Imagine the following scenario…

[Junkdrawer]

Starting in March, an escalating drumbeat starts. “The US plans a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Intelligence agents are leaking to top-notch reporters. The reports are credible enough that Iran starts warning of a counter attack.

Bolton goes to the UN to seek a Chapter 7 resolution with a military clause.

Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld all warn that if the UN doesn’t do it, they’ll act alone.

Then rumors hit the Internet: The plan is on and there’s a date: June 7, 2006.

The drumbeat grows louder and louder and then, on June 6th, there’s a massive terror attack. Immediately, the fingers point to Iran. Iran proclaims it’s innocence, but everyone knows they did it to warn off the attack. In the war of nerves, Iran twitched first.

Bush is quietly blamed for provoking the attack, but no one wants to publicly go there, considering the anger that follows the attack. And folks who question just where the attack DID come from are immediately ostracized – if not physically threatened by their angry neighbors.

So, what do you think? Completely implausible? :shrug:

[htuttle]

1. I really doubt Iran would fall for a feint like that

I don't think *anyone* would expect any sort of attack on the US (or US interests) would be successful in 'warning us off'. It's like I've always said about 9/11 -- whoever did it KNEW that we would attack SOMEBODY afterwards. They had to expect it.

I wouldn't rule out a false flag attack in Iran's name, with the rest of the scenario as you describe. But even then, I think only Americans (with our 'made for TV' mentality engaged) would believe that Iran would believe that a terror attack would STOP us from attacking something.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Exactly. But it is how to sell an "Iran did it" attack...especially...

if it's presented as "al Qaeda with the quiet help of Iran".

[Arkansas Granny]

3. You're scaring me!

[Junkdrawer]

4. .