Another Sign of Aggression?

According to the American Conservative Blog, aggressive action against Iran may be closer than we think. The blog post in full:

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.

While it is encouraging to see at least one dissenting voice in the room (Defense Secretary Gates) the ominous remark that that "final decision" rests with President Bush all but squashes any enthusiasm I have that cooler, rational heads will prevail.

As Justin Raimondo asks: Why isn't this being reported in the mainstream news? Some competitive news business we have, eh?

More alarming, though (and Raimondo addresses this, too) is the fact that NONE of mainstream Presidential candidates are speaking out about it. We know John McCain salivates at the opportunity to kill more Muslims, and Hillary Clinton has promised to "obliterate" Iran given the opportunity...so perhaps it's no surprise they've remained silent. But what of the "antiwar" Barack Obama? Wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity for him to distinguish himself from McCain as the sole voice of reason?

I'm not holding my breath for Obama to deliver any earth-shattering speeches denouncing the Bush Administration's foreign policy blunders. Non-issues like race and his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright are much more important than killing brown people in the Middle East, right?