Cheney's Conspiracy Theory II: Iran

Did Cheney really believe that Saddam and al Qaeda conspired to attack the U.S. on 9/11 or was it just a conspiracy theory he came up to convince the majority of the U.S. on the necessity of the Iraq War?

As recently as April 5, 2007, "Cheney contended that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda." But that "[o]thers in al-Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." Though, he has apparently backed off from previous assertions that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, he is still clinging to the notion that has now been disproved by every agency and group that has investigated the connection(except the one run by ardent neocon Feith) that al Qaeda was nonetheless active in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.

In my post of May 19, 2007, "Cheney's Conspiracy Theory", I wrote that perhaps Cheney really fell for the possibility that there was collusion between Saddam and al Qaeda prior to 9/11. It's possible his belief that Iraq was part of terrorist conspiracy plus his paranoia/fear that our democracy was seriously in danger might have led him to push for the invasion of Iraq. And I think there really is a possibility that Cheney and other neocons feel they are on a mission to protect the U.S. way of life as well as "our interests" in the Middle East, meaning Israel and Iraqi oil. And if their friends, Big Oil, get rich in the process, so be it -- then there will be more money for donations to get Republican candidates elected and to further the neocon agenda of expanding U.S. business interests and "morality" around the world.

There has also been some talk about a neocon Middle East domino theory , sort of a reverse of the Vietnam Era domino theory, which contends that if the U.S. manages to create a democracy in Iraq then democracy will spread to the surrounding countries. Well, communism didn't spread throughout Southeast Asia when we lost the Vietnam War and right now anyway, western-style democracy doesn't appear to be on the verge of spreading anywhere in the Middle East.

Actually, I'm not convinced that creating an Iraqi democracy was really part of the neocon plan or maybe it was just a best case scenario that didn't pan out. The real priority was to retain, apparently at any cost, a strong and preferably controlling presence in Iraq. The level of U.S. incompetence in "post-war" Iraq was too great to not have been, if not part of the plan, at least an acceptable outcome. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I think it's possible that one reason why so many key civilian positions in Iraq have been filled by loyal Bush supporters is because it is more important that whatever happens there follows their long-range agenda than it is to create a stable and peaceful Iraq.

This scenario fits in with the theory that neocons are seeking "maximum chaos and instability in the Middle East in order to justify long-term US occupation of the region." And this theory, at least in terms of how long we plan to be in Iraq, gained more believability when on June 17, 2007, General Petraeus told Fox News in regards to Iraq that "typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years."

In addition the U.S. is building a large, well actually huge, U.S. Embassy complex in Baghdad that will encompass 104 acres on the bank of the Tigris River inside the Green Zone. "Original cost estimates," for the project, "ranged over $1 billion." State Department officials have openly admitted that the size of the embassy is due to the expectation of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq for many years to come.

So is the Bush Administration trying to destabilize the Middle East?

Recently there have been new accusations that Iran may be funding all of the conflicts in the region. According to the NY Times on June 15, 2007, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts are currently the official policy of the President and Vice President despite the fact that the "few remaining hawks" in the administration are "pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities". And as Patrick Buchanan pointed out on June 18, 2007, in an article titled "War With Iran? On The Escalator To A Third Middle East Confrontation", various recent accusations made by Senator Joe Lieberman, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, and General Petraeus taken together assert that Iran is providing arms, training, and funds to opposition forces in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan.

Are these guys part of the plan to convince us that we need to lay waste to Iran as we have to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Seymour Hersh in his March 05, 2007 New Yorker article "The Redirection" quotes the Vice President:

On Fox News on January 14th, Cheney warned of the possibility, in a few years, “of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world’s supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world.” He also said, “If you go and talk with the Gulf states or if you talk with the Saudis or if you talk with the Israelis or the Jordanians, the entire region is worried… . The threat Iran represents is growing.”

Cheney made the following remarks to troops on May 11, 2007, aboard the U.S.S. Stennis in the Persian Gulf:

We'll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. We'll disrupt attacks on our own forces. We'll continue bringing relief to those who suffer, and delivering justice to the enemies of freedom. And we'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region. These are important duties, and they must all be done at the same time.

And he had this exchange on Fox News on May 14, 2007, with Bret Baier:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We are confident that there are a number of senior al Qaeda officials in Iran and they've been there since the spring of '03. About the time that we launched operations into Iraq, the Iranians rounded up a number of al Qaeda individuals and placed them under house arrest and they're still there.

We think obviously there are other elements that are responsible for overall leadership of al Qaeda, specifically Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri. They are not in Iran, but there are some senior officials in Iran. They've been held there for some time. But activities they've been engaged in, I'm really not at liberty to discuss.

QUESTION: But clearly they're there and operating?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We know they're there, and I don't want to go beyond that.

Will the next threat be that Iran is funding al Qaeda? Or are Cheney and friends just trying to get us to swallow a new conspiracy theory? This one replacing the nuclear WMD of Iraq with those of Iran.


Links

Vice President's Remarks at the United States Military Academy Commencement
West Point, New York, May 26, 2007

The Colossus of Baghdad
Commentary: Wonders of the imperial world.
By Tom Engelhardt, May 29, 2007

Iran: The Next Neocon Target
by Ron Paul, April 5, 2006

New U.S. Embassy in Baghdad Evokes Suburbia
By Christopher Hawthorne, June 18, 2007

Irrational Luxury in Baghdad
By Hanady Kader, June 18, 2007

The Long War: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Protracted Conflict—and Defeat
By Michael Vlahos, September o5, 2006