This is called laying the groundwork

The Herald-Sun (Australia) reported earlier in the week that Israel claims that Iran could have the capacity to make nuclear weapons within six months.

As the United Nations' nuclear watchdog prepared to meet to set a deadline for Iran to allay suspicions it is secretly making atomic weapons, Israeli military intelligence head General Aharon Zeevi said time was running out for the international community to deal with Tehran.

"The next six months will determine if Iran will achieve in the spring of 2005 a non-conventional capability in the sphere of nuclear research and development," he said. "This does not mean that it will have a bomb in 2005. It means that it will have all the means at its disposal to build a bomb."

For its part, the US responded to an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution demanding Iran suspend all "enrichment-related activities" by repeating its insistence the Tehran is actively seeking nuclear bombs.

"The clock is now ticking on Iran to fully comply with the resolution and abandon its nuclear weapons program or face referral to the U.N. Security Council," U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said a statement.

And just for emphasis,

US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said US President George W. Bush was "determined to try to find a peaceful and diplomatic solution", but hinted that all options remained open.

Since rightwing fruitcake John Bolton was part of the Project for a New American Century and among those who signed a January 26, 1998 letter urging Bill Clinton to attack Iraq to boot Saddam Hussein, "all options" has to be taken literally.

These dramatic warnings of ominous near-futures came despite the fact that, as the Guardian (UK) reported,

[t]he head of the UN's nuclear watchdog today said he was not certain that Iran's nuclear ambitions were entirely peaceful - but added he had seen no evidence to back allegations that the country was attempting to build a bomb.

Speaking to reporters ahead of a closed door meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors about Iran, Mohammed ElBaradei said there was no smoking gun to back US claims that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.

"Have we seen any proof of a weapons programme? Have we seen undeclared [uranium] enrichment? There is none of that," Mr ElBaradei said.

That is, while the IAEA is legitimately angry over Iran's sluggish cooperation, it is not accusing it of what Israel and the US are.

Moreover, a commentary in Asia Times points out something often overlooked: The idea that a nuclear Iran is a threat to Israel is conventional wisdom, not fact.

No one bothers to ask why a nuclear Israel is not a threat to Iran, or why a nuclear Iran's paramount purpose would be to threaten Israel, knowing full well the implications of such threats for its own survival.

Meanwhile, the International Herald Tribune reported on Saturday that

Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that Iran is "providing support" for the insurgency in Iraq but that the extent of its influence over insurgent forces is not clear. ...

"I don't think there's any doubt that the Iranians are involved and are providing support," Powell said of the Iranian support for insurgents in Iraq. "How much and how influential their support is, I can't be sure and it's hard to get a good read on it."

So let's sum up:

- The US accuses Iran of striving to build nuclear weapons, even though international inspectors say they see no proof of it.

- The US suggests Iran will soon become a danger to the region and, backed by Israel, insists "the clock is ticking" to action on its concerns, the ones the inspectors say they don't see.

- The US accuses Iran of supporting terrorist activities. Not of directing them, mind you, but of, you know, support. Having links.

Now, I realize there are clear differences - for one thing, Iran openly acknowledges having a nuclear energy (but not arms) program - but still, doesn't that sound eerily familiar?