My best guess is that there will be no attack on Iran prior to the election, about 90/10 odds. As we have seen over the past 4 years the Obama Administration can continue its threats, warmongering and assaults on civil liberties with relatively little public opposition as compared to what we saw during the Bush - Cheney years.
Those of us who migrated here from orange know this very well.
Therefore it seems likely that the the oligarchy would be more comfortable with another four years of Obama than with a Republican president. An attack on Iran and a regional war prior to the election could bring unforeseen and undesirable consequences. High fuel prices do not benefit incumbent politicians.
Once the election is over it's a new ballgame. The plan remains in place. It could change depending on what the near future brings and the outcome of current efforts such as the ongoing destabilization of the region and efforts at regime change in Syria.
The concept originated with the NeoCons in 1996 in their policy paper "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". Much has been written about it and doing a "search" will bring up many interesting opinions and points of view. However, history cannot easily be overcome by propaganda.
Israeli political analyst Daniel Levy described the paper and the influence it would come to yield on future US foreign policy:
"In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The 'clean break' was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of 'Hashemite control in Iraq.' The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task.
Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush."
A policy of preemptive wars of aggression had replaced peaceful attempts at resolving differences in this geo-strategically important part of the world.
In early 2007 there was a "redirection". Seymour Hersh described it here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?curren...
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East.... The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
We all know about the goal of taking down "7 Countries in 5 years" which was revealed to General Wesley Clark "about 10 days after 9/11". The planning and timing has been modified to meet political and military realities but there is no sign that the goals have changed. The end justifies the means to those driven by power lust and greed. The momentum has continued under Obama.
Libya was destabilized and weakened. Regime changed accomplished under the pretext of a humanitarian intervention. Now we seldom hear news from Libya in the establishment media. Checking around the internet we will see that the country remains in turmoil with various tribal groups still fighting among themselves and some opposing the government.
No amount of death and human suffering seems to affect the policy makers. It's a pity none of these chickenhawks have seen examples of what their policies have wrought first hand. If they had then perhaps they would have second thoughts.
Now that it is becoming quite clear the al-Qaeda is being utilized by the US and its allies in efforts to destabilize countries which stand in the way of US - Israeli hegemony, does this mean that al-Qaeda will no longer be useful as a bogeyman? Might we expect to see a new bogeyman appear upon the scene in the future?
Agree or disagree, readers thoughts are welcomed.