It is important to eliminate any residual confusion about what is now going on.

Bush is quite actually and truly an emotionally and intellectually handicapped person who, because he was neglected by his ineffectual father and abused by his brutal bloodthirsty mother, can only understand anything in terms of "me winning" or "me losing." Thus all politics is a game, and all international conflicts require war. People aren't real. Death doesn't matter. We'll all be dead soon anyway.

Those are the unadorned facts. I don't expect many people would, at this point, contest them. But there are other facts which I've only just begun to recognize as such--as simple and uncontestable, as the starting-point for any future "thought" that might be had about the current geopolitical reality.

1) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an Islamic fundamentalist. But he is not a suicidal apocalpytic madman who will sacrifice tens of millions of his own citizens in order to nuke Israel. This idea of Ahmadinejad is what is being promulgated constantly in AIPAC/Christofascist/death-cult circles (which, sadly, include the residences of both of my parents--but which, not surprisingly, does NOT include the homes of my many Israeli relatives, who have more incentive than most Americans to cling to sanity and to avoid self-aggrandizing fantasy).

That in the 1980's Iranians sent hundreds of thousands of children into Iraqi minefields, sacrificing their lives in order to clear a path for the Iranian army, is neither here nor there. Yes, it is evidence of blood-curdling fanaticism. But people who cite this history as proof of Ahmadinejad's willingness to nuke Israel and then to suffer the Israeli retaliation always conveniently forget two related points: a) In the 1980's the Iranians were defending themselves against an aggressive invasion perpetrated by a bloodthirsty murderer who was fighting with American encouragement and weaponry; b) Hundreds of thousands of dead children are, yes, not as bad as millions of dead people, multiple radioactive craters, radiation sickness, melting flesh, cancer, birth defects, etc.

2) More important--the reason for this post--is the second major fact which we should all now recognize: Cheney and Rumsfeld control American foreign policy, and while they may have hoped for and even expected an easy occupation of Iraq, they nonetheless must also have considered, and cannot be at all surprised by, the current situation. While civil war was not the best result for Cheney and Rumsfeld, it is still a good result. Why? Because it sets the stage for what we are going to see this summer: war with Iran. And what is the goal of the war with Iran? Regional conflagration.

This is not conspiracy-mongering, nor is it even informed speculation. This is the simple application of logic. The bombing of Iran, which has been in preparation for at least 2 years, is going to happen. This will, at the very least, lead to a massive re-invigoration of Hezbollah activity worldwide and in northern Israel. Most likely, it will also lead to missile strikes against Israel from Iran. It will also, without question, bring Hezbollah into the ascendancy in Syria, forcing Syria and Iran into a close alliance. At the same time, the Iraqi civil war will become more violent, with the Shiites under al-Sadr working ever more closely with Iran.

It's really quite obvious that these are the likely consequences of the war on Iran. Cheney and Rumsfeld, unlike Bush, know this. They know it. Just as they must have known that the Iraq invasion had at least the potential to set the stage for precisely this sort of regional conflagration.

Why do they want it? And why, as I asked a couple of days ago, would Israel want it? Does Ehud Olmert want Israel to be hit by Iranian missiles?

Yes. Olmert and his Sharonista thugs (not the Israeli citizenry) want this, and for the same reason Cheney and Rumsfeld want region-wide chaos and death. War gives power to people who are willing to kill. Olmert wants protracted non-negotiation with the Palestinians. He wants to proceed with the wall-building, with the annexations, with the construction of a prison on 40% of the West Bank. Most Israelis want peace. The Labor Party shows signs of re-invigoration. Israelis aren't just going to let Olmert continue Sharon's annexation plans unless they are convinced there is no alternative. Regional chaos and death will, for the umpteenth time, allow the U.S. and Israel to put the Palestinians "to one side," even as Israel continues its long-term annexation and imprisonment policies.

And Cheney and Rumsfeld's motives are quite similar. There is nothing better for the Republicans than war, chaos, violence, terrorism, and death. Period. War is what you pursue when you have no agenda other than your own power. How can Americans vote against the Republicans when we're at war? Especially if the Democrats refuse to take a position for or against the war, thereby confiriming that there is in fact no alternative?

I'm sure Cheney and Rumsfeld have ordered secret position papers outlining their strategic plans in terms more complex than "regional conflagration." They probably prefer something like "short-term regional instability followed by regional peace conference."

But it should be clear now: they want to bomb Iran; they aren't, like Bush, too stupid to consider, and too infantile to accept, the consequences; and the consequences are obvious. Therefore, they want the consequences.

---------

All of the above is by way of introducing this nauseating story, mentioned in an important post by Kevin Drum. The story, sourced to former employees of the NSA and State Department, explains how the U.S. refused even to consider an invitation from the Iranians to enter into comprehensive nuclear negotiations in 2003. I actually remember reading about this back then. But of course I'd forgotten all about it.