The US occupation of Iraq has been, from the beginning, an exercise in plugging holes, ones that continue to spring up in a variety of different areas only to be met with more corks, more excuses, and the ultimate reality that the United States is responsible for plunging a nation, and a region of the world, into disarray while its own population, for the most part, goes on with their daily lives oblivious to the traumatic realities in what has become one of the most dangerous and troubled nations on earth in which to live.

Thus far, the United States has pumped $25 billion dollars into attempts to reconstitute various elements of Iraq’s infrastructure. Unfortunately, despite that fact, 43% of the Iraqi population lives in poverty, 28% of Iraqi children suffer from malnutrition (prior to the invasion 19% suffered from malnutrition and that was while UN sanctions were in place that, over a decade, aided in the deaths of approximately 1 million Iraqis), only 30% of Iraqi children currently attend school at the elementary level (last year 75% of them did), and 70% of Iraqis do not have access to clean water (which is up 20% post invasion). Electricity and basic sanitation are still precarious at best in numerous locations, as is access to fuel.

Those that have fled the country, or are displaced within it, number in the millions, and the civilian death toll, which the Pentagon thought best not to bother keeping track of, is devastating. And while an entire generation of Americans will live with the traumatic remembrance of September 11th, an entire generation of Iraqis will spend the rest of their lives traumatized by years of bloody conflict that is not limited to the immediate first hand experience of the population of a single city, but a nation as a whole. Unlike the majority of Americans that watched the events of September 11th on their televisions, the majority of Iraqis have had to only open their front doors.

One of the most dangerous aspects of a reckless foreign policy doctrine is the politicization of war. Iraq provides one of the best examples of this reality in US history, even more so than Vietnam.

The politicization of the war in Iraq is entirely prevalent when one examines the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, two men who, for all intents and purposes, are not testifying objectively before Congress, but rather defending the politicization of a war that is, by no means, anything less than an utter disaster. Their unwillingness to admit as much only proves the point all the more.

One of the key elements of their testimony is the inclusion of anti-Iranian rhetoric that supports the current administration’s position to the letter. The assertion that the United States, and the current Iraqi government, are now confronting Iranian proxy forces in Iraq is not merely a slippery slope given the fact that President Bush has more than half a year left in the Oval Office, but one that could lead the United States into an open conflict with a nation that, no matter the Bush administration’s view of it, represents a far more dangerous affair than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

It has been suggested that a US assault against Iran would be primarily limited to aerial operations, which obviously speaks to the reality of the present condition of US ground forces, that being that they are in a state of serious over extension. Thus, a ground assault against the Iranians is not a realistic option that Washington can consider, and if the Bush administration is, then the loss of US lives in such an operation would make the war in Iraq look like a mild affair. I, for one, would not put it past those neoconservative Beltway voices that have been routinely relied upon to produce some of the most ridiculous analysis regarding US operations in the Middle East to suggest that Iran be ‘dealt with’ before a Democrat secures the White House and the opportunity is lost. In fact, I would expect no less of them or others in Washington with similar views.

Such voices, of course, represent a chorus of individuals that do not have to enact the policies that they engineer from the safety of their offices. That particular task is left to others whom they then have the audacity to call heroes who have been, from the get go, nothing but fodder for what is arguably one of the most dangerous and highly politicized foreign policy doctrines in American history.

With regards to the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker, take the following into account…

“Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate, barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad.

As they spoke, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr threatened to unleash his Mahdi Army militia against U.S. and Iraqi forces. Once again, it was Iran that stepped into the political vacuum and urged a halt to militia attacks into the heavily fortified Green Zone, where U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Petraeus and Crocker, have their offices.”

Of course, if objectivity is to be employed, the Iranians could very well be playing both sides of the fence – a tactic cultivated and perfected by the Americans and Russians on a global scale over the last sixty-one years. All one need do is employ a Google search to confirm that. And if the Iranians are dealing with both hands in two different fashions, it’s not as if they wrote the playbook on how to do it. Therein lies one of the immense ironies of this fiasco.

The ramifications of Petraeus and Crocker’s testimony may very well affect Americans more than they realize. And in doing so, the politicization of a conflict that has not only devastated a nation, but the lives of thousands of American families, may very well aid in not only prolonging the war, but perhaps even expanding it. There are those that will argue that it has been worth it, and that a confrontation with Iran is an unavoidable necessity. Such are the voices of those that have the luxury of creating and supporting wars that they do not have to fight. That, in the end, will never have to take their children to a monument so that they might run their fingers over the name of a father or mother that, when all is said and done, died for nothing more than the opportunistic ideology of individuals no better than those they perceived as enemies.

Yesterday, the Iranian government conceded the fact that it played a role in mediating the ceasefire between Iraqi forces and Shi’ite militias, that has, given events yesterday, seemingly crumbled. Despite this, US General David Patraeus is expected to include in his upcoming testimony before Congress that Iranian forces were directly involved in the recent unrest in Basra, operating at a tactical command level. The presentation of such information will, without question, be used to argue that US troop levels in Iraq remain at current strength, the concern being that if numbers are reduced the Iranians will be able to exploit the situation and increase their collusion with those in Iraq with which their interests are aligned.

I’ll not argue that US intelligence could be accurate with regards to Iranian involvement. Then again, given the position that the United States has taken with regards to Iran, it also could be a case of convenience, and therein lays the danger. Using this situation to make inroads that might suggest openly confronting the Iranians should not be discounted given the precedents set by the current administration. There is also no questioning the fact that Patraeus has become a highly politicized military commander, one whose objectivity and impartiality must be questioned given his initial testimony to Congress in September of last year. At the time, the Surge was hailed as a resounding success, but one that was little more than a mirage – and that fact has become resoundingly clear over the last few months. Violence in Iraq did indeed decrease for a time; building walls to physically separate communities within the same city will do that for a time. But such measures do not, by any means, provide lasting results, as has been proven. Therefore, some justification is required to maintain current troop levels, and the use of Iranian involvement in Iraq, be it particularly accurate or not, provides pretext.

