If Bush and Cheney attack Iran, we will almost certainly know it's coming. For months prior to the invasion of Iraq, even while the corporate media bombarded us with the pretense that Bush and Cheney had not yet decided on war, other stories further back in the pages of newspapers and on the internet informed us, or should have informed us, that an attack was coming.
Many of these stories involved the deployment of troops. (We were told that they were deploying "in case" there was to be a war.) With so many troops already in the area now, and with the attack on Iran likely not to include ground forces, we may not see the same volume of reports of this sort. Still, it is unlikely that no troops will let the word slip that an attack is really coming.
During the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, there were also stories about weapons production. Long before shocking and aweing Iraq with all those bombs, a major increase in bomb production and conversion to "smart bombs" was needed. This ought to be the case with Iran as well. Has anyone checked?
There were also numerous reports on the military's plans for attacking Iraq and (primitive and delusional as they were) plans for the post-war occupation. We have seen reports on plans to attack Iran, but not reports of military commanders putting them into place, no reports on plans for a post-apocalypse Iran, and no reports on anything like the rehearsal war games in Qatar that preceded the Iraq attack.
The most telling reports prior to March 19, 2003, were those on statements made by the Bush-Cheney gang. They plastered the insides of our brains with the idea that the United States would have to reluctantly demolish Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not destroy the weapons he had long ago destroyed. Informed Americans knew that Bush and Cheney were knowingly demanding the impossible. Every statement they made about the closing of the window for avoiding war was an obvious announcement that war was coming.
The marketing of an attack on Iran has not reached the ultimatum stage. No series of events have been set up that can compel the White House to "reluctantly" launch another genocide. Certainly, we've seen the same sorts of justifications attempted, but they have not progresses to anything like the point they did before the invasion of Iraq.
Unless a provocation from Iran can be created or pretended, it seems unlikely the United States will attack Iran with the marketing campaign for such an attack still in such a premature state.
Of course, we learned a lot about the fraudulent campaign for an attack on Iraq after the fact. But here is some of what we knew prior to March 19, 2003, that should have made us aware what was coming. All of this was reported at the time:
March 17, 2003, There were 211,000 U.S. troops deployed to the area.
March 17, 2003, Bush gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to get out.
March 12, 2003, The United States advertised its testing of the largest ever non-nuclear bomb.
March 11, 2003, Bush said 30 days was too long to wait before launching war.
March 9, 2003, Powell said United States would use military force to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions he'd already complied with. Rice said United States would lead a coalition to change the Iraq regime.
March 5, 2003, Rumsfeld said that if the United States attacked Iraq it would be to change the regime, and General Tommy Franks said he was ready to attack Iraq.
March 4, 2003, U.S. military officials said they had 225,000 troops in the area awaiting orders to attack.
March 4, 2003, Marines and amphibious units deployed to Iraq, and Franks reviewed completed Iraq War plans with top commanders.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
