Petraeus using the ‘Battle for Basra’ as a preliminary to an attack Iran.

There have been few analyzes concerning the events leading up to the ‘battle for basra’ primarily, it has to be suspected, because the attack was such a surprise. "Mystery surrounds Mr Maliki's motive in launching an assault on the Mehdi Army after Mr Sadr renewed his six-month ceasefire last month." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Iraqi Police Refuse to Back Maliki's Attacks on Mehdi Army’ http://www.counterpunch.com/patrick03292008.html March 29/30, 2008). Hindsight suggests the primary force behind these events seems to have been general david petraeus, the likudnik dominated bush regime’s political commissar in the american military.

Events leading up to the attacks on the Green Zone.
For the last year or so, petraeus has been condemning iran for funding, training, and arming, ‘rogue elements of the mahdi army’. "The idea of Iranian-backed "rogue" Shi'ite militia groups undermining Sadr's efforts to pursue a more moderate course was introduced by the U.S. military command in early 2007. These alleged Iranian proxies were called "Special Groups", a term that came not from Iran or the Shi'ites themselves but from the Bush administration." (Gareth Porter ‘Petraeus Testimony to Defend False 'Proxy War' Line’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12649 April 8, 2008).

At the beginning of march 2008 the iranian president, mahmoud ahmadinejad, made a historic visit to iraq where he was given a warm welcome by the iraqi president al-maliki. At that point in time, it seemed inconceivable that a few weeks later maliki, an iranian ally, would suddenly announce the launch of a military offensive against the mahdi army, also allied to iran. Iran has been trying to keep the shia community unified and would have been appalled by conflicts within that community.

In mid-march 2008, fallon was forced to resign. Doubtlessly cheney and general petraeus immediately start working out a new strategy for the american military in iraq. Petraeus could promote his own objectives within the american military: curbing the alleged rogue elements of the mahdi army which he’d complained about so often in the past. Dick cheney announced he would be going on a tour of the middle east. This was unlikely to have been a coincidence. In baghdad cheney announced that provincial elections would be held in iraq in october 2008. One commentator believes cheney had to compel agreement from maliki, "According to Leila Fadel of the McClatchy newspaper chain, when Vice-President Dick Cheney visited Iraq Mar. 17-18, he "strong armed" Iraq's Presidency Council into passing a provincial election law. The law sets up an October election in which the various provinces will vote on whether they want to remain a unified country or splinter into separate provinces." (Conn Hallinan ‘Ignition Point? Another Defining Moment in Iraq’ http://www.counterpunch.com/hallinan04122008.html April 12/13, 2008).

It is also likely that cheney pressured maliki into agreeing that the iraqi army would take decisive action, with the backing of the american military, against the mahdi army. "The hardline US vice-president, Dick Cheney, was in Baghdad two weeks earlier and may well have urged Maliki to go ahead." (Jonathan Steele ‘In backing the Basra assault, the US has only helped Sadr’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/usa.iraq April 04 2008).

Was Iran behind attacks on the Green Zone?
In february 2007, moqtada al-sadr had ordered the mahdi army to stand down and, in august, to desist from any militarily action for six months. Sadr ".. stood down the Mehdi Army in February (2007) at the start of the US "surge", and in September, when he declared a six-month ceasefire after fighting with the police and Badr Organisation during the 15 Shaaban pilgrimage to Karbala." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Warlord: The rise of Muqtada al-Sadr’ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/warlord-the-rise-of-muqtada-alsadr-807698.html April 11, 2008). Nevertheless, both the american and iraqi militaries continued harassing and arresting members of the mahdi army. "According to a senior Sadrist parliamentarian, between 2,000 and 2,500 Mahdi Army militiamen had been detained since Sadr declared a cease-fire last August." (Gareth Porter ‘Sadr Offensive Shows Failure of Petraeus Strategy’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12589 March 27, 2008). Despite these attacks, last month sadr renewed his stance for another six month period.

It is possible that by march 23, 2008 sadr had had enough of maliki’s and america’s military attacks on his supporters and ordered retaliation against the green zone. Sadr may have acted alone but is it possible iran encouraged such a response? Perhaps iran, noting fallon’s resignation, petraeus’s newly established dominance over the american military, cheney’s tour of the middle east, and the increased attacks on the mahdi army, concluded that the americans were trying to clear the way for an attack on iran. It is possible iran encouraged the mahdi army to bombard the green zone as a warning to the americans not to attack iran.

