Not long ago Dr Ron Paul expressed concerns about another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident which could be used as a pretext for a war expended to Iran and Syria. For those who are not aware, Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. So, if we war with Iran, we invariablly war with Syria as well. We should also note that it would complete 2/3 of the PNAC "suggestions".
But right now, the people are not convinced that we should go to war against Iran.
I too am concerned about some kind of attack that will be attributed to Iran. I also fear that it could be a very serius attack with a nuclear bomb and kill about 20,000 of our fellow Americans who over there. It will become "anti-American" to ever again criticize our government's choices after that and all chances of talking about peace will be lost.
As easy as it is to get across our borders and bring drugs or bombs of humans, its just as easy or easier to get all those things across into Iraq in close proximity who the "invading infidels". So why if the Iranians or some terrorist group, go through all the effort to acquire and maintain, and operate a nuclear device, and then try to transport it across an ocean to kill 20,000 Americans (invading infidels) in one fell swoop, when you can go right next door and do the same thing. It might even be better for terrorists to use nuclear weapons on our troops because its our troops who can do the most harm to them, and its our troops who are over there.
An attack like that wouldn't need to be connected to Iran in any way, anymore than the attacks of 911 had to be connected to Iraq.
The same could be said for our ships out in the Persian Gulf. But if a ship is hit, or sunk, all bets are off as well and that too wouldn't need to be connected to Iranian influence to serves as a pre-text for an expanded war to Iran and Syria.
