It's like watching a movie about a quarter of the way through and suddenly realizing that you've seen it before.
In the months leading up to the Iraq invasion nearly two years ago, the Bush administration methodically and deplorably made its case for war. First there were the threats. Then came the "evidence." Today, soldiers are still dying in the Middle East with no end in sight.
Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that if Iran does not oblige in halting its nuclear program then it might have to answer to the United Nations. If that doesn't work, Rice says "there are other steps" the United States may take.
Iran, just as Iraq did in 2003, denied allegations that it is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. There was no shred of contrary evidence then and there has been none in Iran. Regardless, the lack of proof certainly did not stop the Bush administration from waging war in Iraq, and it may not stop them now.
As former U.S. Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay told CNN following Rice's comments Wednesday: "it's like deja vu all over again."
Iran's reaction to Rice and President Bush -- who echoed Rice's sentiments Wednesday -- was just as expected. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Iran has no intention of building a nuclear weapon and its nuclear facilities are used only to generate electricity.
The Associated Press reported Wednesday that Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, vows his country "will never scrap its nuclear program and won't give up its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty."
The 1968 treaty was signed by 187 countries (including Iran) to help limit the spread of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The treaty -- as described by Atomicarchive.com -- was also meant "to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy," meaning that if Iran is using its nuclear resources as it says it is, they have every right to do so.
To be sure, this is a big "if." It was Iran, after all, who created its own "red-headed step child" relationship with the United States when it joined forces with other Arab countries to form the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries -- an organization whose oil boycott of several countries (including the U.S.) created the disastrous energy crisis of 1970s.
Then, in his 1979 book "Don't Know Much About History," Kenneth C. Davis wrote how "five hundred Iranians stormed the American embassy in Tehran, capturing 90 American diplomats and beginning a hostage crisis that effectively ended Jimmy Carter's hopes for governing effectively and being re-elected."
Certainly, Iran is no friend. However, it should be argued that the ridiculous quagmire that is the Middle East has required more than one to tango. The United States' long-standing pro-Israeli stance in a region where dogmatic religious convictions only result in the predominance of violence has only managed to deepen the ire of Arab nations.
But this is a much more involving discourse that is needed to make sense of the current situation.
Iran may very well possess the capabilities of producing nuclear weapons. If this is true, they should be and must be held accountable. However, the Bush administration has offered very little evidence to support its case. Kay told CNN Wednesday, "it's amazing that we're talking about military action against Iran and we don't have a national intelligence estimate that shows what we do know, what we don't know and the basis for what we think we know."
Perhaps the Bush administration will show its cards soon. Maybe they will produce substantiated cause for intervention in the coming weeks. But it should make its case for intervention public before articulating its own cowboy mentality.
But we can forget about all of that, even. The problem is that if the going gets tough in Iran and we must show off our military might -- even justifiably so -- how in the world could we effectively manage this at a time when our military is spread as thin as it is?
To make matters worse, North Korea admitted for the first time Thursday that it has nuclear weapons and will not continue disarmament talks with other nations. Bad timing for the Bush administration.
Former President Jimmy Carter, a man with a Nobel Peace Prize and an Egypt-Israel peace accord under his belt, told CNN he believes our military is too "bogged down in Iraq and overextended" to focus efforts on Iran. Carter also said that a potential pre-emptive strike against Iran "would just arouse the entire Middle East in an antagonistic response against the United States."
The Bush administration is confident the situation in Iran can be handled diplomatically with the help of its allies. Maybe so. But Germany has already said it would not cooperate if war is the answer. After what happened in Iraq, they may not be the only ally to say such if push comes to shove.
This sounds familiar. But it didn't stop Bush before.
I hope American voters and politicians will learn from the lessons in Iraq if the administration's talk grows stronger.
Fool us once, shame on you....
Vic Vela is a journalism graduate student. Reach him at vic.vela@asu.edu.