On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to suggest iran had nothing to do with the attacks on the green zone. Firstly, it would have meant that one set of iranian allies was attacking another i.e. the iraqi government. "Suleimani's role in reducing the violence in Basra underlines the reality that Iranian power in Shi'ite Iraq is based on its having worked with and provided assistance to all the Shi'ite parties and factions. Iran's determination to stay on good terms with all the Shi'ite factions has made it the primary arbiter of conflicts among them. Iran has no reason to look for a small splinter group to advance its interests when it already enjoys a relationship of strategic cooperation with the government itself." (Gareth Porter ‘Petraeus Testimony to Defend False 'Proxy War' Line’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12649 April 8, 2008). Secondly, whilst the battle for basra was in progress, iran insisted the two sides should stop fighting. See section 226. Iran demands an end to fighting in Iraq - March 29, 2008. Thirdly, it then negotiated an agreement between them to restore some peace and stability to iraq. Finally, it condemned the attacks on the green zone. "Iran's Foreign Ministry on Tuesday condemned for the first time rocket and mortar attacks against the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad by supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini also denounced raids by U.S. forces against Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad that al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia has been using to launch the attacks." (Nasser Karimi ‘Iran Condemns Iraq Green Zone Attacks’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/08/international/i041756D74.DTL April 8, 2008).

These factors strongly suggest firstly, that iran had not wanted to use the mahdi army to threaten the american military and, secondly, that iran had the most to lose from a civil war between shiites. Conversely, it was much more likely that it was america which sought the confrontation. After all, america was one of the participants in the battle and didn’t want the conflict to end. And, consequently, it did nothing to contribute to negotiations between the two sides.

Who initiated the attack on the Mahdi Army?
After the bombardment of the green zone, it seemed as if maliki suddenly ordered the iraqi army to crush the mahdi army. It is possible he made this decision himself. But, there are many factors suggesting it is much more likely that petraeus, with the backing of the bush regime, was responsible for initiating and planning for the attack.

* with fallon out of the way petraeus had the opportunity to increase attacks on the alleged ‘rogue elements of the mahdi army’. This forced the mahdi army to respond with a bombardment of the green zone. Such a response was precisely the sort of opportunity petraeus had been waiting for to launch a decisive attack on the mahdi army.

* petraeus and cheney must have known that the biggest beneficiary of provincial elections in iraq in october 2008 would be moqtada al-sadr. This led them to conclude that thet would have to severely curb, if not destroy, sadr’s military and political prospects to ensure he couldn’t get elected to a position of power where he could oppose america’s long term occupation of iraq.

* given the successes of the american/iraqi army attacks on the mahdi army since august 2007, petraeus may have believed a quick military victory over the mahdi army was possible and that this would boost his stature when giving testimony to congress on april 08, 2008. "They (crocker and petraeus) hoped for a triumph to boast about in Congress. Now they must explain a disaster." (Jonathan Steele ‘In backing the Basra assault, the US has only helped Sadr’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/usa.iraq April 04 2008).

* petraeus could spin the conflict against the mahdi army to insist that reductions in the size of the american military in iraq should be stopped.

* no sooner had moqtada al sadr’s mahdi army attacked the green zone, march 23 2008, than petraeus was ready and waiting to denounce iran for supplying the mahdi army with weapons. "In remarks interpreted as signalling a change in his approach to Iran, Gen Petraeus last week hit out at the Iranian leadership. "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said." (Damien McElroy ‘British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml April 05, 2008). Petraeus’s efforts to stir up accusations against iran seem to suggest that his primary objective was not just an attack on an alleged iranian allies in iraq but a proxy war against iran. "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment. In closely watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has supplied and directed attacks by militia fighters against the Iraqi state and its US allies." (Damien McElroy ‘British fear US commander is beating the drum for Iran strikes’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml April 05, 2008); "The neocons may yet get their war on Iran. Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East. Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Petraeus Points to War With Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=12673 April 11, 2008). There are commentators who dispute whether fallon’s resignation was brought about by differences of opinion with the bush regime over iraq or iran. Another possibility is that it was about both. If the american military could dismantle the mahdi army, it would face less of a threat from iran’s allies in iraq if the bush regime launched a military attack on iran.

