Tom Ball: Top 21 Pieces of Evidence that Show Iraq is only the First Step to 'Reshaping the Middle East': A Reference for Seekers of Truth

(PoliticalStrategy.org) "Have you ever wondered what would happen if George W. Bush is sent back to the White House in November? What do you think this administration would do as an encore to the invasion of Iraq?
There are several sources that offer some insight into that question. In particular we can shed some light with a short search into 1) the 9/11 Commission’s final report, 2) The self-described neoconservative agenda, and 3) quotes from, and documents authored by various members of the Bush administration.
First, the release of the 9/11 commission’s final report has provided mixed fodder for neoconservatives across the globe.
On the one hand, by excluding any mention of Iraq as an element in the ‘War on Terror’, the commission has effectively reduced the invasion to a question mark and a sigh in the heart of America. Obviously a devastating blow to the credibility and effectiveness of the neoconservative agenda.
On the other hand, the Commission did neoconservatives a tremendous favor by mentioning ties between Iran and al Qaeda, and in particular the 911 hijackers.
Now, never mind that these connections were ‘Murky’ and that there was no evidence of a ‘close working relationship’ between Iran and the terrorist group. Such nuances are easily downplayed and ignored by an apathetic media and a fear-stricken electorate.
Indeed, this single reference alone could serve as the launching pad for the next neoconservative foreign policy initiative...'reshaping' the Middle East.
As you will see, the invasion of Iraq was merely a stepping stone toward this greater objective. In fact, the plan is described in some detail by a neoconservative think tank whose membership at one time included Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul wolfowitz, just to name a few.
It all began long, long ago in a land not so far away...

1) Flashback to spring of 2003. John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was asked about speculation that Syria and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq. He responded:

"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest."

He called the pursuit of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs a terrorist threat and said it "will remain our priority to achieve a peaceful elimination of these programs so that supporters of terrorism cannot use them against innocent people." No, he wasn't referring to the US... and no, he wasn't referring to MOAB "collateral damage".
He continued by slipping a little warning to Syria:

"This is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to forswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process."

And so a methodic course of foreshadowing an unending future of preemptive strikes was set in motion. Unambiguously implied, Iran and Syria are next on the administration's hit list.

2) To some this comes as no surprise. Certainly in beltway circles, plans for further invasions are no secret. in March of 2003 George McGovern claimed that Bush intends to invade North Korea and Iran after finishing with Iraq.
"Even now, these wars are being planned by the current administration... I'm positive, based on conversations with people close to the White House, that plans are in place for the next invasions."

3) And don't think for a minute that the premonition of invasion comes only from the left. While progressives cite with outrage the probability of future preemptive invasions, Administration hawks and the influential right-wing media have boastfully warned of their desire for Middle East conquest.
Also in March of 2003, at a meeting of the hawkish, right-wing American Enterprise Institute, the focus was squarely on their "bold vision of the postwar agenda: radical reform of the UN, regime change in Iran and Syria, and 'containment' of France and Germany."
Speaker Bill Kristol, editor of the US magazine, the Weekly Standard asserted that:

"The failure of the first Bush Administration to finish the job in 1991 had resulted in 'a lack of awe for the US' in the Middle East, an absence of respect that fostered contempt of the US among Arabs and encouraged the rise of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. This war would redress those mistakes. The fall of Mr. Hussein would be an 'inspiration' for Iranians seeking to be free of their dictatorial mullahs."

Actually, the only thing surprising about hearing this from Bill Kristol's mouth was that he blamed Bush Sr. and not Bill Clinton.

4) Pat Buchanan, an isolationist and rare conservative dove outed the neocons:

"On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers' support, Bush was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, 'will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.'"

5) In a separate article, Buchanan singles out influential conservative columnist Norman Podhoretz:

"Podhoretz... claims that Bush's mission is 'to fight World War IV - the war against militant Islam.' Podhoretz' enemies... 'are not confined to ... the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority'... Podhoretz believes... that Bush 'must find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated' Islamic world, just as we did on Germany and Japan..."

6) In February, during a visit to Israel (Scroll down to story below the EU article), U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said...

...that he has "no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards."

Part of Bolton's visit included a meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who expressed his concern about the security threat posed by Iran:

"It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq."

7) The Boston Globe brought it all together when it revealed the truth about the Administration's vision for the future:

"As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq, its most hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East that sees the overthrow of Saddam Hussein of Iraq as merely a first step in the region's transformation.

