Linda Heard | Cairo, Egypt | September 18

Arab News - For many of us still reeling from the terrible legacy of the Iraq war in terms of lives lost, it seems inconceivable the White House would launch another war of choice — a war that could wreak an even greater death toll. Admittedly, I find the idea outlandish given the horror a war against Iran would unleash. They wouldn’t. They couldn’t...or would they?

A recent British survey of Iraqi households estimates that as many as 1.2 million civilians may have died as a result of the US-led invasion, while former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan now says he believes the Iraq war was all about oil.

A guru of the right who served as the keeper of the economy under four presidents can’t easily be written off. If he’s correct, then a government that would sacrifice so much blood to fill its nation’s tanks with cheap petrol surely has no moral authority to self-righteously lead its country into another war of choice.

The American public is overwhelmingly disenchanted with the war in Iraq and wants out. George Bush’s approval rating is near historic lows while his reliance on a war hero and four-star general to lend credibility to his Iraq policy has failed.

As Hillary Clinton put it so succinctly, the assessment of Gen. Petraeus requires the “willing suspension of disbelief”.

So given the US public mood, the weariness of an overstretched US military and global skepticism, is it even possible that Iran could seriously feature large on the Bush administration’s “to do” list?

In recent weeks, the saber rattling has reached a crescendo. Last week George Bush cited Iran as the biggest obstacle to stability in Iraq and said the country’s pursuit of nuclear technology puts the region “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”.

The US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker accused Iran of spreading a “malign influence”. Petraeus says Iran is fighting a proxy war against America in Iraq.

And we shouldn’t forget that a wing of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was recently pronounced “terrorist” — the first time ever a nation’s legitimate military has been thus deemed.

The nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, is frustrated that its positive agreements with Iran are being pooh-poohed by the American administration, which seemingly has no interest in reports of Iran’s cooperation.

We also learned that the US is provocatively building a base in Iraq close to Iran’s western border, blasted by an Iranian Foreign Ministry official as being constructed “to secure their covetous interests in the long run”.

We learned, too, about a strange Israeli air strike on Syria on which the Israeli press was initially told to remain silent. This was construed by the Iranian media as a warning from Israel that Iran’s nuclear facilities are within reach of its warplanes. On Friday, there will be a meeting in Washington between representatives of major powers who have been invited by the State Department to discuss implementing further sanctions against Iran’s pursuit of enriched uranium. The jury is out on whether China and Russia will play ball.

An article by Peter Beaumont published in last Sunday’s Observer asks the question “Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?” Beaumont believes it was a reminder to both “Iran and Syria of the supremacy” of Israeli aircraft “designed to deter Syria from getting involved in the event of a raid on Iran”.

One thing is certain: What was once the province of outspoken journalists — such as the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh or former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal Paul Craig Roberts — has evolved into a mainstream debate in every major newspaper.

The International Herald Tribune suggests there is a fierce argument within the administration over its Iran policy with the hawkish Dick Cheney currently winning. The Guardian suggests: “Time is running out to avert war with Iran”. An article in last Sunday’s Telegraph is titled “Bush setting America up for war with Iran”.

OK, so how many times have we been told, “don’t believe everything you read”? Let’s suppose the papers are overreacting or hyping the story to excite their readerships. Indeed, how can their headlines be true when the consequences of war with Iran would be so devastating not only in terms of lives lost but also on regional stability and its affect on economies? If you think the price of oil is high now, wait until it reaches $90 a barrel or more?

But before you “tut-tut”, fold your papers and switch from CNN to the latest installment of “Gray’s Anatomy” or “Desperate Housewives”, ponder on this:

On Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the world “to prepare for the worst”, describing the worst “as war”. Kouchner says negotiations with Iran should continue but insists an Iran nuclear weapon would be a danger to the entire world. Kouchner has also advised French companies not to do business with Iran.

During a live television show last weekend the Iranian president appealed directly to the American people for peace and friendship.

The problem is the American electorate is not in charge and neither are the Democrats, who gave the president carte blanche to wage war on the country’s behalf post-9/11.

In any event, the leading Democratic presidential contenders are hawkish over Iran, which they see as a threat to Israel.

Returning to the question of whether the threats against Iran signify truth or bluff, you decide.

My intellect tells me they can’t be serious. There are too many unknowns. How would Syria react for instance? Would Hezbollah join the fray? Which way would pro-Iranian Shiites in Iraq jump? And, most importantly, would a newly assertive Russia stand back and allow the US to gain further control over crucial resources? Is there any chance we could be staring at World War III?

On the other hand, my heart is a lot less certain.