Is That An Asbestos Towel On Your Head?

I want to get serious for a moment. From the State of the Union Address:

Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.

Okay. This deserves some closer inspection. We all know the damning content of Seymour Hersh's recent exposé about the administration's designs on Iran:

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign." […] In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. […] “The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,” a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. “And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.”

Great. So Iran is working to acquire nuclear capabilities and this is worrisome for all of us. The Bush Administration is looking to drum-up support for an Iranian offensive. That much is known. But "the primary state sponsor of terror" is a different kettle of fish. What is Bush talking about specifically? Well, we have this (rather dated) information from the U.S. Department of State:

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. Its Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and continued to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. […] Iran has long provided Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups […] with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. […] Iran also provided a lower level of support--including funding, training, and logistics assistance--to extremist groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia.

So, it's been Iranian support for Hizballah's campaign against Israel that's the problem here. While the world has become somewhat inured to the anti-American chanting from Tehran, and while Iran may still be a little childish (the State Department site above devotes a full paragraph to Salman Rushdie), there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the idea that the United States is under threat of a terrorist attack backed either directly or through indirect sponsorship of the Iranian government. Now, we could simply be puffing up our chest in defense of Israel, but if that's the case, why not stare down the threat to Israel more directly and speak about "Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups" in the State of the Union Address? With Arafat gone and the political dynamic in the West Bank undergoing radical changes (and in light of the summit in Egypt next week), it would seem that if the President really wanted to do something about the terrorism directed at Israel, focusing on old Iranian ties to funding for Hizballah maybe isn't the best approach. Unless you don't give an imperial turd what happens to Israel and you're just a bloodthirsty monster who's intent on demonizing whoever may be on your shit list with the ultimate goal of wiping them off the face of the earth by any means necessary because you really truly believe that the ends justify whatever fucking means you can get your pudgy little alcoholic fingers on.