48 hours ago, what I am now saying would be dismissed as simple conspiracy theory, “tin-foil hat” nonsense that had no place in the public discourse. Then Bush got in front of the nation last night and laid out his case for escalation. And, though it was obscured by the promise of 22,000 more troops in Iraq, parts of Bush’s speech presented a much darker future for America’s plans in the Middle East…

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Video at Think Progress.

Glenn Greenwald:

As Think Progress notes, the White House took multiple steps yesterday to elevate dramatically the threat rhetoric against Iran. Bush included what The New York Times described as “some of his sharpest words of warning to Iran” yet. But those words could really be described more accurately not as “threats” but as a declaration of war.

He accused the Iranian government of “providing material support for attacks on American troops” and vowed to “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.” But those networks are located in Iran, which means that search and destroy missions on such networks would necessarily include some incursion into Iranian territory, whether by air or ground.

Hours before the speech, the White House released a Powerpoint presentation with details about the president’s new policy. “Increase operations against Iranian actors” was listed in the “Key Tactical Shifts” section. As The New York Times reported: “One senior administration official said this evening that the omission of the usual wording about seeking a diplomatic solution [to the Iranian nuclear stand-off] ‘was not accidental.’”

Even though Bush and his neoconservative pals have been saber rattling on Iran for several months now, that alone is no reason to believe that Bush would actually provoke a war with Iran. It would take more than that, a series of military moves that pointed toward a strategy aimed at Iran. As Greenwald points out in the link above, those military moves have been afoot as of late. That is why the President’s speech last night was so dangerous. At best, he proposes engaging in a proxy war with both Iran and Syria. At worst, he proposes actual war. Nowhere is it more apparent that the administration is intent on deliberately provoking Iran than today’s actions in Northern Iraq:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Iraqi officials said Thursday that the U.S.-led multinational forces detained five Iranians in an overnight raid on Tehran’s diplomatic mission in the northern city of Irbil.

The forces stormed the building at about 3 a.m., detaining the five staffers and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow refused to rule out the possibility in an interview with Chris Matthews. Matthews asked him directly several times to promise that Bush would seek Congressional approval before going to war with Iran. Snow refused. Between provoking Iran by storming a consulate (sovereign Iranian soil), and bringing carrier groups and Patriot missiles into the area, it’s becoming clear to many in Congress that Bush is moving toward conflict with Iran and Syria at the exact moment when they need to be engaged diplomatically.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks to stamp out militant networks in Iran and Syria.

“If the president concluded he had to invade Iran … or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that,” said Biden.

“I just want to set that marker,” added the Delaware Democrat, who later wrote Bush a letter asking for an “authoritative answer” on whether he believed U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria without congressional authorization.

Keith Olbermann:

Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.

Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me” — only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake … in Iran.

Only this president could extol the “thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,” and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — “engage Syria and Iran” — and transform it into “threaten Syria and Iran” — when al-Qaida would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.

Mr. Bush did not mention that while our people are trying to do that, the factions in the civil war will no longer have to focus on killing each other, but rather they can focus anew on killing our people.

Because last night the president foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls, but no more after that, and if the whole thing fizzles out, we’re going home.

The plan fails militarily.

The plan fails symbolically.

The plan fails politically.

Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility.

Video at Crooks and Liars.
Last night may have been the darkest moment in America in a very long time. Perhaps even darker than the initial invasion itself in 2003. Perhaps it is, as Chuck Hagel said, “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” The difference, this time, is that the people have a voice. And it is represented, at long last, by the Congress they elected. Over the next several months, this is going to become the central conflict in our government. And I hope that Congress continues to show the same resolve they showed today. Because we cannot allow this to happen again.