Huge consequences from attack on Iran
Time Magazine poses the question: 'So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost.' '[...] "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf", according to Sam Gardiner. For more on this topic please refer to other sections of this DeepJournal series - among them part 10 under the headings Attack on Iran will lead to catastrophe in Middle-East and Iran could strike back by way of asymmetric warfare.
In an article by Seymour Hersh, 'Richard Armitage, who served as Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term' also had a word of warning concerning the recent war against Hezbollah: '“If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can't pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million,” Armitage said. “The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis.”'
Underlying the tight-knit cooperation between the U.S. and Israel during the recent attacks on Hezbollah - which among other things resulted in the U.S. supplying the Israelis with both NSA intelligence and cluster bombs - was the relative U.S. desire to wear down Hezbollah in preference to an impending attack by the U.S. on Iran: '“The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush wanted both. [...]”, says 'a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments' to journalist Seymour Hersh.

Media offensive part of military offensive
One component of the preparations for a possible attack on Iran is the media offensive - 'The administration also has launched a $75 million program to advance democracy in Iran by expanding broadcasting into the country, funding nongovernmental organizations and promoting cultural exchanges. Voice of America broadcasts one hour a day into Iran; by April, that will grow to four hours a day, and the administration plans to go to 24 hours a day. But the administration suffered a setback last week when lawmakers slashed $19 million, mainly from broadcast operations', reports The Washington Post. That loss could be absorbed by the 15 million euros that The Netherlands has earmarked for 'the promotion of diversity in the Iranian media'. 'The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs has granted a subsidy to an American neoconservative organization for a program which must effect peaceful regime change in Iran. The organization Freedom House, which supported the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, received approximately 630,000 euros from the Dutch government this year, the director of the organization confirmed', reports NRC Handelsblad on September 16th, adding: 'The Netherlands and the United States are the only countries in the world that have openly budgeted funds for the advancement of political change in Iran. [...] At the time that the American organization requested the grant, Freedom House was headed up by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, who has backed calls for regime change in Iran.'
Investigative journalist Jim Lobe reveals that 'A story authored by a prominent U.S. neo-conservative regarding new legislation in Iran allegedly requiring Jews and other religious minorities to wear distinctive colour badges circulated around the world this weekend before it was exposed as false. [...] Juan Cole, president of the U.S. Middle East Studies Association (MESA), described the Taheri article and its appearance first in Canada's Post as "typical of black psychological operations campaigns", particularly in its origin in an "out of the way newspaper that is then picked up by the mainstream press" - in this case, the Jerusalem Post and the New York Post. A former U.S. intelligence official described the article's relatively obscure provenance as a "real sign of (a) disinformation operation".' An otherwise legitimate, but albeit these days rather conspicuous programming decision, was the one that was made to broadcast the documentary Execution of a Teenage Girl this past Sunday evening on Belgian television. It's the story of a 16 year-old girl who was hanged in 2004 after being accused of committing adultery.

Uncertainty over fate of Iran
Jim Lobe writes in a recent article about the confusion he is detecting concerning the fate of Iran: 'If you're feeling increasingly confused about whether the administration of President George W. Bush is determined to go to war with Iran or whether it is instead truly committed to a diplomatic process with its European allies to reach some kind of modus vivendi, you're not alone.' Drawing on many relevant sources, he makes it clear that he in no way sees it as a forgone conclusion that Iran is either going to be attacked or not. He quotes 'Fred Kaplan, the national-security correspondent for Slate', who writes: '"It's possible, in other words, that the administration is playing both approaches -- mobilising as a tool of diplomatic pressure and mobilising as an act of impending warfare -- not as a coordinated strategy but as parallel actions, each of which will follow its inexorable course."'
Both Michael Hirsh (How to Avoid War - Nixon went to China. Now Bush must break out of the box on Iran) and Fareed Zakaria (What Iranians Least Expect - What if Bush publicly offered to open an embassy in Tehran?) are of the opinion that it would be wise for Bush to draw inspiration from American overtures made during the 1960's that were designed to address the strained relations between the U.S. and China. Zakaria: 'Iran's hard-liners don't want good relations with the United States. Iranians have been taught for a generation now that Washington hates them, doesn't want relations with their country and tries to isolate them in the world. What if President Bush publicly offered to open an embassy in Tehran and begin student exchanges with young Iranians? In a country that is yearning for contact with the outside world, it might put the mullahs on the defensive.'