The argument for reshaping the political landscape in the Middle East has been pushed for years by some Washington think tanks and in hawkish circles. It is now being considered as a possible US policy with the ascent of key hard-liners in the administration - from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon to John Hannah and Lewis Libby on the vice president's staff and John Bolton in the State Department...
Iraq, the hawks argue, is just the first piece of the puzzle. After an ouster of Hussein, they say, the US will have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran, will be in a better position to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will be able to rely less on Saudi oil."

8) But even this wasn't the whole truth. The fact of the matter is that this Middle-East conquest began long ago with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Richard Perle. It involved a basic restructuring of the entire Mideast, not because of the terrorist threat to the United States, but rather to secure Middle-Eastern oil for the US and ultimate security for Israel.
"A 1996 paper for the Israeli right wing by a group including Richard Perle argued that Israel should scrap the peace process, work to subdue its neighbors by force, and overthrow the Iraqi government in order to reshape the region's dynamics."
This paper, of which Perle was the architect, was titled...
"'A Clean Break, a New Strategy for the Realm' and it argued that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's since been expanded to include Iran."
And...

9) Back in 1992, Perle joined forces with his buddies Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney and formed a group called the Project for the New American Century. In a document authored three years ago, the Project pondered that what was needed to assure US global power was...
"... some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"
The document noted that, while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides immediate justification for intervention...
"... the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"

10) Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who had been named as a possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a postwar Iraq, said:

"... the US is engaged in World War IV (WWIII having been the Cold War), and that it could continue for years... He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the 'fascists' of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda... that all three enemies have waged war against the US for several years but the US has just 'finally noticed.'"

He singled out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia when he said:

"We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

Despite Bush Administration rhetoric, their intentions are clear. Iraq is but the first step in a long list of conquests. Indeed, they've already begun laying the groundwork for the next phase of "Operation Iran and Syria Freedom". As with the Iraq invasion, the Administration will rely on a complex web of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies in order to sell the need for invasion to the American public. (The rest of the world will never bite. Fool me once...)

Developing a Rationale for the Next Invasion

Admittedly, there are many nations whose government holds legitimate ties to terrorist groups. The U.S. is a member of this group. Of course only in extremist fantasyland do any of these connections warrant an outright invasion and occupation of the country (Taliban-led Afghanistan the lone exception).
Ironically, part of the rationale that will be used to convince the nation to drive further into the Middle-East will be derived from evidence that was at first pushed as false proof of a Saddam-terrorism connection.

11) For example, in one of the many bogus attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, Colin Powell asserted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the "missing link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, extensive information obtained from individuals close to al-Zarqawi, shows no links to Iraq, but extensive links to Iran. To illustrate, 40 al Qaeda members fled from Afghanistan into Iran, and then tried to get to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Australia - but not Iraq. Also, Al-Zarqawi was in Iran in April 2002, where he plotted terrorist attacks against a Jewish target in Germany.

12) Of course the ties between Iran and Syria to the terrorist group Hezbollah are well known, but from here on, the line between fact and speculation becomes increasingly blurred.
For instance, Ariel Sharon shared the following with NY Times columnist William Safire in October of 2002:

"The Syrians, together with the Iranians, are playing a double game, escalating tension on our northern border....the Iranians have supplied those terrorists with 9,000 to 10,000 rockets, maybe including a new one with a 200-mile range. If war [with Iraq] comes, we'll see what Syria-Iran-Hezbollah are preparing: they'll be surrogates for Saddam, opening a second front to help him.'"

Is this believable? Iran working for Saddam? Well, it certainly hasn't happened to date. Tellingly, when Sharon includes such telling words as "maybe" and "we'll see" and then speculates that they are "surrogates" for the enemy, you can bet that he's setting-up someone else as future targets.
Even then, the outright fabrications, speculation, exaggerations, and distortions were hastily rolling forward. They would serve as the basis for the Iraq invasion.
Of course any fabrication has but a limited lifetime... in most worlds. With the Bush administration, any fabrications disproved or otherwise clarified to reflect reality merely offer another opportunity to assert the original, faulty claim with even greater force. This was the strategy used when administration officials continued to cite an alleged meeting between an Iraqi agent and September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta in Prague in April 2001 after Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report.

