Similar information was also detailed in a January 2005 article by Seymour M. Hersh, a reporter for ‘The New Yorker’ magazine. Hersh wrote that, “In my interviews [with various high ranking intelligence officials], I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran.” He found that “the Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at lease since last summer…[with] much of the focus…on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected.” Hersh also noted the newfound easier access to Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan or through “new bases in Central Asian republics.”
Then, in a February 2005 speech, Scott Ritter, a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector, dropped a bombshell in his own right when he declared that “George W. Bush has ‘signed off’ on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.”
These claims created a wave of fear among Europeans and Americans alike, especially since the United States had 140,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a formal alliance with Turkey, and “informal security relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf Kingdoms.”
White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responded to Hersh’s article by saying it was “riddled with inaccuracies,” but never denied the story or any specific details in it. When asked to respond to these claims, President Bush said: “this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
Regardless of the Bush administration’s non-denial denials, as an unarmed country surrounded by a growing number of allies of the most-armed country in the world, Iran seems to have plenty of reasons to worry.
As mentioned above, other Iraqi neighboring powers have played important but mainly covert roles in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. Those countries include Pakistan, Israel, and Russia. President Bush has worked towards finding his partisans in these countries, either through security and trade agreements or intelligence trading."When a prince acquires a new state, which he adds as a province to his old one, then it is necessary to disarm the men of that state, except those who have been his adherents in acquiring it; and these again, with time and opportunity, should be rendered soft and effeminate." Machiavelli, The Prince
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
wow Justin, pretty great story-telling and analysis - very interesting perspecive, thanks!
2 - Dave Nalle
One wonders if Bush's reading of Machiavelli went on to include "The Art of War." Perhaps your next article should address how that book applies to Bush's war policies, expecially the first and last chapters which address general principles of warfare and military organization.
Dave
3 - Ricko Commie
At the risk of over simplification and I am a man of few words based on fact and not fiction lest we not forget that the goals of this war are not to stop terrorism, Bush is the biggest terrorist of all! No one carries out the death sentence more frequently than Bush and he has the military might to do it right! The war in Iraq all Machivalian machininations aside is about Oil plain and simple. On the map of Iraq you will see that the best oil sites are also the worst war zones. That is no accident! Oil profits for the Bush dynasty are needed to further the goals of world domination and Iraq is just a stepping stone to the next oil producing nation that he plans to decimate! This Anti Christ is fulfilling the prospects of WWIII with his insane oil policies of war!
4 - Dave Nalle
And a man of few thoughts as well, Ricko.
The war is not about oil. If all we wanted was oil the best plan was to leave Saddam in power and be his pal - that's what he wanted. He's have personally handed all the oil to Bush's chosen recipients and thanked us.
What the war has achieved is to shut down Iraqi oil production alltogether for 3 years, and once it's going again we have an absolute commitment to leave control of it in the hands of the Iraqi people.
OMG, we're so greedy.
Dave
5 - D.D.
Well,Dave,I don"t happen to think that "Ricko",as you called him,is as asinine as you obviously are.Answer me this- since when has an (so-called)"absolute agreement" ever kept the greedy bastards that are in power in the US from doing exactly what the fuck they want to do? Ask the American Indians about how many "absolute commitments" were honored towards them.
6 - Dave Nalle
I didn't call him 'Ricko', he called named himself and I played along.
There's a difference between how we dealt with a troublesome population within our own borders 100 plus years ago and how we'll deal with a sovereign nation today. There are many instances where we have made commitments to other nations and followed through on them as promised. It's the way we do business as a nation.
Plus, in this case there's no reason for us to seize their oil. We're not interested in controlling the oil, we're interested in the oil just being in the marketplace. Once it gets to the marketplace it benefits us, no matter who got it there, because we're going to process and consume it. So the whole idea of going to war 'for oil' is just nonsensical.
Dave
7 - eric
yours is a moral house of cards, predicated upon the moral superiority of bringing "Democracy and Freedom" to Iraq. Right now, we are are nowhere near either. Iraqis have substantially less freedom of movement, freedom to do business, or, for that matter, freedom from arbitrary death and dismemberment, than they had under Hussein.