* bush had been well-prepped about the objectives of the attack on the mahdi army and made a series of dramatic announcements about the iraqi military’s impending victory. "At the start of the military offensive launched last week into Basra by US-trained Iraqi army forces, President Bush called the action by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "a bold decision." He added: "I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq."" (Robert Dreyfuss ‘The Lessons of Basra’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/dreyfuss March 31, 2008).

* the bush regime wanted to wrest control over southern iraq’s oil from the mahdi army. This provides sadr with an income in the region of $2bn a year .. "the Mahdi Army is siphoning off a good $2 bn. a year in embezzled gasoline and kerosene …" (Juan Cole ‘5 US Troops Die in Iraq’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 07, 2008).

It has been concluded, "It is increasingly obvious that the White House planned the entire operation." (Conn Hallinan ‘Ignition Point? Another Defining Moment in Iraq’ http://www.counterpunch.com/hallinan04122008.html April 12/13, 2008).

A number of commentators have speculated that maliki was responsible for initiating the plan to attack the mahdi army. "The most likely explanation is that the Americans approved the assault, confidently expecting it would succeed within a few days." (Jonathan Steele ‘In backing the Basra assault, the US has only helped Sadr’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/usa.iraq April 04 2008). However, it is unlikely that maliki would have supported the idea before the bush regime announced the date of provincial elections. Another commentator implied maliki had so much military power at his disposal that he could even ignore the views of the american military. "Not a very good performance, to be sure, (the iraqi army’s attack on the mahdi army) and Maliki's American sponsors were clearly perturbed that he went ahead with this operation without consulting them first." (Justin Raimondo ‘Endless Enemies’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12663 April 9, 2008). It is unlikely that maliki initiated the attack and it borders on the absurd to believe he could order the iraqi military to carry out a full scale military attack without telling the americans.

Once the date for elections had been announced maliki acquired his own incentives to weaken sadr’s militia, both militarily and politically, before the october 2008 provincial elections. "A likely explanation is (for maliki’s assault on basra) that Mr Maliki, who has little support outside the holy city of Kerbala, was under pressure from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), his main ally, to attack the Sadrists now. The Sadrists were expected to do well against ISCI in provincial elections which are to be held in October ..." (Patrick Cockburn ‘Iraqi Police Refuse to Back Maliki's Attacks on Mehdi Army’ http://www.counterpunch.com/patrick03292008.html March 29/30, 2008). Maliki, like the americans, also had an incentive to wrest control of southern iraq’s oil from the mahdi army. The badr militia may also have been willing to support the attack in order to dispose of a major rival militia and to gain some influence over the country’s oil industry.

The failure of the Battle for Basra.
Both maliki and the americans were expecting an easy victory in the so-called battle for basra. Both were taken aback that the mahdi army was able to repulse their attacks. Petraeus may have been misled by his own propaganda and misjudged the mahdi army’s military capabilities. He’d been complaining for over a year about iran training and arming rogue elements of the mahdi army when, in reality, it had been training the core of the mahdi army. "Based on preliminary indications of his spin on the surprisingly effective armed resistance to the joint U.S.-Iraqi Operation Knights Assault in Basra, Petraeus will testify that it was caused by Iran through a group of rogue militiamen who had split off from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and came under Iranian control. But the U.S. military's contention that "rogue elements" have been carrying out the resistance to coalition forces was refuted by Sadr himself in an interview with al-Jazeera aired March 29 in which he called for the release from U.S. detention of the individual previously identified by Petraeus as the head of the alleged breakaway faction." (Gareth Porter ‘Petraeus Testimony to Defend False 'Proxy War' Line’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12649 April 8, 2008).

Secondly, petraeus suspected that the reason sadr had ordered the mahdi army to abide by a ceasefire in august 2007 was because it was on the verge of defeat. In reality moqtada was simply trying to strengthen its military capabilities. "That assumption ignored the evidence that Sadr had been avoiding major combat because he was in the process of reorganizing and rebuilding the Mahdi Army into a more effective force. Thousands of Mahdi Army fighters, including top commanders, were sent to Iran for training, not as "rogue element," as suggested by the U.S. command, but with Sadr's full support. One veteran Mahdi Army fighter who had undergone such training told The Independent last April that the retraining was "part of a new strategy. We know we are against a strong enemy and we must learn proper methods and techniques."" (Gareth Porter ‘Embarrassed US Starts to Disown Basra Operation’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12613 April 01, 2008).

