I assume many of you have seen the news about the defeat suffered by Ahmadinejad's party in the recent Iranian elections. Apparently, kids at a university booed and heckled Ahmadinejad during a recent appearance, causing him obvious embarassment and discomfort. Now the hecklers are rumored to be in hiding from Ahmadinejad's thugs.

Well, what should "we" do in relation to the complex situation in Iran?

The answer is obvious: bomb Iran!

It's important to remember, during seemingly "slow" days in the coverage of the Iranian "crisis," that Cheney and Bush are not letting up, and are in fact doing everything in their power to start a war with Iran.

It doesn't matter that Ahmadinejad has no control over Iranian foreign policy, and never has, and never will--that, like the reformist Khatami before him, he must in the end bow to the authority of the supreme religious authorities. (Iran is not a real democracy, as Bush himself might like to point out; so the once-popular Ahmadinejad, an effective mayor of Tehran, did not ascend to power when he won the national elections.)

It doesn't matter that Ahmadinejad lacks true power and that young Iranians are courageously expressing sigificant discontent with the religious right of Iran. What matters is the "Holocaust" conference, which John Bolton and Elie Wiesel are using as an occasion to file formal legal charges against Ahmadinejad (for "incitement to genocide," which presumably justifies pre-emptive genocide in "return").

What matters to Bush is more war, anyhow and anywhere, as long as it precipitates more chaos and staves off the inevitable moment of formal and unanimous judgment on his war and his "presidency."

Thus, Cheney et al. are conspiring with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia to murder Iran.

And at the same time, Cheney et al. are desperately trying to get Israel to step in and attack Iran and/or Syria. Again: the attack can come, as far as Cheney is concerned, anyhow and anywhere, as long is it is war, chaos, dead Arabs, etc.

I'll conclude with an extended passage from a recent interview with Mrs. Meyrav Wurmser, a neoconservative "intellectual" and the "wife" of David Wurmser, high-level Cheney retainer:

Many of Wurmser's friends believe the disaster is not only in Iraq, but in the entire region. They are also very frustrated over the way in which Israel embarked on the war against Hizbullah this summer, and on the way it returned from it.

"Hizbullah defeated Israel in the war. This is the first war Israel lost."

Is this a popular stance in the administration, that Israel lost the war?

"Yes, there is no doubt. It's not something one can argue about it. There is a lot of anger at Israel."

What caused the anger?

"I know this will annoy many of your readers… But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah."

Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?

"They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.

"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space… They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit."

"It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran, that it would have weakened it and changes the strategic map in the Middle East.

"The final outcome is that Israel did not do it. It fought the wrong war and lost. Instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel's objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq. If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended."

Wurmser says that what most frustrates her is hearing people close to decision makers in Israel asking her if the US would have let Israel attack Syria.

"No one would have stopped you. It was an American interest. They would have applauded you. Think why you received so much time and space to operate. Rice was in the region and Israel embarrassed her with Qana, and still Israel got more time. Why aren't they reading the map correctly in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?"

This is the kind of "thinking" that underlies the "surge" proposal. More dead, more chaos, as soon as possible, hopefully leading to direct engagement with Iran-backed forces, thereby justifying an "all-or-nothing," "once-and-for-all" reckoning with Islamo-fascism, the desired result of which is anarchy throughout the Middle East.