Iraq peace at the point of a gun

Having failed to bring opinion on-side to attack Iran over supposed nuclear weapons production ability, US President George W. Bush tries another tactic. For some time US military and intelligence services in Iraq have issued caveats on Iran's alleged involvement in supplying munitions and aid to rebels there, so the groundwork was prepared for Bush. Now Bush has warned Iran that it faces a "choice" - to live in peace with its neighbours (according to US diktats), or continue to arm and fund militants in Iraq and face the consequences of US action.

Such threats are not new; not to Iran, nor even Iraq, which faced the consequences through invasion by allied powers sent in to topple Saddam Hussain and eradicate the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. It is probably because the threats are a repeat of what people have heard before that an overwhelming feeling of ennui permeates the public. But it would be wrong to be complacent of such language from Bush, for he is desperately keen to ensure that he leaves a mark on history, and that mark to be considered by future generations with favour. Bush also wants to leave office in January 2009, having done as much as possible (as he sees it) to bring to an end, or near end, to all controversies in the Middle East. And if it means taking up cudgels against Iran in the little time left, then he may very well do so.

As Bush and his advisers see it, the war in Iraq is prolonged only because of the assistance given to "illegal militias" funded by Iran. So, to bring forward US troop withdrawal, the operations of the financial backers of rebels must end. With that, and their theorised nuclear weapons, it becomes more than enough reason to invade Iran.