13) Recall that Donald Rumsfeld was quick to chime in with the first blatant lie, hastily attempting to tie Syria to Saddam, much the same as he attempted to tie Saddam to Osama. Rumsfeld suggested that Syria was responsible for the shipment to Iraq of defense-related goods:

"We have information that shipments of military supplies have been crossing the border from Syria into Iraq, including night vision goggles."
"These deliveries pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces. We consider such trafficking as hostile acts and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments."

The CIA said that they have no evidence to support Rumsfeld's claim. In addition, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, during the Centcom Briefing on Operation "Iraqi Freedom" (March 31, 2003, 7-8:00 am CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc), said, without qualification, that they have seen NO evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have night vision goggles or that Syrians were at any point attempting to smuggle them to Iraqi troops.

14) Colin Powell, citing Rumsfeld's lie, further laid the groundwork for Syrian invasion by accusing Syria of providing...:

"... direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein... Syria bears the responsibility for its choices, and for the consequences."

15) Rumsfeld then followed up this lie with the unsubstantiated charges that "hundreds" of armed Iraqi Shiite Muslim from Iran are now in Iraq and would be viewed as "combatants."

16) To summarize the coming fabrication/propaganda campaign, veteran defense issues commentator John Stanton predicted:

"Between April of 2003 and November 2004, the US, UK and Israel will accelerate instability operations in Iran and engage in global disinformation campaigns to belittle the political and military leadership there. They will take to the airwaves to portray to Americans a country beset by internal strife and dissension. Corporate media will revisit the Iranian Hostage Crisis and display for war-hungry Americans footage from the 1978-80 timeframe. That will include images of Khomeni's henchmen hanging and executing the Shah's secret police. Movies such as Sally Field's Not Without My Child portraying many Iranians as 'evil doers' will be broadcast by all the networks."

17) Of course the Administration is clever in it's invasion campaigns. They know it will take more than lies and speculation to sell a takeover of the Middle-East. Indeed, even though the US and allies put Saddam in power (way back when he was only 26 years old), sold him biochemical weapons, and then supported him even as he used them, the US government has cited all these things as evidence of the necessity of an Iraq invasion.
It seems that the Administration is following the same path in the rest of the Middle-East. In its effort to buy the loyalty of various Middle-Eastern nations, the White House lifted its long-standing arms embargoes against Iran, Syria, and Pakistan.
It's a pretty safe bet that the Administration will cite those weapons that Syria and Iran have attained as a result of this "lift" in sanctions as "evidence" of wrongdoing. It's the old "Bush set 'em up and knock 'em down" technique. Recall that it was Reagan and Bush Sr. who built the Taliban and Osama bin Laden even as he was selling weapons illegally to Iran in order to support South American terrorists. Is there any surprise that the world under Bush Jr. is heading in the direction that it is?

18) Anyway, the Administration's campaign of lies is incomplete without a little provocation to stoke the flames. Nothing a few "errant" cruise missiles can't take care of.
The first provocation was conspicuous at best. Three missiles fired by U.S. jets taking part in attacks in Iraq landed over the border in southwestern Iran. U.S. and British military jets violated the Islamic Republic's airspace several times [over a two day period] during operations against targets in southern Iraq. In two cases, rockets from American planes hit the area of Maniuhi, close to the border with Iraq. Another rocket hit an oil refinery depot in the city of Abadan, about 30 miles east of the southern Iraqi city of Basra.
Just for a bit of perspective, accidentally hitting an oil refinery in Iran with a missile is about as likely as accidentally smacking a hole-in-one on a par 5.
Provocation in Syria? You bet. US cluster bombs annihilated a passenger bus entering Syria from Iraq. Sure, maybe coalition forces speculated that enemy forces were on board. Regardless, the bus was an official civilian target and the bombing was in direct violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions related to the protection of civilians during war time. In any event, an unmistakable message was sent.

19) So the intent has been established, plans have been made, fabrications and propaganda have begun. What's next. Well, using Iraq once again as the model, tossing out a few threats would be the next obvious step. And what do you know. On cue, the threats started rolling right from the top. The NY Times reports:

"Shortly after Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week (April 2003), declaring that any 'hostile acts' they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word - 'Good' - and went back to work. It was a small but telling moment on the sidelines of the war. For a year now, the president and many in his team have privately described the confrontation with Saddam Hussein as something of a demonstration conflict, an experiment in forcible disarmament. It is also the first war conducted under a new national security strategy, which explicitly calls for intervening before a potential enemy can strike."

