America invaded Iraq to “save” Iran
CIA asset. Bush family friend, member of the “Safari Club” (CFR)
Accusations against President Bush Jr.’s administration that it used phony intelligence to sell the current invasion and occupation of Iraq have become a growing clamor in the media, helping produce a consensus in the public that the officially stated reasons for going to war were lies. In consequence, there is a growing crescendo now in the United States about getting out of Iraq. For example, on 28 November 2005 Newsweek ran the headline:
“BUSH AT THE TIPPING POINT: A hawkish Democrat calls for an Iraq withdrawal setting off a bitter fight in Washington over how, and when, the troops should come home.”
The text of the article explains:
“After months of debate over the question of how the country got into Iraq — who knew what and when about the absence of WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] — the political center of gravity suddenly shifted to another question: how we get out.”
“The one-man tipping point,” according to Newsweek, is Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. Murtha had been for the war, now he is loudly against, and his hawkish credentials — he is “a favorite of the Pentagon generals” — plus the growing anti-Bush climate, we are told, changed the debate. This could be the beginning of the end for the US troops in Iraq. So, with the public’s attention on Iraq thus focused, this is probably a good time for HIR to do what it does best: provide the historical context needed to understand the present and to produce reasonably constrained hypotheses about the future.
Given that a growing number of people no longer believe that the Bush administration’s officially stated reasons for attacking Iraq — finding and destroying Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) — were the real reasons, let us ask this question: Why did the US invade Iraq?
Opinions differ. A popular view is that the US invasion of Iraq has something to do with the appetite of the US ruling elite for cheap oil. This will seem like a natural hypothesis to many because opponents of the elder Bush accused that his 1991 war on Iraq — the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) — was driven by hunger for oil. And now Warner Brothers has released a George Clooney production, Syriana, arguing that US foreign policy in the Middle East is generally a consequence of hunger for oil. But I don’t think the oil hypothesis is right. Oh, I will not deny that the US ruling elite likes making money with oil. And neither will I deny that keeping control over the Iranian oil fields was the main motivator of the 1953 CIA-engineered coup in Iran. But since 1979, I will argue, the main goal of US policy in Asia and the Middle East has been the growth of Islamist terrorism. So, with regard to the current war on Iraq, the hypothesis I will defend is the following:
George W. Bush attacked Iraq in order to ensure the continued growth of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East.
Here’s how I will go about it. I will argue that in order to understand Bush Jr.’s war on Iraq, one must first understand Bush Sr.’s 1991 Gulf War against the same country. And that war was not fought for oil; rather, it was launched to protect Islamist Iran. In order to show this, I need to examine US policy towards the Iran-Iraq war that came immediately before the Gulf War, and this will take us as far back as 1979, when the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini installed himself in Iran as the supreme leader in an Islamist coup d’État, after which he immediately provoked the Iran-Iraq war. In fact, we will have to dig even further back to the 1953 CIA coup that installed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as the US’s right-wing repressive puppet in Iran, sowing the seeds of discontent that led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which Khomeini (another US asset) right away betrayed. The coming articles will construct and document this in some detail, but here is the claim:
Since 1979, US foreign policy towards Iraq has been consistently pro-Islamist, pro-terrorist, and pro-Iranian.
In other words, HIR’s series of articles will aim to show that if we look at Iraq from Iran, as I claim the US planners do, US foreign policy towards Iraq makes perfect sense, with nary a leftover absurdity. This is important, because political analysis requires inferring the intentions of the various actors. Their behaviors will appear absurd if we assign to them intentions that they probably didn’t have, so the ability to resolve apparent absurdities is what reveals a political analysis to be on the right track. This is, in fact, the only test of a political analysis (though it is seldom applied).
HIR’s articles on Iraq and Iran will be appearing in the coming weeks. Immediately, below, I will give you an introductory taste for why the view I defend makes sense, using a few things that Newsweek says to motivate my reflections.
The first hypothesis about any policy must be that its actual effects were intended; the effect of US policy in Iraq is to strengthen Islamist terrorism in general, and Iranian Islamism in particular.
READ THE REST HERE