I watched much of General Petraeus’s testimony.

And what jumped out at me were the bellicose comments he made about Iran.

Several times in his morning testimony, he pointed his finger at Tehran, denouncing the “destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming, and directing some of the so-called Special Groups.”

He alternatively called Iran’s role “particularly damaging,” “lethal,” and “nefarious.”

He blamed elements which he alleged were trained by Iran’s Qods Force for launching “rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government two weeks ago.” In response to a question, he said, “The hand of Iran has been very clear the last few weeks.”

He also warned, “We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead.” They could, he said, “stoke violence.”

One reason we need to stay in Iraq, he said, is to “resist Iranian encroachment” on Iraqi’s sovereignty—yet another in the shifting rationales for the ongoing, open-ended, and seemingly never-ending occupation.

Ambassador Crocker picked up on Petraeus’s claims. “Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq,” he said. “Iran has actively undermined [Iraq] by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state.” (The word of the day is “lethal.”)

Like Petraeus, Crocker worried about Iran gaining influence if Iraq turns into chaos. “Undoubtedly, Iran would be a winner in this scenario, consolidating its influence over Iraqi resources and possibly territory,” Crocker said.

“Iraqi resources”? Hmmm, what are those again?

Can you spell oil?

But I thought we weren’t there for oil. Silly me.

This testimony is nothing but a prelude to Bush’s bombing of Iran.

And no, it’s not going to be primarily about the distant threat of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The NIE shelved that one.

But Bush is fully capable of grabbing another pretext off the shelf, and Petraeus and Crocker have already applied a yellow magic marker to the serviceable lines.

Even Bush knows how to read those.