Accusations against Iran by top American military commanders are more to intimidate Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Iranian nation and leaders have seen through the US game plan, and will continue with what is in Iran's national interest. The accusation that Tehran is supplying weapons to Shia militia's in Iraq, especially to Muqtada Al-Sadar's Mehdi Army are not new. Tehran rejects all such allegations. On Friday April 25, 2008 Admiral Michael G Mullen Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff accused Iran in a televised news briefing of increasing shipments of weapons to Shia militia's in Iran, in violation of promises to stem the flow of Iranian arms into Iraq. He accused that Tehran has plans to destabilise Nuri al Maliki's pro US government. The accusations by Admiral Mullen came two days after an allegation by General David H Patraeus the top American general in Iraq and Defence Secretary Robert M Gates that Iran had stepped up clandestine supply of weapons to the Mehdi Army. US commanders in Iraq are planning to reveal and provide proof of arms smuggling from Iran into Iraq. But there was apparent confusion when high US officials commented, " There was no concerted US campaign to intensify pressure on Iran." But anti-Iran remarks by top US military commanders supported by the US Defence Secretary indicate that there could be a shift in US policy towards Iran. That Tehran has been supplying arms to Iraqi Shia militia's, especially to the Mehdi Army are evidenced by the substantial increase in the number of attacks on Iraqi Army and police, and road side bombings which take a toll of US and British troops. US military officials in Baghdad are warning Tehran to stop interfering in Iraq. But Iran does not care. They want the Bush Administration to renew warnings of military action against Iran, if armed supplies by Iran to the Shia militia's continue. Bush Administration acknowledges that "a third conflict - military action against Iran, in addition to the on going war's in Iraq and Afghanistan would be extremely stressful." Thereby implying that a US attack on Iran is a remote possibility. Admiral Mullen said, "But no potential adversary should feel emboldened. I have massive reserve capability, particularly the aircraft carrier groups on station in the Gulf, and the immense capability of the United States Air Force." While land assault can be ruled out, US deployed military capabilities in the Gulf are immense. Two aircraft carrier groups with hundreds of war ships, submarines and F-18 Hornet fighter-attack aircraft are a major threat to Iran's security. Hundreds of US Air Force B-1, B-52 bombers and F-16, F-15, and the latest F-22 Raptors strike fighters have been moved into airfields in Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Diego Garcia and Saudi Arabia, ostensibly for the invasion of Iran. B-1 and B-2 Bombers from main land America had enough range to bomb Tora Bora and return to air bases in the United States. These deadly stealth bombers could also be launched to bomb Iran. But the political environment, where the public rating of President George Bush is down to 28 percent, is not conducive to open another battlefront. American military commanders are puffing and huffing and blowing hot air by threats of military action against Iran. But the American people are fed up with the Iraq war, and want America out of Iraq. And the entire American nation will be on the streets with rallies demanding immediate cease-fire and removal of Bush from the presidency, if another front is opened against Iran. Most political analysts believe that the tough talk on Iran is aimed more at the Arab nations, which are worried about Iranian influence in the Middle East, extending from the Gulf to Syria and Lebanon. They want to see the US taking a harder line against Tehran. Vice President Dick Cheney is an Israeli lobbyists and advocates military action against Iran on various pretexts. The threats to Israel by the Iranian president have been taken seriously by Washington. The earlier allegations that Tehran is engaged in a nuclear weapons programme was shot down last year by the CIA and fifteen other US intelligence agencies. Their disclaimer that Iran's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, took the wind out of anti-Iran and pro-Israel neocons. On May 11, 2007 Cheney had warned Iran from the deck of USN aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis in the Gulf "The United States will not allow Iran to build or obtain nuclear weapons, or gain an upper hand in the Middle East. With two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf waters, I am sending a clear message to friends and adversaries alike." "We stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region," roared Cheney. This propagandist message was for impressing neighbouring Arab regimes, and for assuring Israel that the US is prepared for war, in case Iranian threats against Israel materialise. Cheney stated, " In the event of any crisis in the region, the US is determined to keep the sea lanes in the Gulf open." There was no need for Admiral Mullen to threaten that he has "reserve capability in the US Navy and in the United States Air Force, and it would be a mistake to think that the United States is out of combat capability." Tehran's realistic assessment is that because of Iraq war US is not feared but hated by the world. Obama and Clinton, the presidential hopefuls, are determined to pull US troops out of Iraq, and restore America's tarnished image. Political opposition in the United States is totally opposed to any form of military action against Iran. The huge deployment of American forces is Iraq and the Gulf region is feared by all the regional countries, especially by Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his good will visit to Iraq had assured the Iraqi prime minister of total non-interference. There is rapport between the two governments. PM Maliki has not accused Tehran. And the Iranian nation is determined to fight if attacked. Land invasion of Iran could be ruled out, but naval bombing and harassment and air strikes by the USAF on Iran's nuclear installations will be a grave provocation, which could plunge the region into a disastrous conflict and turmoil. Bush and officials of his administration have been accused by political opponents of rhetoric against Iran to shift and divert public attention away from the protracted and costly war in Iraq, and the drift of US economy into an uncontrolled tailspin. US intelligence experts have concluded that Iran was not actively pursuing any nuclear weapon programme. But in releasing classified information on an alleged nuclear reactor being built in Syria with the help of North Korea, the White House warned Iran against pursuing nuclear technology. How is Tehran involved, if Payongyang is building a nuclear reactor in Syria? There has been no disclaimer from Damascus so far. This is a dangerous allegation, because Israel could bomb and destroy any nuclear reactor in Syria, as it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1983. There has been no immediate reaction from Tel-Aviv so far. CIA is good at spreading rumours. Bush Administration believed CIA lies about 12000 WMD's in Saddam Hussian's armoury, and invaded and destroyed Iraq. Gates and Admiral Mullen have repeatedly urged that military confrontation with Iran be avoided. They have recommended that problems with Iran can and should be solved diplomatically. The tougher rhetoric reflects the shifting nature of threat inside Iraq. US troops are demoralised because they continue to be killed, despite cease-fire agreements with Sunni Arab insurgents. As the Baathist and the Sunni threat has receded, Iranian backed Shia militant groups continue with bombings and attacks which cause US troop casualties. US military judgement is that Shia militants are the major threat to stability in Iraq. Iranian leaders assert that US military presence is the cause of instability. There is a need for a tripartite dialogue, between Iraq, the militants and Iran with US as observer to work a way out of the Iraqi impasse. Iraqi Sunni's and Shia's need to sit and talk about peace and amity. If the two major communities can work out a peace accord, there will be no justification whatsoever for the continued presence of US troops in Iraq.