SOME AMERICANS FOOLISHLY TAKE DELIGHT IN ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES OF OTHER COUNTRIES

I heard a guest on CNBC's 2 PM ET program hosted by Melissa Lee taking joy in the fact that the economies of Russia, Venezuela and Iran are harmed by declining oil prices. Talk about schadenfreude! But this is more than mere gloating over another's misfortunes. We are talking about people in these countries depending on government subsidies for their own meager survival.

When Americans put down Russia or Iran or Venezuela for some perceived slight to George Bush (Venezuela's Hugo Chavez called Bush the devil), they forget about the millions of people living in these countries who are trying to make a living as much as the typical next-door American.

Why should any sensible thinking person take delight in the economic misery of Venezuelans or Iranians? Besides being mean and cruel, it is short-sighted in these days of global economic connectedness. Remembering the famous line from John Donne, when the bell tolls, if economies tank in these countries, it also means economic hardship and even disaster for the United States and many Americans.

BUSH FLIP FLOPS, SENDS DIPLOMAT TO TALK WITH IRAN, PRICE OF OIL DROPS $20 PER BBL.

Has anyone noticed the price of oil over the last few days? It has dropped about $20 per barrel. And it is not the market's vagaries that explain oil's decline. Rather, it corresponds with news on the diplomatic front that the Bush administration is sending a high-ranking diplomat to participate in talks between the EU and Iran's foreign minister on Iran's nuclear development project.

Elaine Sciolino and Steven Lee Myers write in today's The New York Times that Washington is doing an about-face on its willingness to participate in the talks with Iran.

"The Bush administration’s decision to send a senior American official to participate in international talks with Iran this weekend reflects a double policy shift in the struggle to resolve the impasse over the country’s nuclear program.

"First, the Bush administration has decided to abandon its longstanding position that it would meet face to face with Iran only after the country suspended its uranium enrichment, as demanded by the United Nations Security Council.

"Second, an American partner at the table injects new importance to the negotiating track of the six global powers confronting Iran — France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China and the United States — even though their official stance is that no substantive talks can begin until uranium enrichment stops.

As I wrote on more than one occasion, the price of oil has risen day-by-day as tensions between Washington and Teheran increase. Every time that Bush or Cheney or Rice threatened Iran with "all options on the table," the price of oil went up.

Now oil is under $130, down from its high a few days ago of over $145. The signal from Rice that the U.S. is now willing to talk with Iran as opposed to bombing Iranian cities surely is the key to this drop. Imagine what would happen to the price of oil and gasoline if Bush seriously made an effort to sit down with the Iranians and discuss their concerns!

STOCK MARKET FALLS, GOLD & OIL RISE ON FEARS OF U.S./ISRAELI ATTACK AGAINST IRAN

The stock market as reflected in the DJIA was down over 100 points today. Oil was up some $5 per barrel at one point. Gold rose $19 per ounce. Some commentators claim it was more financial trouble with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Others explain weakness in stocks by saying it was the fault of a declining U.S. dollar. But hardly anyone mentions the elephant in the room - the Bush/Cheney/Olmert cabal against Iran.

Imagine what would happen if these war mongers get their way and launch an attack and bomb Teheran. Here are my predictions:

• the DJIA would drop 3,000 points
• oil would rise to $300 per barrel
• gold would increase to $2,000 per ounce
• the United States would sink into deep recession
• grain commodities would double in price
• endless war for the next 500 years

As it happened today, the stock market, gold and oil all responded to saber rattling by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Bush criticizes Iran for testing defensive missiles but says not a peep when Israel under Olmert stages a huge exercise several weeks ago involving hundreds of war planes. Even Condoleeza Rice issues bellicose threats.

Some people justify an attack by saying that the Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would cheer when the attack comes. Of course, the Arabs have a known bias and it is racial and sectarian. Most of the Arab states are Sunnis whereas Iran is mostly Shia. Secondly and equally as important, the people of Iran are not Arabs but Persians. The two have never got along, not to mention the built in animosity between Shia and Sunni. No wonder Bush and Cheney find allies in their militaristic bullying of Iran.

ATTACK AGAINST IRAN WOULD DEVASTATE U.S. MARKETS

Imagine what would happen to the U.S. stock market and economy if either Bush or Olmert attacks Iran:

1. Gold would go from $800 to $2,000 per ounce
2. Stocks in the U.S. would plummet
3. The value of the U.S. dollar would crash
4. Foreign currencies like the Swiss Franc would double in value
5. Oil would go from $130 to $500 per barrel
6. The U.S. economy would go into deep recession if not depression

The U.S. should not be led into a war with Iran by Israel. Instead of keeping "all options on the table," code for bombing Teheran, both Bush and Olmert should publicly declare that neither the U.S. nor Israel will use military force against Iran or its government.