Given the fact that the majority of Iraq’s population is Shi’ite, and that Iran is a predominantly Shi’ite nation, it only stands to reason that, given its own interests in the region, Iran is not in the position to simply sit on the sidelines and watch a foreign power – one that has labeled it one of the world’s foremost dangers - attempt to ensure the instillation of a lasting pro-Western government through a prolonged military occupation. The truth of the matter is; the United States has a long and sordid history of backing Latin American strongmen and paramilitary groups to ensure that its influence in the region is maintained – which is no different than Iranian collusion with Shi’ite militias in Iraq. With regards to US – Latin American policy history, a tradition of supporting wholly corrupted and undemocratic governments is the norm. Therefore, the argument that Iranian influence in Iraq is undermining the growth of a US supplanted democracy becomes moot. Because the reality is that, in the end, it isn’t about freedom, only the presence of a government that is aligned with the foreign policy objectives of a foreign power. In that sense, both the United States and the Iranians are equally suspect.

Removed from a situation, so much so that it has become an informational inconvenience, not to mention social taboo with regards to conversation, how do societies at war deal with the realities of war given the distance from which they are viewed?

With regards to fighting abroad, this reality provides those promoting conflicts abroad with the ability to use disingenuous justifications and rhetoric to not merely defend their purpose, but to casually address the failures produced by them. Besides those fighting in Iraq, what experience does the average American have with regards to what has, and is, transpiring there? How many Americans realize that the same problems that have plagued many parts of the country, such as intermittent power and other major deficiencies in Iraq’s civic infrastructure, have not been seriously address five years after the invasion of the country? How many Americans realize that their soldiers, and those private contractors in the employ of The State Department, are immune from prosecution for war crimes by the very government that the current administration has promoted as a democratic body steeped in the rule of law? Not even the International Criminal Court has any power over the prosecution of war crimes committed by US personnel.

Given that, and the remove at which we view the war, how entirely out of touch are we with regards to the temperament of Iraqis when it comes to such realities? That in their own country, members of an occupying force cannot be tried for crimes by Iraqi courts, nor tried by an internationally recognized body? Iraqi courts were sufficient enough to try Saddam Hussein and other members of his regime, but they are deemed insufficient to try US Marines guilty of raping and killing a teenaged girl, as well as members of her family. Likewise, Iraqi courts have no jurisdiction over private contractors, and cannot prosecute them for crimes committed against civilians either.

One fact that must never be overlooked, no matter how unpopular or tired this subject might be, is that Iraq is an occupied nation. It is home to well in excess of 100,000 foreign troops and countless private contractors. This reality does not reinforce the deliverance of stability whatsoever, but merely the presence of a military force that remains to ensure the survival of a government hastily put into place to ensure that American domestic perceptions of the operation as a whole were justified.

During the last five years, the occupation has led to the emergence of Jihadi groups in Iraq that were not present prior to the invasion, not to mention using methods of literal separation in an attempt to quell sectarian violence through the use of concrete walls surrounding neighbourhoods in locations such as Baghdad. Such methods helped curb violence for a time, something that, again, was used domestically to promote the success of ‘the Surge’, despite the fact that it did nothing to actually address the root of the problem itself. To claim that with the creation of a more stable security situation that such root problems can be address is a fallacy being that were those walls not to exist, the very same level of violence would no doubt resume.

The words of Donald Rumsfeld should, in truth, haunt Americans for decades to come. That pre-war planning was more than adequate and that all measures were taken during it to prepare for a variety of outcomes. Rumsfeld represented a community belief within the administration that the invasion would be both cost effective and that the occupation to follow would be short lived. This perception was sold to the American public, with continual excuses being provided in the aftermath of the invasion to justify why the Pentagon’s initial preparations were not adequate. This leads back to the remove at which we experience the war and the flexibility that that provides those that initiated it to continually excuse their complicity in what has since become a disastrous venture.

The removal of Saddam Hussein can no longer be provided as a justification for the invasion. While his regime was brutal, it was no more so than many others that, to this day, remain in power and continue to be the cause of various regional instabilities. Claims regarding his desire to amass weapons of mass destruction were blatantly false, with only the remnants of chemical weapon caches from the Iran-Iraq having ever been found. Given that, it should not be overlooked who supported him during that period, providing detailed satellite coverage of Iranian troop movements so that the use of chemical weapons would be devastatingly accurate – the CIA. Likewise, the use of the example of Halabja is not relevant with regards to US military justifications, as after the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, the Reagan White House issued the weakest of statements, vetoed a Congressional bill that would have immediately stopped military support to Hussein’s regime, and then continued to fund it.

Following the Gulf War, the sanctions implemented against Iraq would take a devastating toll on the Iraqi population, killing in excess of 1 million people. At the time, the United Nations was deemed a viable vehicle with which to impede Hussein. But when it refused to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration declared it to be as ineffectual as The League Of Nations, and unilaterally proceeded with military operations. Mere weeks later, President Bush declared combat operations at an end. Five years, and 4,000 US deaths later, his declaration has not only been proven false, but exposed the reality that an altogether arrogant and undereducated cabal within the administration planned a major military action that completely failed to take into account any of Iraq’s social realities.

No matter your view of the war, that is one aspect of it that cannot be argued away. That pre-war planning was, in effect, almost non-existent, that it completely failed to take into account a myriad of cultural and historical factors, not to mention the military requirements that were necessary to realistically implement the operation itself. It was, in essence, no different than the belief that a bridge made of steel and concrete could be held together with scotch tape.

By now it has become more than evident that the trauma caused by 9/11 was used by a group of individuals to enact one of the most devastating foreign policy doctrines in US history and that Iraq provided the perfect context with which to enact it with regards to the Middle East. Given that claims that Hussein’s regime had ties to al-Qaeda, or was involved in the attacks of September 11th have, since day one, been entirely false, the hegemonic realities of the invasion and occupation are abundantly clear. And yet, given our otherworldly distance from the realities of the conflict, we remain apathetically comfortable with not seriously confronting that fact.

Over the last five years, 4,000 American families have paid the price for the abuse of their trust. Driving around New York City it is not uncommon to see stickers on the backs of vehicles that read never forget with an image of the twin towers in the background. The irony, of course, is that 4,000 Americans, and countless innocent Iraqis, have died since 2003 because of a handful of politicians and pundits that, without hesitation, took advantage of the corruption of patriotism. Thus, if there is anything that the people of this nation should never forget, it is that.

I’m tired. Not a lot of sleep last night. I spent it in one of those semi-states of sleep, the sort where you’re aware that you have to be mindful of something that requires that you remain somewhat conscious but are still trying to sleep at the same time.

