Unfortunately, the prospects of a war on iran remains very real. Please read this article if you find time: "The Fast War Nation:..."
"..., the Bush administration and its political allies in the establishment, while beating the drums of war, have been tapping on centuries old resources and patterns of the darkest corners of the U.S. political culture which many Americans might not even consciously or unconsciously recognize. ...
In this dark corner of the pioneering culture, as Edward Saeed stated "U.S. is the true Beginning of human History, its final Manifestation, and its End". Other societies are pre-historic, not essentially different from what was here when the Pioneering society was taking shape. Sitting Bull or the Ayatollah only differ in their head decorations. "
I sincerely hope I am wrong about the prospects of US war on Iran, and the subsequent retaliations and chaos. The General is politely proposing another option to deal with IR, but I am sick-scared that the Neocons are set to go.

Now I'm wondering if we could ever live without a nuclear Iran.

I have never understood why Bush et al see a nuclear Iran as a worst case scenario. The only thing that would get the world behind an attack on Iran is Iran using and/or giving a weapon to use against Israelli/US interests. The entire world would line up to destroy any country that used an offensive nuclear weapon (I personally think they would against a defensive nuclear weapon as well; there is no conlict that would require them IMO). Is it b/c the neocons are so crazy that they feel like nobody can be trusted to behave since they can't/won't? Why do they thing Iran would be so short sided as to spend all this time and money on nuclear weapons only to do the one thing that would destroy their country. Would they trade destroying Israel (and Palestine and Jeruselum) for losing all they worked for (the regional control, global oil market, allies in Russia). Call me crazy but I think they are more selfish than that.

It is simply stunning -- despite the open-ended quagmire in Iraq -- how many commenters STILL think attacking Iran is a good move.

Simply stunning.

It's not Iran and the possibility of them acquiring Nuke capability that I worry about. It's THIS country that already has nukes and is run by frigging Sociopaths that I'm scared of.

BUSH AND CHENEY ARE CLASSIC SOCIOPATHS:

This disorder is marked by a personal history of chronic and continuous antisocial behaviour, in which the rights of others are violated, and by poor or nonexistent job performance. It is manifested in persistent criminality, sexual promiscuity or aggressive sexual behaviour, and drug use. People with this disorder are impulsive, mendacious, irresponsible, and VERY DANGEROUS.

OK, THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL ABOUT THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR UNLESS JEFF 'FESSES UP'....BUT THE REST DAMN SURE FITS.

I'm not sure the world can live with a nuclear armed United States when you have a cuckoo like Bush in the WHite House. And Cheney, a.k.a. Dr. Strangelove, is even worse.

This is what happens the minute you start letting the military put their nose into policy. They have all those toys to play with and would love to have someplace to test them on real people. Maybe Gen. Abizaid should keep his policy ideas to himself. In other words, "General, button it!"

Ultimately, the deal with Iran will be
something like: 'No nukes for you, or
we bomb you now or (if that doesn't work)
we nuke you later.'

In this context, a 'nuke' is a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear *power* is one thing, probably
inevitable, but with one you can get the
other, quite easily.

The world is *always* better off with *fewer*
nations holding nuclear weapons.

The window of opportunity to influence, compel, coerce -- or wage war on -- Iran before it gets The Bomb is rapidly closing. It is what it is.

The hawks in both the US and Israel are likely making the forecast that from 2009-2012, the US President will be a Democrat who will NOT wage war in an attempt to prevent Iran from getting The Bomb.

SO, the hawks' calculation is as follows:
Given we are doing NOTHING, and intend to do nothing, on the political or diplomatic or economic fronts... and assuming we find a nuclear Iran unacceptable... are we better off picking a fight now, or tactitly allowing the Dems four years of attempts to de-nuke Iran via soft power?

Abizaid's assertion immediately derails the hawks and forces them to evaluate a primary assumption driving us to yet another non-vital-­to-US-secu­rity war.

"When I make peace with an enemy, have I not made a friend?"
-- Honest Abe (from memory, give or take)

Iran has given no indication of being suicidal.

By comparison, Iran is MORE rational than North Korea.

By comparison, Iran is more stable than Pakistan.

I like this man.

Here is a true hero. He looks disgusted to be so close to Georgie, who is grinning like a moron as usual. Petraeus is all giggly when he is around Georgie, but Abazaid is all business, a TRUE patriot. Where are all the other brave, honest, true patriots who love the country more than getting another star on their uniform?

I like John Abizaid more every time I read about him. Does he consider running for office; he definitely is a leader with common sense.

Uh huh.

Dat right.

Balance of Power. Mutual Assured Destruction.

General Abizaid just lost his invitation to the AIPAC masquerade ball.

FINALLY a rational general who won't carry America into ANOTHER INSANE NEEDLESS WAR!

Colin Powell SEE that's what a real hero does!

Bush desperately needs to start a war with Iran. His handlers want him to. Bush does not answer to the American people, he answers to his corporate sponsors.