Patrick Cockburn: It is no use blaming Iran for the insurgency in Iraq

[Briar]

Patrick Cockburn: It is no use blaming Iran for the insurgency in Iraq

Bush is acting rather like Tory politicians a century ago who played 'the Orange Card' over Ulster


...

It is striking how swiftly Washington is seeking to escalate its confrontation with Iran. Its rhetoric has returned to the strident tone so often heard when the US was accusing Saddam Hussein in 2002 and 2003 of hiding weapons of mass destruction that threatened the world.

No serious observer of Iraq since the US invasion believes for a moment that Iran has sustained the Sunni insurgency or played an essential role in the rise of the Shia militias. It was obvious that when Saddam fell Iran would benefit. He was, after all, the arch enemy of Tehran, and the Iranians were delighted to see him go.

...
Mr Bush is acting rather like cynical Tory politicians at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries who played "the Orange Card" over Ulster. Claiming to be safeguarding the empire, they stirred anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigotry to their own political advantage. Mr Bush may reap similar benefits by playing the anti-Shia and anti- Iranian card.

...
The Bush administration has always shown itself more interested in holding power in Washington than in Baghdad. Whatever its failures on the battlefield, the Republicans were able to retain the presidency and both Houses of Congress in 2004. Confrontation with Iran, diverting attention from the fiasco in Iraq, may be their best chance of holding the White House in 2008.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2245091.ece

[izzie]

1. I think it has also to do with the make-up of Bush.

This going from one thing not done right to another is something he seems to have done his whole life. He did best when he had a person over him and not really much power like his father sending him to schools and colleges and the base ball team. He has a younger brother just the same. Father's usually do not leave their business to these types sons. People let them run their countries in place of that. Now on to Iran--------------like a new hen house for the fox.

[Briar]

2. It seems to have as much to do with

the makeup of Democrat candidates too, since they appear to be revving up the patriotic rhetoric against Iran as well. Both parties have appparently decided that this is the way to woo the voters - do they think Americans will wave flags and cheer on the bombers as they watch them on TV loosing their lethal loads over the people of Iran?

Edited to ask: any prospective candidate pushing for diplomacy?

[izzie]

3. I think it is the style of govt. right now. My country right or wrong

It has been the thing is the 1900's and will be used for some time more. When that produces to many wars it will move into groups of countries or maybe with same thinker types. I think we will end up with some thing like a united Middle East with no out side people let in for a while any how.Just a thought.

[Briar]

4. We tried to break nationalism

after WW2. But the UN has been undermined by countries determined to accept no control on their pursuit of their own selfish interests. It's still there though, and is a means to work for a better future. Again - any candidate prepared to stand up for the principles behind the UN? Or are we falling back into a nationalistic dark age where force will always be the first resort?