The mahdi army and iran have benefited considerably, both politically and militarily, from their victories in the battle for basra – at least temporarily. Everyone now knows it would take the american and iraqi militaries an enormous military effort to defeat the mahdi army. This effort may be beyond america’s current military capabilities. This failure has two major implications. Firstly, the americans now realize that the mahdi army would pose a formidable threat against the american military in iraq if the bush regime decided to attack iran. This would seem to suggest there is now much less likelihood of an american military attack on iran. After all, if the american military can’t defeat the mahdi army just how is it going to cope with iran’s vastly larger military forces? And, secondly, the iraqi oil industry in southern iraq will continue to remain under sadr’s control.

Both Petraeus and Maliki determined to gamble on their Losses.
Despite the calamity of the battle in basra, neither petraeus nor maliki have shown any sign of abandoning their goals. They both seem to believe that a bigger military effort will succeed in destroying the mahdi army. Maliki has inducted the badr militia into the iraqi army and imposed a tribal levy in order to raise a new militia composed of tens of thousands of shiites who are fearful of the mahdi army.

Petraeus has been hyping up his proposition that iran is arming rogue elements of the mahdi army by alleging that iranians were fighting alongside the mahdi army in basra. "Iranian forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week. Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think. Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces." (Sarah Baxter and Marie Colvin ‘Iran joined militias in battle for Basra’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3690010.ece April 6, 2008).

Juan cole scoffs at the idea. "But that Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei of Iran deliberately sent Iranian troops or agents into Basra to undermine ISCI, Badr, and al-Maliki's Da'wa (Islamic Missionary) Party on behalf of the Sadr Movement just strikes me as daft. It flies in the face of everything else we know about the relationship of these groups with Iran. In fact, the Iranian leadership benefits from a united Iraqi Shiite community and the head of the Expediency Council, Akbar Rafsanajani, expressed concern about the faction-fighting among Iraqi Shiites. Iran brokered the cease-fire. If it wanted Shiite on Shiite fighting, why would it do that?" (Juan Cole ‘5 US Troops Die in Iraq’ http://www.juancole.com/2008_04_01_juancole_archive.html April 07, 2008).

The bush regime and the american military must have been shocked to find that iran had secretly negotiated a truce behind their backs as if they were just some bit players in an iranian soap. So the american military has taken a much more prominent role in the continuing attacks on the mahdi army since the end of the battle for basra. "This week, it transformed into a conflict largely between the Mahdi Army and U.S. forces. Twelve U.S. troops were killed since Sunday, at least eight of them in the capital, several of them from rocket and mortar attacks into the Green Zone." (Leila Fadel ‘As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080408/wl_mcclatchy/2903213 April 08, 2008).

America being pushed into another Proxy Zionist War.
The american and iraqi militaries wanted to defeat the mahdi army to establish their dominance over southern iraq. If this attack had been successful it would also have opened up the prospect for an attack on iran. It is possible the american and iraqi militaries’ objective was solely confined to overcoming the mahdi army in southern iraq and had no secondary interest in preparing for an attack on iran. However, it is much more than likely that this was not just an incidental, secondary goal but its prime purpose.

Jewish Nazis pushing America into World War Three.
An american attack on iran is not merely likely to provoke a war with iran it could trigger a wider american war against other countries in the middle east. In other words, world war three. The more absurd that the proposal for an american attack on iran becomes, the more the jewish neocons around the world demand world war three!

Roberts argues the ‘war on terror’ is just a likudnik front for the jewish theft of land and resources from palestinians, lebanese, and syrians. ""Finishing the job" means to destroy the ability of Iraq, Iran, and Syria to provide support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Syria might simply give up and become another American client state. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Israel can steal the rest of the West Bank along with the water resources in southern Lebanon. That is what "the war on terror" is really about." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Petraeus Testimony May Signal Iran Attack’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12644 April 7, 2008). Jewish lobbies in the western world are solely concerned with provoking a third world war in order to boost jewish supremacism in the middle east no matter what a catastrophe this would be militarily, politically and economically, for the west.

