In recent weeks, as hostile Bush administration rhetoric toward Iran has ramped up, numerous press reports (particularly from the British press) have suggested that Bush has decided to launch a massive military strike against Iran.

Such a strike would have disastrous consequences, from the loss of life, to a probable regional war throughout the Middle East, to the economic impact of the cost and the threat to oil supplies, to the impact on an already-reeling American military itself. It's an eerie replay of the run-up to the Iraq war--full of lies and distortions and insincere diplomatic posturing--only with bigger stakes. But there are two crucial differences: the American public has seen what has happened with Iraq (and how we were lied to), and Congress is no longer controlled by Republican sycophants.

True, there are plenty of Democratic sycophants as well. But Congress is still our best hope of preventing this catastrophe. And it will only act if the public is informed and outraged.

To this end, here are some talking points on why a military strike against Iran is such a bad idea. Use them in communications with Congressional offices, in letters to the editor and talk shows, in conversations with your friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers. Do what you can to stop what would be the crowning blow to our country from the most criminal administration in history.

1. THE FALSE RATIONALES FOR ATTACK: The Bush administration has three major arguments for war with Iran: Its nuclear program, alleged support for Iraqi insurgents, and its fundamentalism and support of allied terrorist groups.

* Iran is five to ten years away from having usable nuclear weapons.

* Iran is cooperating with the IAEA (the U.N.'s nuclear materials control agency). Its nuclear program is so far completely legal.

* The three countries known to have nuclear weapons in defiance of international law--Israel, India, and Pakistan--are all now receiving military aid from the US.

* The US has been claiming that Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents, but the majority of attacks against US forces are from Sunni militias that are also opposed to Shiite Iran.

* There is an enormous black market in weapons in Iraq, mostly American ones. There has been no evidence the Iranian government is connected to the presence or use of Iranian weapons in Iraq.

* The Iraqi militia most closely aligned with Iran is sponsored by the largest faction in Prime Minister al-Maliki's Iraqi government.

* Any number of countries sponsor or "harbor" terror groups, including almost every US ally in the Middle East. We don't attack them to solve the problem.

* US hawkishness has undermined Iranian reform efforts and strengthened the hardliners.

* Iran has never attacked the United States (or any other country), and poses no threat to it.

* How can we trust any intelligence, prediction, or analysis from this administration after Iraq?

2. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS: An attack against Iran would be unpopular, immoral, illegal, and would have enormous ramifications within and beyond the Middle East.

* The doctrine of "preemptive attack" against a country that has not attacked the US and is not in imminent danger of doing so is by definition illegal under international law, as well as deeply immoral.

* Congress has never authorized war with Iran; an attack on Bush's sole authority would be unconstitutional. Even if Congress did authorize it, such a war would be an illegal war of aggression under international law.

* The war with Iraq is already widely opposed by the American public. An attack on Iran would also be broadly unpopular in the US and throughout the world.

* As with Iraq, most of the casualties from an attack on Iran and the resulting regional war would be civilian. The loss of life would likely be massive.

* Attacking Iran without provocation would further damage US moral, political, and economic standing around the world.

* An attack on Iran and the resulting war would be staggeringly expensive.

* If Iran's chief export were salt, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

* The threat to the Middle East's oil supply could make oil and gas much more expensive throughout the world, triggering a global economic crisis.

3. MILITARY AND NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS: An attack against Iran is likely to be militarily disastrous.

* Iran is a much larger and more populous country than Iraq, with a stronger economy and a large military. Iran could and would retaliate, and the Iranian public would likely rally around its government. Once begun, war could end only with US retreat or the nuclear annihilation of Iran.

* The possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran would lead to a global nuclear arms race that would be exponentially worse for long-term US national security.

* The US military is already exhausted and stretched thin, and cannot sustain an additional war against Iran. An attack and the inevitable war that would follow would leave it unable to respond to any emerging threats elsewhere in the world.

* The only way the US military can muster the manpower needed to fight the war that would result from an attack on Iran is through resumption of a draft.

* Iran can retaliate in numerous ways: directly against US planes, directly or through sympathetic Iraqi militias against US forces in Iraq; against US tankers and warships in the Persian Gulf or by blocking oil traffic in the Strait of Hormuz; by launching strikes against Saudi or Gulf State oil facilities or Israel; or through terror attacks by allied groups such as Hezbollah.

* Attacking Iran would put US soldiers in Iraq in even greater danger, and destroy any remaining credibility with the Iraqi people or its leaders.

* Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact. War with one means war with both. An attack on Iran almost certainly would lead to a wider conflagration.

* Attacking Iran would enflame and embolden anti-American Islamism throughout the Islamic world. The results could well additionally imperil US-allied governments in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and nuclear-equipped Pakistan. Islamist control of Pakistan is a much more imminent threat to US security than Iran's fledgling nuclear program.

* As with Iraq, an attack on Iran would be a boon to recruiting and funding efforts by Islamic terrorist groups.

4. ALTERNATIVES TO AN ATTACK: There are better ways to deal with US concerns regarding Iran.

* Iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to engage in direct talks with the United States. The Bush administration has consistently rejected direct diplomacy and undermined European attempts at diplomacy.

* The Bush administration is treating war as a first, rather than a last, resort.

* War is in and of itself immoral, and a flawed way to resolve conflict.

* Negotiation, diplomacy, and goodwill work.