Bush wants to widen war to Iran and Syria

Despite the fact that we have been told that the US is to allow Israel one more week to complete it's operation in Lebanon, there are signs that the US actually seeks to expand this operation and that what the neo-cons want is confrontation with Iran and Syria.

The first hint was in Bush's weekly radio address :

He said that his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who is due to leave for the Middle East today, would 'make it clear that resolving the crisis demands confronting the terrorist group that launched the attacks and the nations that support it'.

This follows reports that Bush actually sees the confrontation between Israel and Lebanon as a "great opportunity":

"The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. "He mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived."

This "moment of clarity" is the one that has already been epiphanised by William Kristol and other neo-con thinkers in the press as the moment when Bush finally takes the plunge and confronts Iran and Syria.

For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran.

In his latest article, Kristol includes a sub header which reads:

Most liberals (and the odd conservative) don't want to fight--Bush does.

Nor is Kristol alone here, there is a growing call amongst the right for Bush to go further and actually attack Iran and Syria.

Indeed, the secret wish of the right for this conflict to be expanded is shown by Victor Davis Hanson's solemn plea:

Why do not Iran and Syria — or for that matter other Arab states — now attack Israel to join the terrorists that they have armed?

Israel's provocative behaviour has always seemed to be almost begging for an intervention from other Arab states, and now we have the right lamenting that they are not taking the bait. Hanson and others seem almost disappointed that Iran and Syria have not yet engaged.

The right want this war expanded.

Indeed, anyone who argues that a ceasefire would be a good thing has the dogs set upon them. Dennis Boyles, the author of the provocatively titled book, "Vile France: Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese", attacks the UK's Independent newspaper:

Normally, for example, one reads newspapers for answers. Not on the Left. At the Independent, where confusion reigns in effusive style, the editors were so perplexed by the world around them that they had nothing but questions for their readers, including one on the front page — “Middle East: Who backs immediate ceasefire?” (Correct answer: “I do, sir!”)

He omits to mention that this same front page contained the flags of the US, UK and Israel on one side of the page, and the flags of every other country in the world on the other.

Highlighting the fact that the US - and, indeed, the right wingers currently attempting to widen this conflict - are engaging in the most isolated US policy since the war in Vietnam.

Over at Powerline Ralph Peters is already chiding Israel for only making a half hearted stab at this war and is calling on them to engage ground troops lamenting:

The Olmert government tried to wage war on the cheap. Such efforts always raise the cost in the end. Olmert resembles President Bill Clinton - willing to lob bombs from a distance, but unwilling to accept that war means friendly casualties.

He then, not too subtly, reminds us of the real lesson to learned here:

This should set off global alarm bells: If Hezbollah can hide rockets, Iran can hide nukes.

Jack Kelly adds:

Hezbollah must be crushed, but it cannot be crushed as long as the present regime remains in power in Syria, because Hezbollah fighters can take refuge there, and be resupplied from there. Nor can a democratic Lebanon fully emerge until the baneful influence of Syria is reduced or eliminated altogether.

The road to peace in the Middle East runs through Damascus. That's the road Israel should take, even if it seems longer and more dangerous, because the other roads are dead ends.

I remember when the cry was that the road to peace was through Baghdad. We were told, even by Tony Blair, that the Iraq war would mean Israel could finally make peace with the Palestinians once their greatest threat - Saddam - was removed.

It was bullshit of course, but now they have the gall to wonder if we'll all buy it a second time. These guys are nothing if not relentless.

James Kitfield of the National Journal is asking:

Imagine where the United States would be in its global war on terror if it had succeeded, through diplomatic coercion or force, to get Iran out of the business of state-sponsored terrorism. Then ask yourself: Did the United States confront the wrong country?

They are positively salivating at the opportunity to expand Israel's foray into Lebanon into a wider Middle East conflict. Clifford D. May argues that it "would be a mistake to end this prematurely."

These guys want to go all the way. And the signs from Washington are not reassuring. It is already being reported that the US is rushing to supply Israel with a delivery of precision-guided bombs, meaning that the US is now openly arming one side of the conflict whilst it condemns Iran for allegedly arming Hizbullah.

Kristol's plaintive cry that Israel's wars are actually the US's wars appears to be gaining credence. If the US is already rushing to arm one side during an ongoing conflict, it strikes me as ludicrous to pretend that they are not already engaged in this battle.

Up until now I've found Israel's habit of bombing roads to be rather odd, but it's beginning to make sense. It's to slow down any troops entering the conflict from other nations.

For that's what this is all about.

These nutters are actually hoping that Iran and Syria will intervene. When Britain, led by Blair - that most loyal lapdog - begins peeling away from an American policy, the writing is on the wall that we are at the edge of the abyss.

Tags: Kristol, Weekly, Standard, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Hizbullah, Hamas,