AWFUL DOWNSIDE OF ATTACK UPON IRAN

Imagine what would happen to the price of oil if the U.S. under George Bush launches an attack against Iran. People are complaining about the price of gasoline now being above $4.00 per gallon. They ain't seen nothing yet if Bush, Cheney or their counterpart in Israel, Ehud Olmert, sends bombs and missiles raining down upon Teheran.

Oil, now at $135 per bbl. would like go to $300, and stay there. Iran, one of the world's biggest oil producers, no doubt would disrupt its supply and cause huge dislocations in the oil market. So would all the other producers who would object to another U.S. started war against an Islamic country. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela certainly would react in sympathy with the Iranians. So would the whole world, almost, that considers George Bush and his regime an outlaw and a war monger.

And how about the world's stock markets. They would go into a steep dive, especially stocks in the U.S. and those of emerging markets.

In sum, the whole world economic order would cascade down to levels unimaginable.

An attack against Iran would make enemies of all the other Islamic countries, not withstanding that Iran is mostly Shiite whereas countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are mostly Sunni. Nevertheless, the message received by the ordinary man in the street in any Islamic country would be clear - the U.S. and by association, the entire West, wages war against Islam and its beliefs. There would bitter enmity between Americans and Iranians for the next 500 years.

The ratcheting up of talk of war against Iran was not helped by Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC last week. Instead of toning down his rhetoric, Obama went out of his way to say that Iran was the gravest threat, and that he, as president, would not take anything off the table - code for bombing Iran - in assuring that Iran would never acquire nuclear weapons.

I supported Obama for his assertions that he would be willing to sit down and talk with Iranian leaders including president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I did not vote for Obama to allow him to start another Middle East war, this time with Iran. I want negotiation and diplomacy and peace, not threats and bluster and military action.

DON'T ALLOW BUSH, CHENEY, OLMERT TO START WAR AGAINST IRAN

Until we see George Bush, Dick Cheney and Ehud Olmert no longer in office, the grave danger remains that either the U.S. or Israel will send bombs and missiles over Teheran.

Imagine what an attack on Iran will do to the price of oil. If oil is high now at $135/bbl, get set for $400 oil. Bush and Cheney will have succeeded in their last year in office in torpedoing not only the American economy but the world's.

But if that were the worst thing, we would all be fortunate. An attack on Iran will make America the hated target of Iranians everywhere for the next 500 years if not longer. The Middle East will see continuous war and bloodshed. No one will be safe. Travel will come to a halt. Terrorism will appear everywhere. War's disastrous fires will burn everyone and everything.

The American people must not allow Bush, Cheney or Olmert to attack Iran. The American people must hold all war mongers responsible as criminals, even these three.

OIL'S PRICE MAY PREDICT ATTACK AGAINST IRAN

With the price of crude oil hitting over $131 per barrel, the question arises as to whether the markets are telling us anything about whether traders believe George Bush and Dick Cheney will attack Iran.

Apart from supply and demand or the role of speculators in pushing up oil's price, I have an uncomfortable nagging feeling that the real reason for oil's meteoric rise is that Bush & Co. is getting closer to shoot missiles and drop bombs against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and against the Iranian people.

This would be the greatest folly of U.S. foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

IS BUSH DISCUSSING ATTACK AGAINST IRAN WITH NEO-CON JOURNALISTS?

Dan Froomkin writes today in his blog for washingtonpost.com that Bush has been inviting conservative journalists and bloggers into the White House for private talks and briefings, and that there are signs Bush has been talking about bombing Iran.

Writes Froomkin:

"Charles Krauthammer was among the conservatives invited to the White House Wednesday for a roundtable interview with the president. (See yesterday's column.) Another attendee, The Weekly Standard's William Kristol, wrote afterwards that Bush's "most interesting comments and reflections he put off-the-record."

"In today's Washington Post, Krauthammer writes that he sees "ominous implications for the Middle East" in Syria's apparent attempt to build a nuclear facility with North Korea's help. Behind it all, Krauthammer sees the specter of Iran, and its nuclear ambitions.

""This is an extremely high-stakes game," he writes. "The time window is narrow."

"And talk about ominous: Krauthammer writes that "rival elites" should stop President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear program "before the volcano explodes," in recognition that "the one certain result of such an eruption is Iran's Islamic republic buried under the ash."

Froomkin asks:

"Is Krauthammer echoing Bush? Did the president say something about the possibility of a nuclear attack on Iran? Could the attack on Syria be a precursor to American military action? Is that the reason for all the secrecy?"

An attack on Iran would be disastrous. It would set back Middle East relations with the West and especially with the United States for at least 100 years and probably longer. It would create constant war without peace among the countries in the Middle East. It would blow the price of oil sky high, to $200 per bbl. or higher. It would cause innumerable civilian casualties. It would foment acts of terrorism here in the U.S. It would not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, rather it would spur Iranian nuclear development if only for a weapon to be used against the Americans and their allies and supporters. And this is only a partial list of bad things that would result from a U.S. attack.