It’s clear and sunny here again today, as it has been this past week. In fact, it’s been uncommonly beautiful for this time of year, even given the chill the wind provides here on the West Coast that has the annoying ability to cut through everything that you’re wearing and go straight to your bones. We share that phenomenon with the UK, where it’s routine business as well.

I’m rambling, and I’m aware of it. I’m rambling because I’m having one of those mornings that I’m finding it difficult to concentrate. I’m having one of those mornings because, as has been the case over the last month, the list of things to touch upon grows so quickly every day that it seems almost impossible to retain it all and then translate it into something cogent.

Just off the top of my head there’s…

The recent revelation that the Canadian Armed Forces have stopped the transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities because of a report of abuse on the 5th of November of last year despite the fact that last May, after a scandal broke regarding the Canadian transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities that were known for their use of torture, the government claimed that it was taking steps to immediately rectify the situation.

The recently released Manley Report, which, although critical of numerous aspects of the mission in Afghanistan, has basically provided the government with what can only be viewed as a blank cheque with regards to Canadian combat operations in that country. Of course, the report is non-binding, but its ramifications on a political level are extremely convenient. Canada, of course, is only one of three nations involved in direct combat operations in Afghanistan, and of the three represents the smallest contingent. That being the case, our losses, compared to those of the United States and the UK, are wholly disproportionate. The debate, however, remains transfixed on our continued support of the mission’s objectives, to help stabilize the nation and provide it security, even though other members of ISAF, with considerably larger forces in country, continue to refuse to have their contingents involved in direct combat operations. There is also the concern that even though our efforts are aimed at ensuring democratic stability in Afghanistan, that its implementation is, in effect, the representation of Western regional aspirations, and therefore not dissimilar to Soviet regional aspirations in the 70’s when the USSR was responsible for aiding in the supplanting of a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Thus, the real test of Afghan democracy will come when the nation has been secured and Western exploitative practices begin in earnest.

That is certainly not to say that the Taliban should be allowed to run rampant and plunge the nation into complete chaos, only that precluding the possibility of negotiations for the purposes of resolution is counter productive. Ultimately, there are always going to be those that support some, if not all, of the Taliban’s agenda, which raises a very important question: must those that do be wholly eliminated before progress can be made? And if they are not, what assurances do we have that there will not be a resurgence in the future that could seriously threaten the stability of the country, even after it possesses a well trained and equipped military? Given that, is it not fair to say that Western military involvement, on even the smallest of levels, will be required in Afghanistan for years to come?

Of course, all of that doesn’t even touch on the realities of the Pakistani frontier and the support covertly supplied those in opposition to the current Afghan government by elements within the Pakistani military establishment itself.

The possibility that Kenya could explode at any moment despite last minute attempts at political reconciliation aimed at stemming violence. As it stands now, the country is already in the early stages of a humanitarian crisis and also on the cusp of what could quickly turn into a genocidal event.

The recent disparity of global markets.

The continuing unrest in Pakistan.

The case of Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, who has been held at the facility since 2002. Khadr was captured at the age of 15 and, as the French Foreign Ministry recently pointed out…

“…all children associated with an armed conflict should be treated accordingly. As a minor at the time of the events, Mr. Khadr must be given special treatment — a point on which there is a universal consensus.”

The Canadian government has refused to intercede in Khadr’s case.

Gaza. While many have taken to illegally entering Egypt so that they can attempt to get food, fuel, and other sundries, Israel’s position remains steadfast, that being that the blockade is a move against the continued rocket attacks emanating from Gaza into Israel. The majority of the United Nations Security Council has labeled the blockade a violation of international humanitarian law and a collective punishment against the entire population, but the United States refuses to support that position without the inclusion of language that supports Israel’s concerns regarding the actions of Palestinian militants. Caught in the middle are, as usual, the 1.5 million residents of Gaza itself.

The firing of Linda Keen, President of The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, hours before she was to appear before a House committee in Ottawa. Keen was fired, according to Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, due to the government’s ‘lack of confidence in her leadership’. This, of course, happened after the Commission’s attempt to have the Chalk River facility closed due to safety concerns and government’s decision to ignore the Commission.

The realities of the sanctions against Iran.

The ruinous economic reality of America’s imperialist adventures.

The frightening resurgence of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Media attacks on Heath Ledger following his death.

The Jose Padilla affair.

The continued humanitarian crisis unfolding in Somalia.

The Sudanese government’s decision to make Musa Hilal, a man accused of coordinating the Janjiweed militias in Darfur, an advisor to Federal Affairs Minister Abdel Basit Sabderat.

And So Forth

In truth, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Iraq is, of course, absent – primarily recent events in Baquba - as is the ever-evolving telecommunications scandal in the US and the Sibel Edmonds affair, the unrest in Zimbabwe, and events in Chiapas.

Last, but certainly not least, there are also those voices that tend to make excellent arguments on a routine basis, such as Robert Fisk, Stephen Zunes, and (for your viewing pleasure), the always brilliant Chalmers Johnson…

In a speech yesterday in the UAE, President Bush called Iran the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Now, to some, that might not sound unseemly, but it shouldn’t be overlooked that Iran is the UAE’s number one trading partner, which Bush completely failed to mention in the speech. Nor did he mention that the UAE is one of the most important conduits for Iranian imports despite US Sanctions, the fact that a significant Iranian ex-pats community that plays a central role in commerce in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, that human rights violations are commonplace in the UAE, or the fact that power is commonly inherited and that democratic development is, at best, a façade.

Instead, he praised the rulers of the UAE for luring foreign investment.

Dancing around such issues is not uncommon. Obviously the remarks regarding Iran were made for the sake of the Iranians and the American public, not necessarily those in attendance, some of whom took offense given their connections with Iran. Bush’s remarks regarding “free and just societies” were also not well received given that those he was addressing have absolutely nothing to gain by the implementation of serious democratic reforms.

With regards to the overtones of Mr. Bush’s speech, it should also not be overlooked that the UAE was one of only three nations to acknowledge the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan when it was in power, the very same group that the United States has accused the Iranians of militarily assisting. Of course, when the Taliban was in power, Tehran did not recognize it as the nation’s official government.

Beyond all of this, and the fact that there is always the issue of arms agreements lurking in the shadows during such visits passed off as joint security initiatives, there are also the contradictions that the United States is currently in negotiations with the Iranians with regards to Iraq, and that while the President is promoting “free and just societies” in the region, the United States is militarily occupying two of them.