Opposing views on America’s Likudnik war with Iran.

In march 2008 alone, a considerable amount of evidence has emerged suggesting that the likudnik dominated bush mafia is actively working towards launching a war against iran: to such an extent that some commentators suspect it might be willing to fabricate an incident leading to such a war. And yet the evidence against bush being able to launch such a war is also stacking up.

William S. Lind speculates there will be War.
Lind suspects the bush mafia will attack iran and that, as a consequence, the american military could lose its army in iraq. "Adm. Fallon's (forced?) resignation was the last warning we are likely to get of an attack on Iran. It does not mean an attack is certain, but the U.S. could not attack Iran so long as he was the Centcom commander. That obstacle is now gone. Vice President Cheney's Middle East tour is another indicator. According to a report in The American Conservative, on his previous trip Cheney told our allies, including the Saudis, that Bush would attack Iran before the end of his term. If that report was correct, then his current tour might have the purpose of telling them when it is coming. The purpose of this column is not to warn of an imminent assault on Iran, though personally I think it is coming, and soon. Rather, it is to warn of a possible consequence of such an attack. Let me state it here, again, as plainly as I can: an American attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we now have in Iraq. As I have warned before, every American ground unit in Iraq needs its own plan to get itself out of the country using only its own resources and whatever it can scrounge locally. Retreat to the north, through Kurdistan into Turkey, will be the only alternative open to most U.S. Army units, other than ending up in an Iranian POW camp." (William S. Lind ‘Operation Cassandra’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=12583 March 26, 2008).

Lind had issued such a dire warning to the american military in iraq over a year ago. "As I have said before and will say again, the price of an attack on Iran could easily be the loss of the army we have in Iraq. No conceivable action would be more foolish than adding war with Iran to the war we have already lost in Iraq. Regrettably, it is impossible to read Mr. Bush's dispatch of a carrier and Patriot batteries any other way than as harbingers of just such an action." (William S Lind ‘Cliff Ahead! Stomp on the Gas!’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lind01122007.html January 12/14, 2007).

There are, however, three big differences between now and the last time he made such a statement.

Firstly, the kurdish peshmerga is better trained and armed than it has ever been. It may well be willing to fight alongside the americans in an attack on iran or help to defend the american military from an iranian attack if bush launches a war against iran.

Secondly, in conjunction with the ‘surge’, the american military adopted a new counterinsurgency approach - "clear, hold and build". It decided to bribe sunni militias into attacking al quaeda rather than the american military. The success of this u-turn may have tempted the americans to believe that the sunnis might fight alongside them if iran retaliated against the american military in iraq for an american attack on iran. "U.S. Marines in Iraq, who are mostly in Anbar province, are the only force we have left. Their lines of supply and retreat through Jordan are intact. The local Sunnis want to join them in fighting the hated Persians. What do they do at that point? Good question." (William S. Lind ‘Operation Cassandra’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=12583 March 26, 2008).

Thirdly, the american, and british, militaries have been training and arming the iraqi military for the last four years. The bush regime may have come to believe that this force is now powerful and loyal enough to fight alongside the american military if it launched a war on iran.

Although there is incessant talk of america’s army and marines being seriously battle fatigued, the bush regime had reasons to believe the american military was in a far more powerful position militarily today than it was prior to the surge. Bush’s best case scenario was that the american military could use the peshmerga, sunni militias, and the iraqi army, to attack iran or, at the very least, to defend american troops if iran retaliated against an american attack on iran.

But just how feasible is such a best case scenario? Would the peshmerga be willing to join in an attack on iran, perhaps in the hope that this would enable them to liberate iranian kurdistan, knowing that their participation in an attack might trigger a response from the turkish military which opposes any extension of kurdish sovereignty? Would sunni militias be willing to fight alongside the peshmerga in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would sunni militias be willing to fight alongside the shiite iraqi army in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would the shiite iraqi army be willing to support an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would the shiite iraqi army be willing to fight alongside sunni militias in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would all three militias fight alongside each other and the american military against iran? It is difficult to imagine this. Even worse from america’s perspective is that the iraqi military’s recent failure to defeat the mahdi army seems to suggest that it is simply not skilled or committed enough to make a substantial contribution to an american war against iran.

