The prevalent uncertainties about the Republicans facing a devastating defeat in the November polls, Bush administration has once again embarked upon a vigorous campaign to terrorise the American citizens with the supposedly ubiquitous threat of terrorism that could possibly devastate the US and its western allies. John McCain is preparing to wage his 2008 campaign on the same contentious issue that the Republicans had used in the previous elections. The drumbeat over terrorism has a very definite purpose. Elections 2008 are being held under conditions of deep divisions within the US ruling elite itself over the future of US policy at the national and international levels. There is visible sharp opposition within the ruling circles to a continuation of the course set by Bush administration, particularly in the ME. This finds its political expression in the groundswell support for Democrat Obama both in the foreign policy establishment and on Wall Street. The constant incantation of terrorism threat and the charge that Democrats are soft on terrorists is aimed at intimidating them and changing the debate within the influential media, policy circles and scaring the public opinion. This policy of brinkmanship has proven effective in driving the Democrats further to the right and putting the Iraq war to the back of their political agenda. However, with its constant reiteration, the terror refrain has lost political impact. The debate obviously is going behind the backs of the Americans and its implications call for serious considerations. The former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich had earlier issued public warnings that his party faced a real disaster and decisive losses in the Congress unless it charts a "bold course" in November elections. Gingrich's remarks provide an unintended glimpse into the thinking and discussions within top echelons of Bush administration and the Republican Party. Another terrorist attack on the US soil would serve to remind the Americans of the supposedly overriding threat of terrorism and thereby politically shock them into voting for McCain who has a track-record of advancing the most hard-line anti-terrorist oratory. Gingrich's comments raise a chilling question: Are elements within the administration considering an "October surprise" as a means of shifting dismal prospects confronting McCain and his fellow republicans in the coming polls? Are they seriously weighing the option of either fabricating or facilitating a terrorist attack with significant loss of American lives in order to swing the election? For Bush, Cheney and Co; the prospect of a Democratic sweep must be profoundly unsettling. Desperate men do desperate things and in doing that they have no limits. This is an administrative conglomerate that has persistently been committing war crimes; tortures, assassinations and illegal detentions. A wholesale replacement of leading government figures would raise the threat of more revelations about Bush administration's global criminality. Among the most threatening potential revelations are those concerning 9/11 itself. The evidence has emerged about those implicated in the attacks, however, strongly suggests that they enjoyed protection from within the highest levels of the administration, which believed that a terrorist attack on American soil would provide an indispensable pretext for launching military actions in pursuit of longstanding strategic objectives of US imperialism. Of the many US illusions and delusions surrounding the war, the administration's calculations with respect to Iran were among the most wildly off base. Instead of generating a liberal and secular democracy whose vibrations could have driven out Iran's clerical oligarchs, the disastrous Bush policies fostered a sectarian Iraq that has helped empower Iranian hardliners. Rather than serving as an anchor in a new era of stability and US presence in the Persian Gulf, the new Iraq represents a strategic "black hole, bleeding Washington of military resources and political influence, while at the same time extending Iran's dominance amongst its neighbours. It's no coincidence that the nations that have been targeted are all enemies of Israel. It is Israel that has been the source of evidence that has been used, and is still being used to authorise the war resolutions. For those who charge that it is anti-Semitic to maintain that Israel or its Jewish-American supporters have hijacked the war on terror, are serving as prime motivators for the war on Iraq and the oncoming conflict with Iran and Syria. The primary evidence that has been used by the Israel lobby to sell these wars was clearly "made in Israel." At the centre of it all is Cheney who proposed air strikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) bases last summer by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the US would go in escalating the conflict with Iran. The proposal was dropped because of the opposition of the Defense Department officials that Iran had more and better options for hitting back at the US than the US had for hitting Iran. Although the Pentagon bottled up the Cheney's proposal in inter-agency discussions, Cheney had a strategic asset that could be used to overcome that obstacle; his alliance with General Petraeus who was a also a supporter of striking IRGC targets in Iran. But Fallon's forced resignation in March and the subsequent promotion of Petraeus to become CENTCOM chief later this year gives Cheney a possible option to ignore the position of his opponents in Washington once more in the final months of the administration. And this time Iran will be the scapegoat.