Probably the most hypocritical, not to mention historically astonishing, statement made during the speech was…

“For decades, the people of this region saw their desire for liberty and justice denied at home and dismissed abroad in the name of stability. Today, your aspirations are threatened by violent extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit of power. They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision. They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions.”

Of course, the United States was, and still is, one of the leading nations with regards to supporting autocratic regimes in the region, something that people in the region have certainly not forgotten, even if people on this side of the world have. While the President talks freely of liberty and justice in the Middle East, the United States remains as committed as ever to their relationships with the ruling factions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. It recently penned an agreement promising $20 billion dollars worth of military aid over the next decade that all of them will benefit from, and yet the President, who has full knowledge of that fact still has the audacity to talk about “free and just societies”. Let’s also not overlook the fact that, by entering into such an agreement the United States had to counteract it by offering the Israelis $30 billion dollars in aid over the same period of time.

The goal of the President’s speech was to target the Iranians, and in doing so speak more so to his domestic audience than anyone else. Unlike those in the region in which he gave the address, domestic perceptions regarding the ‘threat’ that Iran posses are primarily formed based on the constant stream of alarming information provided by the administration and others in the government. The same cannot be said for your average person on the street in the UAE.

This leads us to the inevitable question – is Iran truly the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism?

Examining who has been behind most of the international attacks since the mid 1990’s, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Iran has no affiliation with al-Qaeda or groups linked to it. It does not, unlike elements within Saudi Arabia, Libya, the UAE, and Syria, support the efforts of Jihadists in Iraq, it’s primary link being with militant Shi’ite groups, some of which have substantial influence within Iraq’s Interior Ministry itself – which means the armed forces and police. Thus, if anything, it is guilty of supporting factions within Iraq’s most predominant group, the very same group that did not play a significant role in the rise of the Sunni based insurgency, and one that has, since sectarian tensions came to a head, conducted violent campaigns against Sunnis, which constitute the majority of the insurgency and Jihadist groups whose ranks are replete with foreign fighters.

If anything, Iranian interference in Iraq has been solely based on aiding radical aspects of the Shi’ite population who have had links with Tehran since before the US invasion of the country.

Looking abroad, there is no arguing the fact that Iran supports Hezbullah and other such groups. In truth, though still indefensible, their support of such groups has been largely aimed at helping them in their struggles against other regional powers, many of whom are backed by foreign powers, in an attempt to consolidate power and expand their influence, something that, like it or not, the United States helped write the handbook on.

Also rather telling is this passage…

“They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions.”

Like the people of Chile stood with the United States against the ‘brutal ambitions’ of Salvador Allende, their fears erased when the CIA helped engineer the coup that put Pinochet in power who then went about ‘disappearing’ tens of thousand of Chileans?

Next to the covert global foreign policy undertakings of the United States, Iran is a snow white virgin by comparison. And don’t think that the United States hasn’t endeavored to sponsor terrorists either. In 2005, Luis Posada was held in Texas on the charge of Illegal Presence. The charges were later dropped. While the US Justice Department requested that the court keep Posada in jail because he was, of his own admission, the mastermind behind numerous terrorist attacks, Posada was neither charged with crimes relating to those admissions, nor was a Venezuelan extradition request approved because the a US Immigration judge ruled that were he to be extradited he would face torture.

In 1976, Luis Posada, a long-time asset of the CIA with links to the Cuban American National Foundation, a CIA shill, masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner, killing 76 innocent people. He was also involved in the 1997 bombing of numerous Cuban hotels and nigh clubs. While being found guilty in absentia for numerous terrorist attacks and unrealized plots. Ironically, unlike those being held at Guantanamo, Posada was granted his rights under the Constitution with regards to his seizure and the legal proceedings that followed.

The truth is, the United States has another word for ‘terrorist’ when they are the ones producing them. They tend to call them ‘assets’ or ‘paramilitaries’, many of which were trained at the notorious School Of The Americas [1], whose graduates include Manuel Noriega, Cid Diaz, and others used in violent operations by proxy regimes in Latin America.

So is Iran the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism? Have they perhaps been gifted that title because they are a powerful player in a region in which the United States currently finds itself militarily and politically treading water? Is the President’s rhetoric an attempt to whitewash the recent findings of the recent National Intelligence Estimate? Is Iran a nation stupid enough to engage in a clandestine nuclear weapons program with the whole world watching and then provide a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization? Would they be stupid enough to do it were they not being scrutinized? What are the actual logistics involved in employing a nuclear device capable of causing serious damage? Can such a device be contained within a backpack? And if that is a possibility, and something of that nature did occur, is the Iranian government stupid enough to believe that an immediate retaliation of vastly greater proportions wouldn’t be rained down upon them in the event that it happened? And if they aren’t that stupid, would they seriously consider gifting such a device to a terrorist group? Would members of the Revolutionary Guard do it, knowing full well that by doing it they would be forfeiting their lives and the lives of perhaps millions of others, their families included?

I have written about this in the past, so won’t bother retracing my steps, but consider this. The United States has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Its destructive power is so great that even a portion of it could render this planet completely uninhabitable. They have the ability to launch weapons from domestic and foreign silos, from aircraft, and from naval vessels. In fact, a single Ohio Class nuclear submarine could devastate the Iranian population and launch its compliment from the Gulf providing little to no warning whatsoever. In truth, they could park themselves 20 miles off the Iranian coast and launch submerged and no one would know a thing until it was all over.

This world might be home to moronic fanatics that don’t care about their own lives because of religious zealotry, but they have to get their guns and ammo from somewhere. Those that provide them their wares usually aren’t the sort that are stupid enough to completely overlook what would befall them were they to hand over a nuclear device.

Now, we can claim that by employing preemptive military force we can assure something of that nature won’t occur. Then again, we’re not prepared to deal with Pakistan, which has an arsenal of its own, and whose military establishment has longstanding ties with known militant organizations. Unlike Iran, it’s a nation in chaos, one in which terrorist attacks have been on the rise, and one in which elements of the Taliban, and groups sympathetic to their plight, operate largely unhindered. And while there has been a great deal of talk regarding the uncertainty that the unrest in Pakistan has produced, it is not seen as the sort of threat that Iran is.

Demonizing Iran is, in truth, wholly to the benefit of the United States. It remains the most powerful nation in the region opposed to the US occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. By supplanting a friendly regime in Tehran, the United States would, in essence, created a unified operational area stretching from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. And that reality is something that, in all of this, has remained largely overlooked.