Tony Karon speculates there won’t be War.
Tony karon likens the situation that america is in to a monty python sketch. He believes dick cheney is the black knight. "But to put Cheney’s tough talk and saber-rattling in context, I’d suggest those worried that he means business watch the YouTube clip above, taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in which the Black Knight refuses to let King Arthur pass, and continues to issue bloodcurdling threats even as the English king lops off his limbs. The Black Knight hopping about on one leg screaming "I am invincible!" is an apt analogy for Dick Cheney threatening Iran, right now." (Tony Karon ‘Who’s Afraid of Dick Cheney?’ http://tonykaron.com/2008/03/17/whos-afraid-of-dick-cheney/ March 17, 2008).

However, karon may be mistaken in believing the american military in iraq is still as vulnerable as it was prior to the surge. The more the americans can win the allegiance of the peshmerga, sunni militias, and the shiite iraqi army, the greater would be their military capabilities to attack iran or to defend itself from iranian retaliation inside iraq after an american attack on iran. It is highly unlikely they could win over all three militias but two out of three could be counted as a success. So perhaps dick cheney wouldn’t find himself legless or armless after all.

M K Bhadrakumar believes Reconciliation with Iran is on the Way.
During his radio farda interview, bush seemed to have taken his usual, highly aggressive, stance towards iran. However, the great geopolitical analyst mk bhadrakumar, who thrives on diplomatic nuances, has a contrary interpretation. "A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz. Significantly, ahead of Bush's interviews, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger spoke. Kissinger, incidentally, is a foreign policy advisor to the Republican Party's presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. For the first time, Kissinger called for unconditional talks with Iran. That is a remarkable shift in his position. Interestingly, Kissinger's call was also echoed by Dennis Ross, who used to be a key negotiator in the Middle East, and carries much respect in Israel. Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go [in reform]." Arguably, Bush's interviews signify that "unconditional talks" may have begun with Iran. Thus, from Washington's perspective, the new Iranian Parliament will have a preponderant share of "hardliners" and will be more radical and more "loyal" to the regime, to use Western cliches. Bush's interviews on the occasion of Nauroz are a grudging admission of the emergent political alignment in Tehran. The Bush administration is pragmatic enough to estimate the need to engage Iran." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008).

Bhadrakumar believes there are grounds for a reconciliation between bush and iran. Firstly, it is in america’s geostrategic interest to use iran’s vast fossil fuel resources to undermine russia’s fossil fuel grip over europe. The construction of the nabucco gas pipeline is the key to such a strategy. Secondly, iran supports the construction of such a pipeline and would welcome a more co-operative american strategy. "Besides, Tehran remains on the lookout for a shift in the US stance on the Nabucco gas pipeline sourcing Iranian gas via Turkey for the European market. Without Nabucco, the US strategy to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas supplies will remain a pipedream, and without Iranian gas, Nabucco itself makes little sense, while Nabucco will be Iran's passport to integration with Europe." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008). It should also be added that it is also in america’s geostrategic interests to win over iran as an ally as a means of containing the dramatic rise of china as a global player. The proposed construction of the nabucco pipeline would not merely undermine russia’s geostrategic interests it would also undermine china’s geostrategic interests by piping iran’s fossil fuels westwards rather than eastwards. If america and the west could understand their own national interests, they would have to conclude that iran is pivotal in boosting their own interests at the expense of both russia and china.

There are a number of factors which undermine bhadrakumar’s thesis that bush is putting out ‘peace feelers’ to iran. Firstly, even bhadrakumar admits that bush’s funding and arming of sunni militias is having a negative impact on iran. "The Bush administration needs to count on Tehran's tacit cooperation with the US to use its formidable influence with Iraqi groups. Belligerence toward Iran is hardly the way the Bush administration can realize this objective. But after a recent visit to Iran, prominent US author and commentator Selig Harrison wrote in The Boston Globe newspaper, "Tehran is seething over what it sees as a new 'divide and rule' US strategy designed to make Iraq a permanent US protectorate". He was referring to the current US strategy of building up rival Sunni militias, euphemistically called the "Sunni Awakening", so as to fence in the Shi'ite-dominated government in Baghdad. But, as Harrison recounted his conversations in Iran, "The message was clear: Unless [US General David] Petraeus drastically cuts back the Sunni militias, Tehran will unleash the Shi'ite militias against US forces again."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008). Is it really feasible that the bush mafia would be seeking peace with iran after spending so much time funding and arming sunni militias?

