Was Iran the real motivation for invading Iraq?

In that our wartime strategy is held secret, as it should be, one may wonder how a layman can purport to explain U.S. global strategy by mere observation. We seldom know the real intrigue behind most international actions and are forced to observe the behavior of nations from afar and form inferences not always based upon direct evidence. Still, analysis and conclusions from reasoned observations are often just as accurate as those put forward by the experts. Insiders are sometimes too close to the intrigue and tend to form biases that exclude alternatives that should be considered.

In June of 2004, I wrote a commentary for the Nevada Appeal postulating that we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq not to foster freedom and democracy, overthrow a brutal dictator or find weapons of mass destruction, but to complete a geographical circle that surrounds and contains Iran. Recent events appear to support my original conclusions.

International power politics being what they are, high risk actions such as the invasion of another country must have a public but not necessarily a credible justification. For the most part, as in the case of Iraq, the public justification was formatted for loyal conservative spinmeisters to explain and justify the public persona. For example, the story about weapons of mass destruction was the truth, but with a spin - that is - to deter the development and eventual use of Iranian nuclear capability, not that of Iraq's capability. It was a kind of strategic carom shot. The master plan was, and continues to be, to contain Iran, an imminent nuclear power and the most significant harbinger and exporter of worldwide terrorism eminently more dangerous than Iraq was. Of the three members of the axis of evil, Iran is considered the most significant threat to the United States.

Iran is now surrounded by countries not overtly hostile and some "friendly" to the United States, at least not Gulf kingdoms that support terrorism; Turkey is on the Western border, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Caspian Sea and Turkmenistan on the Northern Boarder, Afghanistan and Pakistan on the Eastern Border, and the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman on the South and Southwest borders.

Today, the United States threatens Iran from two major countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Short of overt attack, what would be more ominous than to have a feared and more powerful enemy on two boarders perceived to be bent on aggression. Just another justification and motive to foment terror and instability in whatever realm occupied or influenced by Israel and United States.

Evidence that supports my original "squeeze Iran" postulate of three years ago, is now clear. No progress has been made after two decades of hidden nuclear development, U.S.-backed European diplomacy to create a trade and political cooperation agreement, and endless and failed negotiations. Yet, in light of current events in the middle east, Iran's tentacles have not been contained. They reach deep into every corner of the globe in the form of international terrorism that is much more sophisticated than Al-Qaeda and aimed at any state that supports Israel and the United States. My original postulate proposed that this was a given by the Bush administration then and has driven the administration's clandestine global strategy ever since. Thus, at that time, the administration considered the Iranian potential for harm to the United States as the most serious since Germany and Japan. This provided the ultimate justification for the invasion of Iraq. The idea is even further verified when considering what we know about Iran's direct connection to and a major supporter of Hezbolla in southern Lebanon and Hamas on the West Bank. As the most powerful Arab army, Hezbolla is a formidable enemy.

Middle eastern religious conflicts have festered for centuries, squabbling over chunks of sacred land. When viewed in light of the history of human conflict and often their historical insolubility, I find myself searching for answers at lower levels of struggle; attempts at conflict resolution at higher levels seldom work out as planned. For example, in the battle for sobriety, addicts must, at some level, "hit the bottom." The negative consequences of self-defeating behaviors must become so extreme that a choice must be made from among stupor, recovery or death.

Likewise, Islamic extremists are addicts - to violence. While evil, their conflicts must be allowed to continue and also escalate with increased intensely to a point at which they, like the drug addict, hit the bottom. Their evil violence will extract such negative consequences that no alternatives but recovery is left. The remaining choice is the ugliness of endless low-level conflict that continues to breed angry Islamic warriors who would rather die than see a live infidel.

• Dan Mooney is a retired Carson City resident and frequent editorial contributor to the Nevada Appeal. Guy Farmer, whose column normally appears in this space, is on vacation this week.