The Vice President did his best to stall this latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (.pdf) for as long as he could in an attempt to ensure that certain language was not included. Fortunately, given the estimate’s findings, it would appear that the Vice President’s efforts were unsuccessful.

This morning the President claimed that, despite the findings of the estimate, Iran remains a global threat…

“Mr Bush said the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was “an opportunity for us to rally the international community” to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium - a key part of the process in making a nuclear bomb.

“I view this report as a warning signal that they had the programme, they halted the programme,” Mr Bush told a news conference. “The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.

“Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the know-how to make a nuclear weapon,” Mr Bush said.”

Cue the chorus of right-wing pundits clinging to the belief that just because the intelligence regarding Iraq was utter tripe doesn’t mean that the intelligence regarding Iran is. Then again, that’s what NIE’s are for, and it’s up to the administration that they’re prepared for to use as a basis for engineering policy. In this case, unfortunately, we’re talking about one of the worst administrations in US history, one that has proven its ability to employ falsehoods to enact its foreign policy initiatives.

Hopefully, in this case, the American public will keep their eyes and ears open.

Yesterday, Marjorie Cohn’s piece: Operation Iraqi Freedom Exposed: Bush Negotiates Permanent Presence in Iraq, detailed one of the most overlooked aspects of the Iraqi endgame, the use of that nation as a permanent US military foothold in the Middle East. She is, of course, not the first to suggest it. Since the invasion, it has been one of the most constant views of objective foreign policy experts, even though other issues, such as oil, have overshadowed it. That’s not to say that there hasn’t been a concerted effort to privatize a great deal of Iraqi industry, there certainly has, and that should definitely be taken into account, but the reality remains that since the loss of strategic bases elsewhere, primarily in Saudi Arabia, Iraq has become America’s new regional military frontier. Given that, Iran posses a threat, no matter the specifics.

While the Bush administration has claimed that diplomatic measures will be used to confront Iran, it mustn’t be overlooked that their version of diplomacy involves the implementation of sanctions, the categorization of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and the ongoing construction of an international consensus to isolate the Iranians as much as is possible. Unfortunately, that is not diplomacy, but simply another way to wage war – even more, to ensure it and, in the process, hopefully acquire international support. Thus, it would seem that the only lesson learned from the corruption of intelligence in the past is that there are better ways to go about acquiring the confrontation that you’re after.

A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the recent referendum held in Venezuela with regards to the democratic process. The White House, of course, claimed the outcome a triumph for the Venezuelan people. Ironically, when it comes to the war in Iraq, the White House refuses to even consider popular US opinion whatsoever, with the President even going so far as to claim that he doesn’t care if he lacks the support of the majority of Americans. Democracy, it seems, is thusly entirely dependent on perspective.

The NIE regarding Iran, which will be attacked infinitum no doubt, may very well get lost in the murky waters that the Bush administration has come to comfortably call home. It’s subversion is, in fact, paramount, and if successful will only provides another example of how the office of the President has subverted that portion of the intelligence community that it has been unable to politicize since 9/11.

As for the threat that Iran represents, I have exhaustively confronted that issue numerous times in the past, so use the search feature if you’re interested in delving further.

That said, while on the topic of nuclear weapons and the Middle East, Lew Buttler’s recent piece in the San Francisco Chronicle might be of interest to some of you…

“Many months ago Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, let slip a reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons. While it embarrassed him, it was no surprise to the rest of the world. It has been known for decades that Israel has nukes. Estimates are that there are probably as many as 200 in the Israeli arsenal, including thermonuclear (hydrogen) ones.

What is surprising is that there is almost never any public discussion in the United States, and certainly none in the White House or the Congress, about these weapons. Is there any understanding between Israel and the United States, its principal source of military aid, about their use? If so, does the understanding cover “no first use,” similar to the policy advocated in the United States at the height of the Cold War? What would the United States do if Israel were ever under an attack that might lead it to a nuclear response? Has the United States ever talked with Israel about its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? For Israel, are the weapons more of a danger to its security than a defense?

These have always been critical issues but are doubly important now that the United Nations, with strong U.S. support, is putting intense pressure on Iran not to develop the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Iran is responding that under the nonproliferation treaty, to which it is a party, it has the right to develop nuclear power, and that is all that it is doing. But, as was the case with India and Pakistan, eventually Iran will probably justify having nuclear weapons on the grounds that its sworn enemy, Israel, has them. Now an already tense situation has become worse with Israel’s unacknowledged Sept. 6 air attack on a supposed Syria nuclear installation, and the call by some hawks in this country for U.S. raids on Iranian nuclear facilities.

There is, of course, a long history of nuclear tensions in the Middle East. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactors to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. After the Persian Gulf War, in the 1990s, U.N. inspectors spent nearly seven years in Iraq inspecting its nuclear facilities. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s decision to expel those inspectors began the series of events that led to the United States invading Iraq on the premise that it had weapons of mass destruction. Now, if Iran continues to develop its nuclear capacity, a whole new crisis would develop if Israel tried to destroy Iran’s reactors as it did the Iraqi ones and, presumably, the Syrian installation.

The unspoken basis for U.S. policy about Israel’s nukes seems to be that we don’t want our enemies to have such weapons but we don’t worry as much if our friends, like Israel, Pakistan and India, have them. As for our enemies, the negotiations in North Korea and Libya show that even a “hard line” U.S. administration is willing to offer significant financial and other benefits to persuade them to give up their nuclear ambitions. When, as in the case of Iran, such bribes are not apt to work, then we are willing, more so than our European allies, to exert pressure and even contemplate military action.”

I love the War on Terror. Let’s face it, without it, what would I really have to write about on a daily basis? The world has been plunged into the most ambiguous event in modern history, placing those on all sides – and there is certainly more than one – in positions of ensuring their survival at any price. In that regard, even the perpetuation of the ‘war’ itself represents the survival of radical ideologies, be they those engineered in Washington or in the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Ironically, both existed long before the World Trade Center fell.

Since 9/11, that tragedy has been used to justify actions that, in truth, no sane society would ever permit unless something of that magnitude existed to provide manipulation. Then again, the people of the United States have been kept in the dark for so long with regards to the covert actions of their own country as to render them little more than four-year robots, required to help facilitate the democratic façade. When the DOD and the CIA have both operated outside of the Constitution since their inception without that fact being seriously debated or challenged, what other conclusion is there to reach?

