As usual, the proposed sanctions against Iran are “aimed at the regime and its nuclear and missile programmes, not the Iranian people,” as Nicholas Burns, under-secretary of state, explained, according to the Financial Times. In much the same way, we are told, the United States and the United Nations imposed sanctions against Iraq and the result was Saddam lived in palaces, sold oil under the table, and 1.5 million Iraqis, 500,000 of them infants and children, died in the process, an outcome well worth the effort, according to Madeline Albright. Infants and children invariably pay for sanctions imposed against governments and Nicholas Burns knows it. Of course, as with the sanctions imposed against Iraq, Iran’s oil will not be taken off the market because this would be “unthinkable at a time of high energy prices,” or windfall profits for multinational oil corporations.

Naturally, sanctions come first, and then military action. “Military action against Iran is neither inevitable, nor, at this stage, likely,” a USA Today op-ed would have us believe. “But if the Iraq war provides one lesson, it is this: The best way to address a foreign threat—and Iran’s illegal effort to build nuclear weapons is certainly that—is through coordinated international action, difficult as that is to achieve.” Of course it is likely, not that we should expect the scriveners at Gannett Co. Inc. to do five minutes of research on the Straussian neocons, who keep telling us they will take out Iran and all the other “rogue nations” on the “evil empire” roster. Recall their surprise when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq—and also later their lame attempts to deflect blame for acting as propaganda organs. Same thing this time around, although most Americans have the memory capacity of an earth worm after a late spring frost.

Like actors following a well-drafted script—drafted some time ago by the Straussian neocons and their Jabotinsky co-conspirators—Shaul Mofaz has issued his warning Israel will act on its own (an empty threat, since only the United States has the capacity to inflict significant harm on Iran, unless Israel plans to nuke Iran), and Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of dispatching elements of its Revolutionary Guard to stir trouble inside Iraq, as usual uncorroborated, while John Bolton told everybody there is a “a sense of urgency about Tehran’s defiance of the world community,” as the BBC put it.

Indeed, Iran is back on the front burner again after a short hiatus. Soon the Security Council will determine Iran’s illusory nukes are real and threatening, sanctions will be forthcoming, but these of course will not be good enough for the Straussian neocons, a cabal of criminals that fully intend to shock and awe the country, kill thousands, and seriously disrupt Iranian society and culture. Iran has threatened a world of hurt—and it has the ability to do it by sinking a couple oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, the most strategically important sea route in the world. Doing so will stop dead oil deliveries from Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, as well as most of United Arab Emirates. Add to this Venezuela leader Hugo Chavez’ warning that he will shut down oil imports to the United States if Bush goes “over the line” and attempts to overthrow his government, as the CIA failed to do in 2002.

As it now stands, we are but a few weeks away from total disaster—that is unless the devious plans of the Straussian neocons can be derailed and sanity returns to the White House and the Pentagon. I’m not counting on it, however, for it now appears the Security Council will do a repeat of late 2002 and early 2003. In fact, this time around, it appears at least three of the five permanent members—the United States, Britain, and France—are chomping at the bit to invade Iran. Last time around, France opposed the invasion of Iraq—and endured scorching criticism from the United States and millions of brainwashed Americans—but on this round France believes Iran’s nuclear program (Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities) is “a cover for clandestine military activity,” as Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy declared last month. In other words, it will be smooth sailing for the Straussian neocons this time around.

Brace yourself for six dollar a gallon gasoline and “harm and pain,” as promised by Iran. “Teheran’s most overt menaces to date were repeated several times at the meeting of the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” the UK Telegraph reports this evening. “Iranian officials declined to spell out precisely what Iran would do…. But experts say Iran’s options include driving up oil prices, blocking the passage of tankers through the Gulf, stirring more chaos in Iraq, fomenting violence against Israel or promoting terrorist attacks against the West,” all perfectly normal responses for a nation after it is invaded by a far superior military force determined to bounce the rubble and kill hundreds of thousands of people.