In the same article, Administration political mastermind Karl Rove was quoted as saying:

"Iraq is not just about Iraq."

In a series of speeches to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), John Bolton said U.S. officials hope that a decisive toppling of Saddam may give pause to other nations with secret weapons programs and "that some of these states will back off."

Mindset of the Madmen

To understand the mindset of these people, the Prospect notes the arrogance with which the neocon hawks flaunt US military power as their personal agenda enforcer:

"In the Middle East, impending 'regime change' in Iraq is just the first step in a wholesale reordering of the entire region, according to neoconservatives - who've begun almost gleefully referring to themselves as a 'cabal.' Like dominoes, the regimes in the region - first Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon and the PLO, and finally Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia - are slated to capitulate, collapse or face US military action. To those states, says cabal ringleader Richard Perle, 'We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: 'You're next.'''

Nevertheless, don't expect any of the Administration members to stand up and say, "yes, we are going into Iran and Syria [and others]."

20) Indeed, Powell is already hard at work constructing a feeble facade of denial:

"Iraq should be ruled by its own people and American forces will not invade Syria and Iran after liberating Baghdad... Nobody in the American administration (has) talked about invading Iran or Syria... It seems that there is a constant desire by everybody to accuse us of invasion operations. That didn't, and won't, take place."
Wrong! As sourced above, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others have been talking about invading Iran and Syria for years.
As always, it is the Administration's actions that must be watched like... well... like a hawk. Their words have proven worthless a thousand times.

21) It must be noted that one of Bush's appeals-du-jour for an Iraq invasion was to "liberate the Iraqi people" from the brutal dictator. Iran, however is a democracy (Including a rather moderate, pro-west faction among its people), so it will be interesting to see what nonsense he cooks up in support of an invasion of this country. Even Iran-Contra criminal Richard Armitage admits that the strategy will have to take a different PR slant:

"... I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently."

From this, despite the multiple references to a dozen or so sovereignties, it seems quite obvious that Iran and Syria will be the Administration's next targets.
So the question is, When?
The answer is unclear but there are a few clues. First, Blair has already unambiguously stated that Britain will have no part in such further conquests. I believe that to be true since his political career would be terminated immediately upon any announcement of further actions in the Middle-East. However, who knows what "reasons" could conveniently appear in the near future that would offer fodder for further UK actions. Until then, however, let's assume that Blair is out of the picture, essentially canceling any ghost of a coalition that existed for "Operation Iraqi Oil". This along with the exposed truth about Iraq's AWOL WMD and fictional ties to al Qaeda puts Bush in a far less politically tenable situation.
Nevertheless, it takes an IQ barely higher than your shoe size to understand that the clearest indication of timing for "Operation Syria and Iran Freedom" is the 2004 Election.
The next invasion will not happen until after that election. To do so beforehand would be too politically incomprehensible for the Administration. In the meantime, Bush will claim victory in Baghdad, boast of the liberation of the Iraqi people, deny that either Syria or Iran are on the Administration's radar, overrule domestic issues by distracting america's attention with the perpetual 'war on terror', claim the economy is the best in a century and all due to his tax cuts, blah, blah, blah.
Once the presidency is again stolen, then... all of a sudden... the tables will turn and focus will realign to the Middle-East.
So which one will be first? Syria seems a much easier target, however, invading Syria first gives Iran a much longer time-frame with which to develop its admitted Nuclear weapons program. In addition, North Korea will constantly remind the American populace that nuclear weapons programs (which have found new life since Bush began his sabre-rattling and ABM treaty abandonment) are a reality, keeping the focus on Iran rather than Syria.
Remember, however, that Iran and Syria are just the next step in a long line of invasions to come. Indeed, Washington lists 13 countries with active biological weapons programs, including Cuba, Libya and Syria, and 16 currently producing chemical weapons, including Pakistan, the former Yugoslavia and Sudan.
Also remember that, as we steamroll through Syria and Iran, we will simultaneously be engaged in occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The need for troops will increase on and around the Korean peninsula. And lets not forget that we will always have need for some troops to stay at home to protect our borders.
So when people wonder, "Why does the Administration seem so unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq after the toppling of Saddam?" The answer is, "Because we won't be leaving." Having conquered Iraq, the US will create 'permanent' military bases in that country from which to proceed with the 'reshaping' of the Middle-East.
The bottom line: Can you say...
"Reinstate the Draft?" "