An attack on Iran is still in the plans.

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups. The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles. It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties. The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final. The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.

Of course this is a total fabrication in the part of the United States to justify their long held desire to attack Iran. But what if they were correct and Iran WERE training and supporting insurgents? Would that really give us the right to attack them in their own country? Not according to our history.

In the Korean war China provided supplies and even Chinese Army regulars after the Americans crossed the 36th parallel. We did not take this as an invitation to attack China.

During the Vietnam War Russia supplied the Vietnamese with medical supplies, arms, tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery, anti-aircraft missiles and other military equipment. Soviet crews even fired USSR-made surface-to-air missiles at the B-52 bombers which were the first raiders shot down over Hanoi. Did we decide that this blatant intervention gave us the right to attack the Soviet Union? No we did not.

And just to muddy the waters further America has provided military supplies and advisers in more wars then I can count. Does that mean we deserve to have our country attacked?

We have no right to attack Iran. There is growing evidence that the military is exaggerating or even inventing the evidence that Iran is helping the Iraqi insurgents. (Even the Iraqi government says that the evidence is inconclusive) But even if the evidence was there to make the case that Iran is supporting the Iraqi's that are trying to repel the soldiers that have invaded their country, on what moral ground can we attack them?