Secondly, an even starker contradiction of bhadrakumar’s proposition is that deep within the bowels of the bush regime, two hardline, militant, likudnik fundamentalists are manipulating america’s money laundering laws to financially isolate iran from the rest of the world. "March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. So who made it official? A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity." Among Treasury officials Paulson has used the most dramatic language by making the argument that not only is Iran a danger to the international community but that this danger permeates virtually all of Iranian society. With such language, Treasury lays the groundwork for applying financial sanctions against the entirety of Iran." (John McGlynn ‘The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran’ http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2707 March 22, 2008). This could have a crippling effect on the iranian economy. Perhaps bush is not aware of what these extremists are doing. Perhaps bhadrakumar was not aware of what they are doing and did not take such a development into consideration.

Thirdly, as politically sophisticated and perceptive as bhadrakumar may be, he refuses to contemplate the influence of the jewish lobby on the american political system and america’s, especially bush’s, foreign policies. This seriously undermines all of his comprehensive geostrategic analyzes. The jews-only state in palestine, and its allies in the american jewish lobby, are utterly opposed to any reconciliation between america and iran. They would do all they could to stop iran participating in the nabucco project, even though this would doom the project to failure and both america and europe would suffer a considerable geostrategic setback. The bush regime stands no chance of reaching an agreement with iran on the nabucco pipeline when hardline jewish militants in the treasury department are busy trying to prevent any country around the world from trading with iran. The bush regime has just condemned switzerland for reaching a fossil fuel agreement with iran. It is hardly going to turn around now and agree to an even bigger deal with iran on the construction of the nabucco pipeline.

The likudniks’ ability to sabotage the viability of the nabucco pipeline is yet another piece of evidence revealing their domination over the bush regime and their ability to force the bush regime to implement foreign policies completely at odds with america’s national interests. It is in the national interests of america, europe, and iran, to co-operate on the construction of this pipeline but the jews-only state, and its allies around the world, have the political and economic power to stir up anti-iranian hostilities to prevent america and europe from co-operating with iran. The only way america and europe could reach an agreement with iran to further their national interests is if they curb the corrupt political influence of their jewish lobbies. And this is not going to happen. Jewish lobbies are going to continue to set america and europe against iran just as they are also antagonizing america and europe against russia. Their ability to pressure the american government and european governments into islamophobia against iran is so profound they are driving russia and iran together to create a fossil fuel dominance which will significantly boost their economic and political leverage over the rest of the world. Even worse is that the jewish lobbies are doing something similar to america and europe as regards and having the same effect. America and europe desperately need iranian fossil fuels as a means of countering the rise of china and yet jewish lobbies are engendering hatred in these governments against iran which is driving the iranians into an even closer alliance with china further boosting china’s rise as a world power.

Jewish likudnik extremists have pressured the bush mafia into focussing so much political attention on the middle east for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine that this has allowed china to flourish around the world considerably undermining america’s status as the world’s superpower. A significant proportion of america’s political, military, and economic, resources have disappeared into the quagmire of america’s zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq that could have been used around the world to counter china’s rise as a global power. China must marvel at the benefits it has acquired from the likudniks’ manipulation of the bush regime which has become totally locked into the nonsensical war on terror. Basically the likudniks have allowed china to expand around the world almost unchallenged by the world’s hyperpower.

America and europe need iran to enhance their global interests but the likudniks on these continents have generated so much animosity against iran they have pushed iran into developing an alliance with russia and china that will have a seriously detrimental impact on american and european interests. By stirring up american and european islamophobia against iran, the jews couldn’t inflict more geostrategic damage on america and europe to the enormous benefit of russia, china, and iran. In the decades to come, when the world is a much more multi-polar place than it is now, bush may look back on his period in office and be utterly aghast at how much he boosted the political and economic power of china and russia by sacrificing american and european interests to jewish supremacism in the middle east. He will realize just how successful the jewish lobby was in turning him into a complete dupe.

