Via True Blue Liberal you can read today’s Paul Krugman column without breaking through the NY Times firewall. Here are two terrible truths Bush supporters cannot face, never mind refute:

First, it’s clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.

Second, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he was presenting for war — a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds — rested on suspect evidence. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment.

These two truths have been verified way beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet righties cannot address them honestly. Instead, when challenged, they concoct a straw man and argue with that. For example, Gateway Pundit’s defense of the newest leak revelation is titled “Media Appalled that George Bush Dare Defend Himself.” And, of course, no one is appalled that Bush would defend himself. We’re appalled that he keeps lying his ass off to do it.

But Krugman’s main point is that no one should doubt Bush could invade Iran.

“But he wouldn’t do that,” say people who think they’re being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn’t sensible. It’s wishful thinking. …

… Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.

And it’s not just Mr. Bush’s legacy that’s at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

See also John Steinberg of Raw Story —

In a rational world, Bush’s dismal track record (by our standards) would hasten the handing of the car keys to a designated driver. In the strange world that Bush and Karl Rove inhabit, it means that a bigger distraction must be created.

Now, I don’t think the public would back an invasion of Iran unless a new, major terrorist strike could be blamed on Iran, or if, as Steinberg suggests, a couple of American warships happened to sink in the Persian Gulf. That might do it.

William M. Arkin of the Washington Post writes in “Goldilocks and Iran” that there are three ways Iran and the U.S. could enter into a war:

We could go to war if a cornered Iran lashes out.

We could go to war if the intelligence community assesses that Iran has clandestinely acquired nuclear weapons and an administration decides that the U.S. must preempt.

We could go to war if intensified military activity on both sides leads to greater possibilities for contact leading to an accident or incident that escalates out of control.

None of those sound all that farfetched to me.

Fred Kaplan at Slate talks about a “Global Game of Chicken“:

They’ve been revving the engines and rattling the sabers loud and hard lately. In the past few weeks, President Bush has released a document on national-security strategy that declares Iran to be the single biggest threat on the planet. Vice President Dick Cheney has warned that Iran will face serious consequences if it continues to enrich uranium. Joseph Cirincione, a sober-minded nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment, writes in the new issue of Foreign Policy:

For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.

BTW, the Cirincione article quoted above is titled “Fool Me Twice” and is a good read.

At a series of seminars at the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday, analysts and ex-officials debated the pros and cons of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, but they agreed that keeping the conflict to a snappy “limited strike” was unlikely; it would almost certainly escalate to all-out war, with regional and possibly global repercussions.

Yes, that’s certainly not comforting.

In the new issue of Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows discusses a “war game” sponsored by the Atlantic in 2004.

… under the guidance of Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who had conducted many real-world war games for the Pentagon, including those that shaped U.S. strategy for the first Gulf War, we assembled a panel of experts to ask “What then?” about the ways in which the United States might threaten, pressure, or entice the Iranians not to build a bomb. Some had been for and some against the invasion of Iraq; all had served in the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, or other parts of the nation’s security apparatus, and many had dealt directly with Iran.

The experts disagreed on some details but were nearly unanimous on one crucial point: what might seem America’s ace in the hole—the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations in a pre-emptive air strike—was a fantasy.

Fallows elaborates and explains the reasons why this is a fantasy, which I will not list here. Bottom line, the panel agreed that Iran’s getting nuclear weapons capability would be a very bad thing. But trying to solve this problem by dropping bombs on it would fail militarily (for reasons given in the article) and would also cause other more serious problems. Like Iraq, only worse.

If you are doom and gloomed out now, Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian looks at the bright side. Unfortunately, it’s only the bright side for Brits.

Britain is unlikely to participate in the nuclear bombing of Iranian atomic weapons research facilities. Instead, our role in any forthcoming nuclear blitz will be to fill the blogosphere with sarcastic posts and make tut-tutting noises. The latter may or may not be heard above B61-11s slamming nukes into Iran’s Natanz centrifuge plant, which is challengingly located 75ft below ground.

(The lousy exchange rate makes Britain damn expensive, but maybe my Welsh relatives will take me in for a while. …)

(Cross-posted at The Mahablog)