by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 1, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

hen President George W. Bush fingered Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “axis of evil” in the 2002 State of the Union message, few imagined that Saddam Hussein would wind up milk-toast. Among the three countries, the Pentagon knew Iraq was the easiest target, watching Baghdad fall in about three weeks. Yet the State Department—especially Secretary of State Colin L. Powell—knew that winning the peace was a tall order to fill, especially with hostile neighbors like Iran, Syria and, yes, Saudi Arabia. Bush's made a compelling case for war, citing Saddam's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. While the military hasn't turned up WMD, the White House still insists it'll find Saddam's arsenal, despite fraudulent intelligence supplied by Ahmed Chalabi and his brother-in-law, codenamed “curveball.” Chalabi has few fans left in the Pentagon or the State Department.

     With election season in full swing, Democratic nominee John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) charged Bush with exaggerating Saddam's threat, pushing the country into a costly “optional” war. Republicans counter that Bush was given “bad,” intelligence, citing “corroborating” sources that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. “Curveball” supplied the British, French, Germans, Russians, and yes, the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans much of the intelligence on which Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney based their case against Saddam. Once WMD were out of the picture, the White House shifted gears, citing Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions as justification for war. When that didn't fly, the administration focused on “torture chambers,” “rape rooms” and, finally, “liberating Iraq.” But the real strategic purposes of conquering Iraq were carefully concealed.

     Widely published reports in the press and by the International Atomic Energy Agency now have Iran feverishly developing atomic weapons. Iran's Ali Khameini and his Supreme Revolutionary Council deny any nuclear ambitions. Yet Iran's foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi told the world press Feb. 14, 2004 that Tehran's A-bomb was a fait accompli. Thanks to Pakistan's President Pervez Musharif and his chief bomb maker A.Q. Khan, Iran is well on its way to generating fissile material and building its first nuclear bomb. Recent reports about Tehran harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, but, more importantly, allowing Bin Laden's henchmen—and a host of jihadists—to cross its borders present an implacable challenge. With the election in full swing and U.S. military already stretched to the breaking point, the White House can't afford another costly adventure.

     Whether Bush's critics want an exit strategy, Iran's current nuclear ambitions preclude a U.S. pullout. U.S. military presence in Iraq becomes an essential foothold to restrain a growing Iranian atomic threat—one that not only threatens U.S. allies but also permits Tehran to blackmail the entire Persian Gulf. Thanks to Pakistan, the world's most repressive Islamic regime is within striking distance of an A-bomb. Now that Bush knows that Iran harbors Al Qaeda operatives, including Abu Musab Zarqawi, the notorious Jordanian-born terrorist responsible for the current insurgency in Iraq, and also Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, the Syrian terrorist linked to the deadly Madrid train bombings, dealing with Tehran is now unavoidable. Whether Saddam ever threatened U.S. national security is doubtful. What's becoming abundantly clear is that Tehran's nuclear ambitions threaten the entire region.

     Iran's Islamic power structure gives new meaning to the slogan “trust but verify.” Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the Geneva-based International Atomic Energy Agency, found out firsthand how Tehran stonewalls, especially about its fissile program at its Nantaz's uranium enrichment plant and Arak's Heavy Water reactor. While Bush went to war with Iraq, Iran was busy generating fissile material. Containing Iran's nuclear shenanigans becomes a major component to current U.S. foreign policy. Nonproliferation experts warned about Pakistan well before A.Q. Khan got rich selling his nuclear secrets to rogue states. In this context, Iraq no longer looks like an extraneous battleground but a strategic base in the global fight against nuclear proliferation. While Pakistan shows some ties to the world community, Iran consistently supports and harbors international terrorists.

     Instead of defending itself about weapons of mass destruction, the White House should reframe its thinking and place the Iraq theater into a more coherent context. As long as American troops are in harm's way, the justification must be more than liberating Iraq. With terror alerts on the rise and with images of Sept. 11 still on voters' minds, explaining Iraq's strategic significance is needed more than ever. While Iraq's nuclear program was grossly exaggerated, Iran's has been stunningly underestimated. Iran's support for Al Qaeda terrorists and the insurgency in Iraq is beyond dispute. Iran's blatant nuclear ambitions directly threaten U.S. national security and its petroleum interests in the region. Before it's too late, the U.S. must deal with the Iran's growing atomic threat. Unlike Pakistan, the U.S. might not be so lucky keeping A-bombs from terrorists and rogue states.

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.