It is beyond belief how successful jewish extremists have been in perverting america’s national interests. Within the space of two presidential terms of office they have transformed america from the world’s sole hyper-power and the world’s most admired country, into a country close to financial and military bankruptcy which is detested around the world almost as much as the hideously racist jews-only state.

Bhadrakumar’s proposition about bush’s peace feelers to iran was being rendered obsolete even as it was being formulated. At the moment that bhadrakumar was composing his article, bush was pressuring the maliki government into using the iraqi military to attack the mahdi army. Once bhadrakumar had caught up with events, he explained bush’s objective for the attack as being a desire to gain control over the oil fields in southern iraq for america’s multinational energy corporations. "What has happened is essentially that Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which the strategy of establishing control over the fabulous oil fields of southern Iraq will not work. Control of Basra is a pre-requisite before American oil majors make their multi-billion investments to kick start large-scale oil production in Iraq." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html April 03, 2008). It might have been thought that by now even someone as stupid as bush would have realized that military invasions were not the best way to secure the interests of america’s energy companies. Even if it was the case that bush was hoping to gain control over southern iraq’s oil fields there is no doubt that he supported the attack on the mahdi army primarily because it would keep open the option of an attack on iran.

Did Iran ask the Mahdi Army to launch attacks on the Green Zone to deter an American attack on Iran?
After cheney’s tour of the middle east, the iranian government may have feared there was a dramatic increase in the risk of an american attack on iran. It might have asked the mahdi army to bombard the green zone as a warning to the americans not to attack iran. The bush regime may have decided that the time was now ripe for the maliki government to dismantle the mahdi army. Bush wanted sadr out of the way not merely to keep open the option of an attack on iran but to ensure sadr wouldn’t gain the political power to oppose america’s long term occupation of iraq. Maliki may have complied with bush’s request because he hoped this would strengthen his political power in southern iraq especially with provincial elections coming up in october 2008. The badr militia may also have been willing to support the attack in order to dispose of a major rival militia and to gain control over the lucrative oil industry. When iran unleashed the mahdi army it may not have intended to provoke such a major response from the american, and the iraqi, militaries but it has benefited considerably from sadr’s victory. Everyone now knows that it would take an enormous military effort for the american and iraqi militaries to defeat the mahdi army in southern iraq. This effort may be beyond america’s current military capabilities. So the oil industry in southern iraq will remain under sadr’s control and there is now less likelihood of an american military to attack iran. After all, if the american military can’t defeat the mahdi army just how is it going to cope with iran’s military forces?

Conclusions.
There are two huge factors working against an american attack on iran. Firstly, america would suffer an even greater military catastrophe than it has already suffered as a result of its zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq. It may be in a militarily stronger position than it was in prior to the surge since it is no longer being attacked by sunni militias and the mahdi army. However, the american military has no real allies in iraq that would join an invasion of iran nor protect it if iran retaliated for an american attack on iran. It has the support of the peshmerga. It has won over sunni militias. But would they fight alongside the shiite iraqi army? America might have come to believe it could use the iraqi military against iran but the iraqi military’s recent failure against the mahdi army must have rendered such a belief delusory. Some commentators believe that america forced maliki into attacking the mahdi army in order to prepare the way for an invasion of iran but after the recent fiasco the americans must have realized that if they can’t defeat the mahdi army how are they going to fare against iran’s enormous military forces. The mahdi army, having been trained and armed by iran, is now powerful enough to take on american troops in iraq if bush is foolish enough to order the american military to attack iran. The prospects for an attack on iran have diminished considerably as a result of this disastrous american inspired attack on the mahdi army.

Secondly, america simply cannot afford a war against iran. It would have to be funded by china, japan, and/or saudi arabia and they don’t want a war against iran. If america invaded iran it would suffer an even greater financial, and political, catastrophe than it has already suffered as a result of its zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq. A war against iran would be economically and militarily suicidal.

But, then again, we are dealing with a presidential regime which is dominated by traitorous likudnik fanatics who simply do not care what happens to america as long as it benefits the military supremacism of the zionist state in the middle east. The likudniks may have reached the conclusion that america is heading for an economic recession that will necessitate a considerable contraction of america’s military forces. If this is so then the most opportune moment for an attack might be now before america is forced to start reducing its military capabilities.