Usury and indoctrination are not solely the tools of religious radicals. In truth, the technique was gleaned from far more experienced employers of that mechanism. And that is not to say that the United States, or even the Soviets, wrote the book on it, as it’s a text that spans centuries. Just that they simply added a chapter or two.

The beauty of the War on Terror it that it is a conflict without sides precisely so that they don’t have to be taken. Sure, the common perception of it is that it’s a war against terrorism, but that is such an impossibly grandiose statement that, were it true, it would require action to be taken all over the world, not just in those nations in which radical Islam exists. In truth, it would also require that action even be taken against those that instituted the War on Terror in the first place.

For those that, following the end of the Cold War, waited patiently for a chance to unleash an imperialistic US foreign policy doctrine steeped in the arrogance of a one world power, and all the benefits that come with it, the War on Terror is tantamount to Christmas 365 days a year. It is a war without rules, without defined goals, without a conclusion. It is a war in which those that are prosecuted by it can also be used as facilitators for its objectives. Take, for example, US relations with Sudan.

As some of you might be aware, the United States officially classified what has taken place in Darfur as genocide. Of course, when one examines what has, and continues to, take place there, there is no question that Khartoum aided the Janjiweed militias that have been largely responsible for what has transpired in Darfur. Khartoum has denied any connection, of course, despite the fact that last year much of the Janjiweed was absorbed into the Sudanese Armed Forces, primarily the Popular Defense Forces and Border Guards.

So what does that have to do with the War on Terror and the United States?

Well, even though the Bush administration has condemned what is taking place in Darfur as genocide, and even gone so far as to impose sanctions against Sudan, they have also been working with the government in Khartoum on initiatives to do with the war in Iraq, primarily focused on infiltrating Salafi Jihadi groups. The sanctions, while real, are soft, and thus meant to placate a world view that is decidedly critical of the Sudanese government’s complicity in Darfur while maintaining its ‘extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan’ – as the Los Angeles times put it in June of this year…

“The relationship underscores the complex realities of the post-Sept. 11 world, in which the United States has relied heavily on intelligence and military cooperation from countries, including Sudan and Uzbekistan, that are considered pariah states for their records on human rights.

“Intelligence cooperation takes place for a whole lot of reasons,” said a U.S. intelligence official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing intelligence assessments. “It’s not always between people who love each other deeply.”

Sudan has become increasingly valuable to the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks because the Sunni Arab nation is a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan.

That steady flow of foreign fighters has provided cover for Sudan’s Mukhabarat intelligence service to insert spies into Iraq, officials said.

“If you’ve got jihadists traveling via Sudan to get into Iraq, there’s a pattern there in and of itself that would not raise suspicion,” said a former high-ranking CIA official familiar with Sudan’s cooperation with the agency. “It creates an opportunity to send Sudanese into that pipeline.”

So, in short, you condemn the government of Sudan for being complicit in what you have termed genocide and yet you willingly conduct intelligence operations with them.

That, in a nutshell, defines the War on Terror. Right and wrong have no place in it primarily because no defined enemy has ever been established. At first it was Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, which then grew into an ambiguous global network of terrorists, as Bin Laden’s capture became less likely – and, for all intents and purposes – less of a priority. Actions undertaken in various locations, such as in London, by individuals acting independently of any known or established terrorist group then filled the void, providing the war’s spin doctors the opportunity to place it in an improper context, that being that terrorism is alive and well and not, as in the case of the London attacks, based on racial or religious tensions within a specific society or something undertaken as a response to the US occupation of Iraq, among other things. In a sense, such occurrences are little more than blowback entirely respondent to a reckless and hypocritical US foreign policy doctrine, though they are never reported as such by much of the media. Instead, they remain vague in their purpose, with any door left open that infers a connection to a greater evil.

It is, in truth, difficult to find a historical comparison to the sweeping power provided by the ambiguity of the War on terror. Not even the National Socialists in Germany were gifted such an all-encompassing blank cheque with regards to indoctrination and public subversion. In truth, they would have probably marveled at the unprecedented, manipulative power that it has provided the United States and its allies. In their case, the restriction of civil liberties, etc, was overt, harsh, and decisive. Fear was employed on a much more basic and forceful level - nowhere nearly as subversively as it has been with regards to Western societies since 9/11. The crucial element, of course, is that public cooperation because of that fear has led to the acceptance of something that has not only been globally justified as both necessary and just, but completely open ended without limitation or a definition of finality.

If you do business with those guilty of genocide what does that say about you? There was a time when it would say very little, but given the ability to evoke the term ‘War on Terror’, the rules have changed. A world away, we view what has transpired in Darfur as a massive tragedy, but many, faced with the knowledge that the US government still has a relationship with the Sudanese government that is based on counter-terrorism initiatives, view the latter as being of equal importance. True, what has befallen those innocents in Darfur is horrific, but then again, so was 9/11. And that, when it comes to Western perceptions, is all that need be said. It doesn’t matter that the ratio of deaths is not even closely comparable, because, like it or not, admit it or not, we’re talking about the lives of foreigners in a part of the world that is wholly alien to us.

The War on Terror has amplified the need to ensure our security to a global level, enveloping the lives of others, allowing us to use who we will in attempt to ensure our ends no matter the transgressions of those that would aid us in doing so, or the innocent lives lost in the pursuit.

Like it or not, that truth alone renders the War on Terror already lost, though it will most probably take decades for most to come to terms with it.

Life is getting better. Our people on the ground see it every day, according to the likes of the Foreign Affairs Minister and our military’s top General. Our mission in Afghanistan is, according to them, of paramount importance. Of course, there is a schism between the two realities – helping reconstitute a nation or representing the third largest active combat force in the country that has suffered, in comparison to their counterparts, significantly more fatalities when the size of each force is taken into account.

This is the media lie that Canadians are confronted with on a daily basis. That we are in Afghanistan doing humanitarian works rather than primarily focusing on combating the Taliban. There are those that claim that it’s the same thing, that by working to defeat the Taliban insurgency we will ultimately provide the stability required to see the country lifted from the depths of the terrible poverty and darkness that has engulfed it for so long. Unfortunately, there are two problems with that line of thinking.

