Seymour Hersh - The New Yorker

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

by Pratap Chatterjee

May 05, 2007
Alternet
Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend

The line of ships at the Al Basra Oil Terminal (ABOT) stretches south to the horizon, patiently waiting in the searing heat of the Northern Arabian Gulf as four giant supertankers load up. Close by, two more tankers fill up at the smaller Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT). Guarding both terminals are dozens of heavily-armed U.S. Navy troops and Iraqi Marines who live on the platforms.

Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Thursday's raid on the Iranian consulate is more evidence that President Bush is ready to escalate the conflict.

By Juan Cole

Jan. 12, 2007 | For months, rumors of war between the United States and Iran have been building. Many fear that President Bush is spoiling for a fight, and they've begun to interpret various developments in the region as the run-up to an attack on Tehran. A report in the British press about a possible Israeli raid on Iran's nuclear facilities quickly became linked with predictions about coordinated action with the United States. Observers on all sides, left, right and other, convinced themselves that the appointment of Adm. William Fallon to oversee military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan meant there would soon be Tomahawk missiles, if not U.S. soldiers, crossing the border into Iran.

by Paul Craig Roberts

Is the surge an orchestrated distraction from the real war plan?

A good case can be made that it is. The US Congress and media are
focused on President Bush's proposal for an increase of 20,000 US
troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies
prepare an assault on Iran.

Commentators have expressed puzzlement over President Bush's
appointment of a US Navy admiral as commander in charge of the ground

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece

Published: 07 January 2007

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number
of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and
President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops,
The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about
to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit

by Jon Flanders

Was it only two days ago that we read the exultant news stories and saw the frenzied TV news coverage of the execution of Saddam Hussein? I know that I had to turn off CNN in revulsion as the evening progressed.

President Bush took time off from his chainsaw assaults on the underbrush of his Crawford Ranch to commend the Maliki government for its handling of the affair.

Counterpunch

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Iraq is rending itself apart. The signs of collapse are everywhere. In Baghdad the police often pick up over 100 tortured and mutilated bodies in a single day. Government ministries make war on each other. A new and ominous stage in the disintegration of the Iraqi state came earlier this month when police commandos from the Shia-controlled Interior Ministry kidnapped 150 people from the Sunni-run Higher Education Ministry in the heart of Baghdad.

U.S. Strategy in Iraq
By Rahul Mahajan

Bush's new "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is, indeed, a sorry mess of bullet points. Bush's rhetorical strategy on the war most closely resembles that of the old-fashioned American tourist in a foreign land who says "Where is the bathroom?" and then, when nobody understands, repeats it LOUDER: "You know, BATHROOM?"

And yet, notwithstanding the derision of liberals, there is a U.S. strategy in Iraq that has already had some success and may well have more.

Even though Bush has said it repeatedly, it's still true: the strategy is to create an Iraqi security force that will fight the counterinsurgency so the United States won't have to.

ZNet | Iraq
War Without Rules
by George Monbiot; November 15, 2005

Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial(1). But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.