by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 28, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

hen President George W. Bush delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of congress tonight, he'll stress Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. resolution 1441, demanding full disarmament. Giving ample ammunition, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix reported yesterday that Iraq failed to comply with 1441, triggering the "material breach" clause, allowing the U.S. to apply "serious consequences." Though some Europeans—and Democrats—still want proof, Bush now has the legal mandate to proceed with military force without additional U.N. action. Till now, world and domestic opinion hinged on inspectors producing "smoking guns," proof that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Now the burden shifts to Iraq's failure to comply with 1441. But the real rationale for toppling Saddam won't be clearly mapped out in tonight's State of the Union speech.

      Following Sept. 11, Bush identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "axis of evil" in last year's State of the Union address, surprising listeners that the war on terrorism was about to shift from Afghanistan to an old nemesis—Saddam Hussein. For over a year, Bush has made a relentless case that Saddam poses a grave danger to U.S. national security, pointing to his alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and ongoing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons' programs. While not proved, the White House also tried to link Saddam with Osama bin Laden, creating urgency for the policy of "regime change." More evidence of a Saddam-Bin Laden connection won't sway skeptical minds, believing Iraqi claims that the real U.S. goal is to plunder Iraq's oil riches. No blood for oil becomes the favorite mantra for those opposed to current U.S. foreign policy seeking a regime change in Iraq.

       Harking back to 1979, President Jimmy Carter abandoned his commitment to the Shah of Iran, allowing radical Islam to eventually overthrow a regime friendly to the United States. When Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, the U.S. lost a strategic ally, ensuring the security of petroleum commerce in the Persian Gulf. Without Iran, the U.S. relied heavily on Israel for intelligence and strategic operations, though getting some help from Saudi Arabia and neighboring Gulf States. For over 24 years, Iran destabilized the Middle East, sponsoring terrorism against Israel and U.S. interests, by supplying arms and support to a variety of terrorist organizations. In 1986, only five years after Khomeni released the American hostages, Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan, allowing Pakistan's notorious bomb maker Abdul Qadeer Khan to sell Iran the technology needed to enrich uranium.

      Western intelligence now confirms that Pakistan helped Iran build two nuclear plants, Arak and Natanz, that authorities claim actively produce fissile material. Without toppling Iraq, establishing a regime friendly to the U.S., and setting up strategically placed military bases, the U.S. would face grave difficulties containing a growing Iranian nuclear threat. North Korea has already supplied the Iranians with long-range Nodong ballistic missiles, the same missiles given to Pakistan in 1993 for Khan's secrets about enriching uranium. When Bush speaks about the war on terrorism, it must be understood in the context of geopolitical events that place the Iranians dangerously close to developing atomic weapons. Last October, Pyongyang announced its plans to abrogate a 1994 nonproliferation agreement with the Clinton Administration, firing up its Yongbyon uranium enrichment facility.

      Walking a political tightrope and hoping to score points, Democrats clawed into Bush's get-tough plans for Saddam Hussein. "I would not wish to question the motivation of the president of the United States when he is deciding to put our young men and women in harm's way. I do think, though, that an explanation is needed to the American people as to why we are going there," said newly minted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), raising doubts about White House policy. Joining in, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) insisted that Bush must show that Iraq "poses a threat to our national security so imminent that it justifies putting American lives at risk to get rid of him." Neither Pelosi nor Daschle mention anything about the gathering Iranian threat or Saddam's refusal to disarm. When Bush finishes his speech, Democrats will sing a different tune.

       Putting White House credibility on the line, Bush will make his best case why Iraq represents an implacable threat to national security. No "smoking gun" will satisfy everyone. Even strong links to Bin Laden won't persuade all parties that the U.S. has a preemptive right to de-fang Baghdad. Looking at the bigger picture, Bush must pick today's battles to protect tomorrow's security. Toppling Saddam should help neutralize a growing Iranian threat, hell bent on developing the next Islamic bomb. With Saddam out of the picture, the U.S. must counter Iran's move to produce A-bombs and ballistic missiles. Once Iran is properly contained, the White House can focus on appropriate measures to deal with North Korea's blinding nuclear ambitions. Only then, can the U.S. go back to Pakistan and gain assurances that mad scientists like Abdul Qadeer Khan can never again destabilize world order.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.