Now Machiavelli had little to say about the moral issues underlying his philosophy. But most contemporary humans do. Granted, most decent humans also conceed that liberty is worth paying for in a certain amount of blood. But until it looks like that liberty might actually be an outcome of the current warmongering - and it certainly does not look at all that way from my vantage point - I, for one, will remain utterly loathe to support the bloodshed.
One last thing. Vocal support for war means a lot more when it comes from the mouth of one who has had their 5 year old daughter, or their wife or sister blown up. In other words, when Iraqis are the ones supporting this war, I'll give their words my serious consideration.
I consider you, on the other hand, to be nothing more than a sniveling, authoritarian apologist. And your words sound like mindless slavering to me.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
This analysis is interesting because it attempts to bring to bear the works of Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian patriot who wanted to unite the Italian peninsula and free it from foreign rule, to bear on a war that is a war of conquest, if not annexation.
Justin Cole accurately points out that the point of this war was to position American troops in Mespotamia so that they could attack the "other bank" of the Tigris River - Iran.
But he misses a few facts along the way. Iraq was working on developing "weapons of mass destruction" and about six weeks before the Americans began their assault on Iraqi territory, these weapons were moved to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, where even today, they are guarded by Syrian troops. But these weapons were never intended against America or even against the Saudi thugdom in Arabia. They were developed to destroy Israel.
Cole also misses a some inportant questions. Saddam Hussein was an ally of George HW Bush. He asked permission of the Americans to invade Kuwait in 1990. Why did the American ambassador give such a deceptive answer to Saddam Hussein? Why did the Americans turn on their ally in Mesopotamia in 1990? And having turned on him, why did they not get rid of him then, as Machiavelli's logic would have dictated? The big question of these is the second one. Why did the Americans turn on their ally, Saddam Hussein?
That is the real question that needs to be probed to understand what is going on.
9 - Blue Meanie
Very well done post! My sole caveat is that I do not think it woudl be Bush whom Niccolo woudl congratulate, but Rove.
One thing in the comments I am forced to say something about. Dave states: "What the war has achieved is to shut down Iraqi oil production alltogether for 3 years,"
This is correct, but many see it as a failure of the administration's scheme. With oil over $70 a barrell and gas at about $3 a gallon in the U.S. I might say that the objective has been achieved.
Follow the money, the ideology is a mere smokescreen.
As for Sun Tzu, I highly doubt these folks in Washington are familiar with the book. Why do I say this? Because the highest ideal according to Sun Tzu is to win the war without fighting, the exact opposite of this administration's policy so far.
10 - Dave Nalle
Blue, the relatively small level of oil production in Iraq isn't enough to push oil anywhere near $70 a barrel. You need to look to other forces for that increase in cost because at most the Iraq was is a tiny factor.
As for Sun Tzu, you can bet the GOP leaders have read it. Most of them come from corporate culture where he's been required reading for years.
Dave
11 - Blue Meanie
Dave, I fully understand that Iraq was but one factor in the current price structure of the futures markets. I am stating that it is my own opinion that our government's decision to invade Iraq, and the following diplomatic positions and reaction to said invasion, are huge factors and the primary cause. Notice we did not see the huge jump from about $30 a barrell to the over $50 and now $70 levels until after Rumsfeld's great line, "freedomm is messy" while the looters ran rampant.
On the topic of corporate types reading Sun Tzu: yes they do read it, and Musashi as well.
They just don't understand either.
12 - U2
You got to be kidding me! Is nessesary to obtain more TRUE facts-not just some google searchs- to really understand the "game strategies" of the US goverment in relationship with the tragic events of 9/11 and this "war with terrorism"...
It cannot be called virtue to kill one's fello-citizens, betray one's friends, be withouth faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory. Machavelli
13 - Zare
I still think the American government was responsible for what happened on 9/11... bit some other terrorist group. There's a Machiavellian theory for you ;)
14 - Zare
**not some other terrorist group
15 - Zare
sacrificing a group of people for the good of the state... VERY MACHIAVELLIAN !