Please tell me these guys are wrong!

I've speculated for some time that the current American Government has its eyes on either Syria or Iran next.

In the past few days, others have started to voice similar thoughts. This column by Eric Margolis appeared in the Sun newspapers this past week, more or less echoing thoughts I've had for quite some time. Then on CBC's 'Sunday Morning' program this past Sunday, one of the discussions was on the same topic, although more from the perspective of the current White House policy groups. Apparently, many of the same people that advocated attacking Iraq are now pushing to go after Iran.

Sure enough, we see early signs of the axes being sharpened. Bush opening his trap and making sinister comments about "wanting the facts" about Iran's "support" of Al-Qaeda. The "facts", such as they were about Iraq turned out to be thinly veiled fiction at best. I can only imagine how reliable the US facts on Iran will be.

Given the sudden concern over Iran's nuclear programs, and its highly porous border with Afghanistan, I'm going to guess that the logic put forth (publicly) will be along the following lines:

Iran doesn't want to control is borders, therefore it is supporting the great bogeyman "terrorism".

Iran has an active nuclear research program. They must be trying to develop nuclear weapons to drop on "American Interests"

Because they can't control their border, terrorists are making off with nuclear materials to make 'dirty bombs' from.

Therefore, to protect the safety of the "free world", Iran must be quashed.

The real reasons for invading Iran? I'd have to guess it's a few things:

1. Iran has significant oil reserves - more than Iraq does actually.
2. There's no love lost between the hard-line Islamic government in Tehran and Washington - ever since the infamous hostage taking in the US Embassy in Tehran, factions in Washington have no doubt been assuaging their bruised pride.

Does it have anything much to do with "terrorism" - only in as much as terrorism is that lovely ephemeral bogey-man that they can wave around and the populus gets all scared. I'd guess that the lifespan of that threat will be just long enough for significant numbers of US troops to come home in body bags. Unlike Iraq, Iran hasn't been labouring for the last decade under economic sanctions. They have a fairly affluent economy, and no doubt a reasonably equipped military.

If, as Jeffrey Simpson speculated in the Globe and Mail, that US intentions lean towards some form of global dominion, I think the world as a whole should be deeply worried. As the Romans proved, military occupation of the known world doesn't work terribly well. For all that the US has great military power, they do not have the might (nor does any other country) to effectively occupy even a relatively small geographic region like the Middle East.