Is Iran Next?
In his column today, Justin Raimondo argues that withdrawal is largely a pretext for future adventurism in the Middle East. Raimondo cites a 2004 Strator analysis, which reads in part, "the Bush administration went in with a strategic goal: to acquire projection capabilities from within Iraq that would allow Washington to pressure the entire Middle East, from Iran to Saudi Arabia to Egypt. This would be impossible if U.S. troops were bogged down in a guerrilla war with no end in sight."
Raimondo also leans on the analysis of Chalmers Johnson in arguing that the real game plan is to establish bases in the region from which to project military power into Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Is any of this plausible? With the disaster in Iraq, who would think about invading elsewhere in the Middle Eastern snake pit? Is it reasonable to think that our Clausewitz wannabes at the Pentagon will jump out of the frying pan and into the fire?
Unfortunately, Don Rumsfeld practically accused the Iranians of masterminding the most recent suicide bombings in Israel. Rummy said, "We know that Iran has been on the terrorist list. We know that Iran has been assisting Hezbollah and other organizations and moving equipment and people down through Damascus into Beirut and down into positions where they can attack Israel for years and years and years and years."
Meanwhile, down at Moonie Central, otherwise known as the Washington Times, the neocon machine, relying on Kurdish sources, is spinning a story accusing Iran of aiding and abetting terror strikes in northern Iraq. That the insurgency in Iraq might draw from those unappreciative of the occupation cannot be uttered.
Finally, we already know that covert operations have started in Iran using the Saddam-trained MEK to destabilize Iran.
Here we go again...