The Taliban has only grown in strength and continues to diversify its operations with regards to actions taken against foreign forces. It is a movement that occupies entirely familiar terrain, terrain that has trapped and destroyed foreign armies dating back to the 19th century. Despite our overwhelming conventional advantages, we are still unable to defeat a force that is armed with little more than RPG’s, mortars, and Kalashnikovs. As has been the case in the past, Afghan Guerrilla’s retain a vital advantage over us, perhaps the most important of all advantages – their belief in what they are fighting for and their willingness to sacrifice themselves for it (unlike occupational forces, the majority of whom have no desire to perish). Throughout history that has always been the advantage of the Guerrilla, and it is no different in this case. Only negotiations will ultimately end hostilities, and for that to occur, external influences will have to abandon their puppetry of the government in Kabul.

The second problem is Afghanistan’s ability to possess a stable economy without the existence of the poppy trade, which overwhelmingly constitutes the nation’s largest gross national product. True, as a conduit for gas and oil projects in neighbouring countries, Afghanistan is entirely vital, but then, who will ultimately benefit from the exploitation of Afghanistan in that regard? Certainly not ordinary Afghans, the majority of whom subside on $2 dollars US (or less) a day. Given who currently has their meet-hooks firmly in the backs of the country’s ruling body, the chances of the government nationalizing anything to do with that sector is about as probable as pigs growing wings, and Afghanistan’s current President, who was once a shill for Unocal, knows that only too well.

Beyond that there is the very likely probability that the country will be exploited by international trans-corporations (such as Coca Cola) because of the ability to maintain low wages and not offer benefits, such as medical coverage. Yes, women will ultimately be freed from oppression, and, just as in countless other locations around the world, they too will be able to work for peanuts a day alongside their male counterparts. As for the rest, foreign contractors will reap the benefits of everything to do with reconstruction to the distribution of aid.

Like Iraq, corruption is rife in Afghanistan, as a recent Oxfam report details…

“Too much aid to Afghanistan is wasted — soaked up in contractors’ profits, spent on expensive expatriate consultants or squandered on small-scale, quick-fix projects, a leading British charity said on Tuesday.

Despite more than $15 billion of aid pumped into Afghanistan since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2001, many Afghans still suffer levels of poverty rarely seen outside sub-Saharan Africa.

“The development process has to date been too centralised, top-heavy and insufficient,” said a report by Oxfam.

By far the biggest donor, the United States approved a further $6.4 billion in Afghan aid this year, but the funds are spent in ways that are “ineffective or inefficient”, Oxfam said.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocates close to half its funds to the five largest U.S. contractors in Afghanistan.

“Too much aid is absorbed by profits of companies and sub-contractors, on non-Afghan resources and on high expatriate salaries and living costs,” the report said.

A full-time expatriate consultant can cost up to $500,000 a year, Oxfam said.

More money needed to be channelled through the Afghan government, strengthening its influence and institutions.

Aid also needed to be better coordinated to avoid duplication, it said.

Only 10 percent of technical assistance to Afghanistan is coordinated either with the government or among donors.

Spending on development is dwarfed by that spent on fighting the Taliban. The U.S. military is spending $65,000 a minute in Afghanistan, Oxfam said.

The report called for the 25 provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) run by the armies of 13 different nations across the country to withdraw where the security situation is stable enough and carry out relief work only where there is a critical need.

The PRTs, Oxfam said, “being nation-led are often driven more by available funding or the political interests of the nation involved rather than development considerations”. The result was “a large number of small-scale, short-term projects”.

“Given the historic suspicion of foreign intervention, such efforts to win ‘hearts and minds’ are naive. It is unsurprising that the huge expansion of PRT activities has not prevented the deterioration of security.”

Violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since last year, according to U.N. estimates, and have spread northwards to many areas previously considered safe.

More than 200 civilians have been killed in at least 130 Taliban suicide bombs and at least 1,200 civilians have been killed overall this year — about half of them in operations by Afghan and international troops.”

To the victors go the spoils. In the age of globalization, that includes nations that have been invaded and in which proxy governments have been instituted.

The truth, of course, is that prior to 9/11 a US based company was in the midst of negotiating with the Taliban to allow the construction of a natural gas pipeline through it. We will most assuredly see that project come to fruition in the future if the status quo remains, not to mention a host of other exploitative ventures that will see the people of Afghanistan used while, at the same time, being convinced that it’s for their own good. Given Afghanistan’s history, how long do you think it would be before Afghans called a spade a spade and armed groups in the mountains began to reappear again?

When all is said and done, it will probably be impossible to know just how many Iraqis will have perished during the war. There are estimates that widely vary, ones that I am sure many of you are already familiar with, so I won’t waste time running through them. But the truth of the matter is that Iraqi deaths have been overwhelmingly significant, as has been the displacement of Iraqis, be it within Iraq itself or as refuges in other countries – the number being in the millions.

Despite a recent drop in deaths, the US death toll in Iraq this year is only three shy of 2004’s total, 850, the war’s worst year. The number of deaths is largely due to US troops operating within Iraqi communities and thus being far easier to attack, unlike previous years when deaths were largely caused during concentrated operations.

I wanted to use these realizations as preface, because if you didn’t happen to catch 60 Minutes the other night, and their report on Curveball, the Iraqi source that supplied intelligence to the Americans through the Germans prior to the 2003 invasion regarding Iraqi’s chemical and biological capabilities, then those numbers should be foremost in your mind as you read the rest of this entry.

If you have studied pre-war intelligence, then you know that the information provided by Rafid Ahmed Alwan, known as Curveball, was entirely baseless. In fact, the information that he provided the Germans, that was subsequently passed to the CIA, and which would ultimately be included in then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s report to the United Nations, was actually discounted prior to the invasion by the UN. But no one was in the mood to listen at the time…

“Prominently displayed were models of the mobile trucks Curve Ball had sketched to the Germans. The most damning evidence in the speech had come from a source no American had interviewed. Just three days later, U.N. inspectors in Iraq visited a suspected WMD location — Djerf al Nadaf, Curve Ball’s secret site. And what did they find there? A wall — the very wall that had appeared on the overhead imagery back in 2001. Curve Ball had claimed the mobile bio-weapons trucks entered through doors at one end of a warehouse.

“When the inspectors examined the facility, they found that this was an impossibility,” explains Jim Corcoran, whose job it was to relay intelligence to the inspectors in Iraq.

Corcoran learned the wall blocked any entrance to the warehouse. As for Curve Ball’s hidden doors at the other end that would allow the trucks to exit?

“Again, there was a wall there, no doors. And outside there was a stone fence that would have made it impossible for this to have occurred,” Corcoran says.

