Meanwhile, The Path To War With Iran Continues Apace

From the BBC:

Jalal Sharafi, the embassy's second secretary, was abducted from his car on Sunday in central Karrada district by men wearing Iraqi army uniforms.

Iran condemned the kidnapping and said it held the US responsible for his life. A US military spokesman said no US or Iraqi troops had been involved.

The news comes amid US-Iranian tension over Iranian activities in Iraq.

Last month in a dramatic pre-dawn helicopter raid, the Americans detained five Iranians in northern Iraq, prompting Iran to issue a formal protest to the US.

The US has denied any involvement in the latest incident, but recently has been expressing increasing concern about alleged Iranian support for militant activity in Iraq.

Note the official U.S. military statement, though:

Iraqi officials earlier said the gunmen were wearing uniforms of the Iraqi 36th Commando Battalion--a special Iraqi unit under US direction.

US military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt Col Christopher Garver, could not confirm the diplomat's abduction.

However, he said: "We've checked with our units and it was not a [multinational forces--Iraq] unit that participated in that event."

Very carefully worded, of course.

If you have been paying attention, lately, you will have noticed that the rhetoric on Iran is following an eerily, strikingly similar pattern to that leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. All we need now is that suitable pretext. And well, seeing as how the American public and Congress are a little skeptical about that WMD threat this time around, looks like we need a good ol' fashioned Gulf of Tonkin incident. The only question is, do you think the American people will know it when they see it and refuse to start another war? Or will we so soon have forgotten the lessons of history, as usual?

Oh yeah, back in 1953, the U.S. orchestrated the overthrow of the Iranian government because of--you guessed it, issues about control over oil--, so you don't think oil could have anything to do with it? Or have we forgotten that, too?

From "Iran 1953, Making it safe for the King of Kings, excerpted from the book Killing Hope by William Blum," via thirdworldtraveler.com.

"So this is how we get rid of that madman Mossadegh," announced John Foster Dulles to a group of top Washington policy makers one day in June 1953. The Secretary of State held in his hand a plan of operation to overthrow the prime minister of Iran prepared by Kermit (Kim) Roosevelt of the CIA. There was scarcely any discussion amongst the high powered men in the room, no probing questions, no legal or ethical issues raised.

"This was a grave decision to have made," Roosevelt later wrote. "It involved tremendous risk. Surely it deserved thorough examination, the closest consideration, somewhere at the very highest level. It had not received such thought at this meeting. In fact, I was morally certain that almost half of those present, if they had felt free or had the courage to speak, would have opposed the undertaking..."

The original initiative to oust Mossadegh had come from the British, for the elderly Iranian leader had spearheaded the parliamentary movement to nationalize the British owned Anglo-lranian Oil Company (AIOC), the sole oil company operating in Iran. In March 1951, the bill for nationalization was passed, and at the end of April Mossadegh was elected prime minister by a large majority of Parliament. On 1 May, nationalization went into effect. The Iranian people, Mossadegh declared, "were opening a hidden treasure upon which lies a dragon".

As the prime minister had anticipated, the British did not take the nationalization gracefully, though it was supported unanimously by the Iranian parliament and by the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people for reasons of both economic justice and national pride. The Mossadegh government tried to do all the right things to placate the British: It offered to set aside 25 percent of the net profits of the oil operation as compensation; it guaranteed the safety and the jobs of the British employees; it was willing to sell its oil without disturbance to the tidy control system so dear to the hearts of the international oil giants. But the British would have none of it. What they wanted was their oil company back. And they wanted Mossadegh's head. A servant does not affront his lord with impunity...

The British attempt at economic strangulation of Iran could not have gotten off the ground without the active co-operation and support of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations and American oil companies...In November 1952, the Churchill government approached Roosevelt, the de facto head of the CIA's Middle East division, who told the British that he felt that there was "no chance to win approval from the outgoing administration of Truman and Acheson. The new Republicans, however, might be quite different."

John Foster Dulles was certainly different. The apocalyptic anti-communist saw in Mossadegh the epitome of all that he detested in the Third World: unequivocal neutralism in the cold war, tolerance of Communists, and disrespect for free enterprise, as demonstrated by the oil nationalization. (Ironically, in recent years Great Britain had nationalized several of its own basic industries, and the government was the majority owner of the AIOC.) To the likes of John Foster Dulles, the eccentric Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was indeed a madman.

Ahmadinejad, Mossadegh...Dulles, Darth Cheney...seems all that has changed are the names...

Oh yeah, and the boogeyman: Communism, Terrorism.

Only one thing hasn't changed: the issue of control over oil.