Partisanship over Iran

When I woke up today, I immediately checked Yahoo's frontpage in hopes of reading a headline such as "Iran Backing Sadr's Revolt" or something similar. But alas, nothing. I remain miffed as to why the mainstream media (read: NYT, WaPo, NBC, ABC) has yet to pick up on this major development. But as I write this, CENTCOM head, John Abizaid, says that Syria and Iran are involved in "unhelpful actions."

Roger Simon issues a call to the blogsphere, which I have answered. It's Iran, Stupid! When I talk about the events transpiring in Iraq to my anti-war friends, they give me a look of disbelief. Because it hasn't appeared on the New York Times, they don't believe it's true. That's just ashame. While there are many on the right who call for either a full-scale invasion or surgical bombing strikes on Iranian nuke facilities and assorted military command and control structures, I think that that is just not a possibility at this time. And frankly, the Iranian's know this. Unless we are attacked, Bush cannot undertake any military operation, for it would most likely be political suicide. It is times like this when I wish Bush had the eloquence of one Tony Blair, to articulate the events to an increasingly incredulous public and reassure them.

But unfortunately, us "warbloggers" are his best messengers. It is our responsibility to spread the real reason why this revolt happened. And maybe, just maybe, the news media will be forced to report it.