Corcoran knew Djerf al Nadaf was of great importance, so he sent inspectors back 20 days later to take samples, to see if any traces of biological agents were there. “They proved negative,” Corcoran tells Simon. “There was nothing there.”

But the inspectors’ findings in Iraq made no impact; the war began three weeks later.”

Countless Iraqi dead, over 4,000 American lives lost, and a region thrust into chaos with the United States now targeting Iran and having to walk on egg shells to try and placate the Turks who have threatened to invade Northern Iraq to confront the PKK – and that’s not even beginning to cover the damage caused within Iraq itself since 2003.

Thus, one has to ask – why was a source relied upon that had never even been interviewed by US intelligence? Why did those at the highest levels of the US intelligence community accept that information on blind faith? And why were the UN’s findings ignored?

I have written in the past about the politicization of the CIA post 9/11, just as I have written about the fact that it is common knowledge that, immediately following the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon focused a great deal of its energies on ‘the Iraq factor’. Soon after, the CIA would also be dragged into that sphere, something that caused a great deal of confusion and strife within the ranks of its senior field personnel. And yet, despite the fact that no evidence of a connection would ever be found, that lemon was sold to the American people, who, in turn, backed the government’s lust for war.

As it stands now, despite such truths, many Americans still actually labour under the misconception that the regime of Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. How many, do you think, will ever address the realities regarding Curveball and the fact that the lies of a single con artist were used as one of the primary justifications for war?

“As for the biological accident that supposedly killed 12 people at Djerf al Nadaf in 1998? It never happened. Rafid Alwan wasn’t even in Iraq when he said it happened. He had left the country, first traveling to Jordan, then Egypt, then Libya, before making his way to Morocco. From there, Alwan’s trail ran cold, until he showed up in Germany and became Curve Ball. The case finally ended in Munich in March 2004, when the Germans allowed a CIA officer to interrogate Curve Ball.

“And the key thing, I think, was the wall. He showed him pictures of the wall,” Drumheller remembers.

What did Curve Ball say?

“‘You doctored these pictures.’ And he said, ‘No, we didn’t.’ He said, we didn’t doctor them,” Drumheller says.

The wall had been built in 1997. Curve Ball didn’t know it existed because he had already left Djerf al Nadaf.

“Curve Ball was caught,” Simon remarks.

“And Curve Ball said, ‘I don’t think I’m gonna say anything else,’” Drumheller says.

The CIA finally acknowledged Curve Ball was a fraud. But why did he do it?

Former CIA insider Tyler Drumheller has an idea. “It was a guy trying to get his Green Card, essentially, in Germany, playing the system for what it was worth. It just shows sort of the law of unintended consequences,” he says.

Rafid Alwan got what he wanted. He is thought to be living in Germany today, most likely under a new name, after pulling off one of the deadliest con jobs of our time.”

Ultimately, who should be held responsible? Obviously Rafid Alwan is somewhat responsible, but only to the extent that he was a convenient liar. In life we have the ability to ponder and examine what is presented us, which means that those that chose to act on his information without first employing due diligence, or even bothering to listen to those that had, are the ones truly responsible. Be it at the Pentagon, the CIA, or in the Oval Office – responsibility rests with those that the people of the United States placed their faith in to properly do their jobs, not conveniently employ false information to help bolster a radical and unprecedented foreign policy doctrine.

In the end, that is precisely what occurred. And both Iraqis and Americans have paid the price for it with their lives. Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and a host of others have not, nor will they ever, face justice for their crimes. That being the case, it’s time to start asking serious questions, such as – who is really in control of government, and what role does the citizenry really play anymore beyond that of lemmings that check boxes on a ballot after being inundated by an ever increasing politically bias media?

Mr. Bush and company have roughly one year and five months left before vacating the halls of power. As was the case in 1968, the President will exit the White House with the nation at war, leaving the problem for another to solve. In the meantime, more American fighting men and women will perish, more Iraqis will perish, the world will become more insecure, and the divisions between its peoples will grow.

Over the next year and five months, one vital question remains with regards to US leadership: what will the President do about Iran?

To many, openly confronting Iran is a disastrous proposition. To others, the Iranians represent a regional threat that could not only destabilize Iraq, but thwart the supposed democratic infusion that the United States has championed since Iraq’s invasion.

The pretext for employing military force against the Iranians will come swiftly and most probably under the guise of needing to launch cross-border strikes to contend with Iranian armament facilities and Shia militia training camps. From this morning’s Telegraph…

“Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush’s inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: “No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen.” But he said that within the CIA “many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing” and that “top Pentagon brass believes the same”.

He said: “A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq.”

Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.

Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.

Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.”

What occurs behind the scenes in the event that the United States does unilaterally confront Iran will be just as impacting. It’s obvious that they will attempt to utilize pro-Western movements in the country as a force for destabilization, but despite the belief of men such Mr. Cheney that Iranians will rise up against their government and theocratic infrastructure en mass after the United States has used military force is a stretch. One only has to look that the percentage of Iranians that claimed they would defend their country’s right to develop nuclear power as a case against American wishful thinking. It should also not be forgotten that many Iranians are also not forgetful of the past and US complicities with regards to the Shah’s regime, nor British complicities for that matter.

It is, like the invasion of Iraq, a massive gamble; one that has a greater chance of galvanizing Iranian public defiance than it does their willingness to side with the objectives of a foreign invader. Iran, as some of you might recall, was once a democracy. And when their democratically elected leader refused to play ball with international oil interests, he was painted a Communist and a coup was engineered (see Operation AJAX) to remove him from power. Following that, democracy was not reinstituted, but rather the rule of a monarch, which should betray the sort of hypocrisy that the West has routinely displayed with regards to the Middle East. While the President champion’s democracy in Iraq, its neighbour, Saudi Arabia, remains anything but. And as we’re all aware, nary a word is mentioned about that beyond the fact that significant arms are to be provided them by the US.

Security, democracy, freedom – these are just words that mask our exploitative and imperial natures, and do so with alarming success. If Iran is to be militarily confronted, what then is the endgame? That it too will see the rise of a wholly American influenced government? That the United States will find itself in a much larger war in which insurgents in two different countries are arrayed against them?

Being that he’s the most powerful man in the world, I would assume that George Bush has the answers to such questions. Then again, given the fact that he’ll be retiring to his ranch in Texas in a little under a year and a half, does he need to?