Expanding the Disaster

Today's news is grim. The Cheney wants more war, as if the one's we have aren't enough:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2127343,00.html

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Here's a little noticed complication: How will Turkey react?

Turkey-Iran sign EU gas export deal

ANKARA: Turkey and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement to carry natural gas from Iran and Turkmenistan to Europe, Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler said yesterday.http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=187929&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=30118

We're creating more enemies throughout the region:

The LA Times reported yesterday that nearly half of the detainees in US military
custody are Saudis. Not so for the suspected jihadis held by the Iraqis. They have only 9 Saudis. About half of their detainees are Egyptian, and a fifth are Sudanese. The Iraqi security services clearly think their biggest problem is jihadi volunteers from the Nile Valley. But the picture emerging from the two sets of detainees is that the publics of the two main US allies in the Middle East, Saudi and Egypt, are the most likely to fall under suspicion of supporting the insurgency. While suspicion falls on some Iranians, they appear to be cleared quickly and released. The Daily Star writes:

"He reports that among those still being questioned, "11 were Jordanians; 64 Syrians; nine Saudis; two Algerians; six Moroccans; six Yemenis; two Libyans; 57 Palestinians; 284 Egyptians; 113 Sudanese, two Emiratis; three Lebanese and one Somali." http://www.juancole.com/

And Iraq? Who's side are we on?

The NY Times has an interesting article today on trust issues in Anbar. The Shia Army don't trust the new Sunni auxiliaries to the U.S. occupation. The Sunnis don't trust the Shias. Neither trusts the U.S. and the Sunnis are quite blatant about saying if they don't get what they want from the Americans, they will go back to killing them.

So maybe we can make it worse:

The U.S. military's top general said Monday that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_pace&printer=1;_ylt=AjvOh8LFxaHsQYygYgZ2UVcUewgF

The whole thing is making me crazy. Our country is being run by some incredibly dangerous people. If we actually attack Iran, we might as well be at war with the entire region. And in the long run, we won't win.