Camouflage Of Bluster?

And just what are we to make of this?:

Iran's foreign minister told NBC Nightly News Wednesday that the United States has "exponentially" stepped up its "psychological warfare" against Iran.

The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel that the U.S. has been feeding Iranian sources with false claims that an attack is "imminent." He said such information has been complete with plans, maps, and even dates of attacks that never take place.

Mottaki said in the past "month or two this propaganda has increased exponentially."

The first question, I suppose, is is this claim true?  The mullahs know, just as every U.S. enemy has known ever since General Giap pronounced it, that the most effective way to defeat the Americans is in the streets, and on the airwaves, of their own country.  The Bush Administration continues to insist that it wants a diplomatic solution to the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, though they also maintain that "all options are on the table."  Tehran sending its chief diplomat to tell the friendly American media what its itching ears want to hear about the Bushkin "warmongers" plotting their long-planned attack on the "peace-loving" mullahgarchy is itself a very effective psychological warfare ploy.

For this reason I tend to think Mottaki's claim is BS, designed to douse any possibility there might be of a U.S. strike and deter the Israelis from launching one of their own.

I hope and pray I'm wrong.  I don't see much psychological value to feeding the mullahs a barrage of bluffs - sooner or later they lose their effectiveness, and they already hold us in contempt as it is - but there is tactical value in sewing confusion about the who, how, and when of an attack, if not the where.  It's difficult to remain at full alert indefinitely.  The temptation to relax, and the likelihood of getting careless and making mistakes, multiplies exponentially as time goes on.  Fatigue becomes the attackers' ally as it inexorably erodes vigilence.  And when the attack does come, the fulfillment of the original bluff is almost its own misdirection.

Perhaps we're lending "psychological" support to an eventual Israeli assault.  But take note of Mottaki's warning:

In an ominous tone, he said Tehran would not show any distinction between an attack by Israel and the U.S., suggesting both will be targets of retribution by Iran.

Could we be using an Israeli attack as bait for a strategic trap the mullahs will be unable to escape?  After all, retaliation against us would constitute shooting first on their part.  Actually, the first shot was taken when they seized our embassy thirty years ago, and when Hezbollah blew up 241 of our Marines in Beirut twenty-five years ago, and when they blew up the Khobar Towers twelve years ago, and the proxy war they've been waging against us in Iraq over the past five years, but you get the idea.  Point being, military engagement on our part would constitute response and self-defense, not "pre-emption."

Yeah, and tomorrow I'm going to start pooping IPods.  But if there's any possibility of something concrete being done to avert the nightmare spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran, it better have like dispatch.  That particular window of opportunity has, at most, only four months of life left to it before it, and the fate of America, the West, and Israel, slam shut permanently.