Cheney urging military strikes on Iran

No matter what reasons they give you for any proposed action, it should always be remembered that the neo-Cons represent the American version of the Likud party, and that any action they take in the Middle East is always taken with Israel's interests at heart.

That is why they were so keen to remove Saddam, the man who fired scud missiles at Israel during the first Iraq war, and it is why they are so keen to drum up a case for attacking Iran.

Nor have the Israelis made any secret of their wish for the US to stamp out their enemies. As early as 2002 Ariel Sharon was stating:

In an exclusive interview with the New York Post, Sharon said that as soon as Iraq is dealt with, he "will push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list."

Now we have all heard that the US, whilst offering no substantive proof, has made numerous claims that Iran is behind all kinds of mischief in Iraq. And anyone paying attention would note that this fits in perfectly with Sharon's wish that Iran be next on the "to do" list.

Bush, just this week, warned Iran of unspecified "consequences" if they don't stop support for anti-American forces in Iraq, support which the Americans have never been able to prove. However, as in the run up to the war in Iraq, the more the Bush camp repeat conjecture as if it was fact, the more some of their supporters will accept this warped logic as if it were, indeed, fact.

And now we find that, behind the scenes, Dick Cheney is - once again - pushing for attacks against Iran:

Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.

The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.

Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.

One would be forgiven for thinking that, if Iran were really the source of so much trouble in Iraq, that the Iraqi Prime Minister would share this American viewpoint. However, he is currently enjoying a three day visit to Tehran where he has been photographed holding hands with Ahmadinejad, which is very strange behaviour if the American accusations hold any validity.

Indeed, Mailiki is reported to have stated:

Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.

Bush has responded to this by stating:

"Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.

Nor is this the first time in recent weeks that Bush has been at odds with Iran's neighbours about that country's intentions. At a recent meeting with President Karzai of Afghanistan, Bush was put out when Karzai stated that Iran was " a helper" in Afghanistan.

So the American position vis a vis Iran is not shared by either Iraq or Afghanistan. Indeed, the major nation in the region which shares the American reading of Iranian intent is Israel, where people like Bibi are going around claiming that a new Holocaust is almost upon them.

Netanyahu:

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs." Of Ahmadinejad, he said: "He is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."

Now, as no-one else in the region shares Netanyahu's hysterical claims regarding Ahmadinejad's intentions, it is only reasonable to ask whether or not these hysterical claims, and Cheney's equally fantastic calls for Iran to be attacked, aren't merely an attempt to bring about the very thing that Sharon was calling for in 2002. The removal of an enemy of Israel.

As the removal of the Iranians has been a long stated Israeli intention, then it is only right that Cheney's claims of Iranian involvement in the Iraq war should be viewed as perhaps a ruse to bring about that Likud aim. About as valid as the claims that Iraq had WMD shortly before that nation was invaded.

Indeed, just to emphasise the feeling of deja vu, Bush recently appeared to call for regime change in Iran:

"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."

I'm sure the people of Iran are looking over the border to Iraq and wishing Bush would bring some of that freedom and stability to them.

Cheney's claims regarding Iran may be slightly less hysterical than Bibi's, but they serve the same purpose. For that reason they deserve to be treated with equal suspicion.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Cheney, Bush, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Karzai, Maliki, Netanyahu, Israel