Dualism, but with reason.

Mr. Bush, that book you avowedly revere admonishes "Come now, let us reason together." Churchill and Isaiah knew something you need to learn.

Jack Reeves
Rutledge, Ga.

* * *

Wow. War with Iran would be a nuclear crime against humanity. And the other author here is rambling on about dualism and Paul versus Jesus’ family or some nonsense.

Here is the problem with these two short sighted gentlemen and the rest of the doves are that the world is a dangerous place. No, not dangerous because of Iraq.

The world is full of people who hate the United States. They hated us during the Clinton administration because that is when they were planning 9-11. So what do you do with people who are fanatics and are bent and determined to kill Americans?

We hope for the best but prepare for the worst. You cannot talk peace without a strong military. You cannot bring people to the table to talk without them knowing you mean business.

So Mr. Reeves and Mr. Hine, what would you do if Iran kept making nuclear weapons grade material? I do not care to hear that you hate the President. I want to hear what you would do. What would you do if you found out that they were going to sell that weapon or grade material to a terrorist group? What would you do? And what would you do if everyone out in the country hated you and what you do but did not really know what was going on behind the scenes in the world?

We cannot afford to lose this war on terrorism. We will not survive and I will be sure to come ask you what we do when a nuclear weapon is detonated in Miami, Baltimore, New York, Seattle or Dallas.

Johnny Franks
seechatt@yahoo.com