An anxious world awaits the outcome of

Cheney's belligerence toward Iran

Rather than attempt to negotiate with the Iranians,

it is Cheney who is the strongest advocate

in the White House for unleashing the bombers

"All options are on the table," he repeats, mantra-like

Unfettered by concern over elections or polls,

Cheney doesn't want to leave Iran to a future president

who presumably won't enjoy his freedom to act

It helps that Cheney and Bush share the fundamentalist's

conviction in the purity of their motives

History will surely validate their every action,

conveniently, long after they are dead

Hawks Rule the Roost:

An American military strike on Iran is

becoming more, rather than less, likely.

Given the bloody mayhem in Iraq, and the clamour in Washington to bring the boys home from a failing war, it may seem hard to believe that any sane western policymaker could be contemplating yet another attack on another, much bigger, Muslim country.

But as Iran moves inexorably closer to learning how to build an atomic bomb, the danger that America or Israel will attack its nuclear sites is now acute.

Both countries are making the case that a military attack would be better than allowing a self-proclaimed theocracy to acquire nuclear weapons.

This is not a private fantasy harboured only by Bush and Cheney: all America's front-running presidential candidates, Democrats as well as Republicans, say that they would also contemplate a pre-emptive strike if sanctions fail.

The laughable thing about all this is that the Bush/Cheney alliance will, by the time Bush gets voted out in 2008, have taken only 8 short years to completely destroy America's influence in the global economy.

China and Russia are riding a wave of Billions or Trillions in cash, whilst the US not only wallows in debt but is increasingly being ignored by the new world order that is emerging.

Its relegating its role to that of a pure consumer of other countries resourses, whilst any political goodwill and influence has long since been spent.

Bush is right. His political legacy really will be seen by future generations of Americans. But I don't yet think he realises what this actually means.

The drum-beating over Iran has far less to do with oil than it does with the gambling of desperation.

Gamblers, particularly bad gamblers, when finding themselves in a losing streak, instead of simply cutting their losses and quitting begin doubling or tripling their bets in the desperate hope that they'll be able to recoup their losses before the game is over.

Time is running out for the Bush Regime.

The Republicans in Congress are becoming very vocal about their unwillingness to back the administration past September, in terms of continuing to support the 'surge', unless General Petraeus' much vaunted report somehow shows nothing short of a miraculous turnaround in the war.

Once that happens, it is the beginning of the end for the US role in Iraq; the only thing that remains is reaching a compromise over the exit strategy. Which also means putting the nails in the coffin on Bush's legacy.

A man deluded enough to believe that God told him to invade Iraq is deluded enough to believe that doubling his bet by attacking Iran may save him.

"They make a desert and call it peace". The Roman historian Tacitus put these words into the mouth of a British resistance leader speaking about Tacitus' own rapacious and belligerent fellow-countrymen.

This is exactly what the US under Bush and Cheney have done in Iraq, with the support of the shameless British lapdog poodle.

Now the criminals in Washington seem hellbent on doing the same thing to Iran. Mad fuckers.

All about Oil:

Cheney seems keen to intervene in Iran,

especially as the US seems unable to get

its hands on the country's oil resources.

An anxious world awaits the outcome of American vice-president Dick Cheney's belligerence toward Iran. Rather than attempt to negotiate with the Iranians, it is Cheney who is the strongest advocate in the White House for unleashing the bombers.

"All options are on the table," he repeats, mantra-like. Cheney, unfettered by concern over elections or polls, doesn't want to leave Iran to a future president who presumably won't enjoy his freedom to act.

It helps that Cheney and President Bush share the fundamentalist's conviction in the purity of their motives. History will surely validate their every action, conveniently, long after they are dead.

The casus belli is said to be Iran's ambition to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Tragically, the administration squandered a unique opportunity to engage the Iranians over their nuclear programme.

In the spring of 2003, shortly after American troops captured Baghdad, the Iranians approached the administration through the Swiss ambassador. They were ready to negotiate.

Emboldened by apparent success in Iraq and intoxicated by visions of remaking the Middle East, Cheney convinced Bush to reject the overture.

Four years later, the failed Iraq war has strengthened Iran's position in the region beyond Tehran's wildest dreams.

Cheney has been thinking hard about Iran for more than 30 years and his ambitions have never been as narrow as a simple pre-emptive strike against nuclear facilities.

For Cheney, the chessboard has always been about oil and its movement across the Gulf. Iran boasts about 10% of the world's confirmed oil reserves and harbours the second-largest reserve of natural gas.

It is also strategically located, as Cheney explained last February to Greg Sheridan of the Australian:

And that gives them the capability to interfere with about 20% of the world's daily supply of oil, 18mn barrels a day that flows in the Straits of Hormuz.

And obviously a large part of the world's oil production is within range of Iranian military capabilities.

So if you add to all of that nuclear weapons, I think it would, in fact, constitute a significant danger - not just on a regional basis, but clearly to the potential to have an impact far beyond that.

Cheney's inability to tap Iran's resources has long been a source of frustration.

During the administration of Gerald Ford, Cheney pushed a reluctant Ford to sell Tehran Westinghouse technology that would have allowed Iran to reprocess plutonium and obtain uranium for a nuclear energy programme.

The deal foundered in 1979 under the Carter administration, when the Shah was overthrown. Cheney's appetite for doing business in Iran reawakened when he assumed the leadership of the oil services giant Halliburton in 1995.

Cheney took the lead through a trade association called USA Engage to oppose US sanctions levied against Iran.

In a 1998 speech to the Cato Institute, he lamented that American firms prohibited from dealing with Iran were "cut out of the action".

Not content to follow the rules and lose the market, Cheney led Halliburton in a questionable effort to circumvent sanctions.

In 2000, while still CEO, a Halliburton subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands opened an office in Tehran.

Four years later, a 60 Minutes report revealed that the Cayman office was nothing but a letter-drop without employees, a subterfuge to escape the sanctions regime.

Now, once again, the US is being cut out of the action. The rest of the world seems to be ignoring the administration's pleas to isolate Tehran.

Europe-based multinational companies are exploring business deals. Middle Eastern countries are bullish about trading opportunities.

Russia is developing a billion-dollar pipeline with Iran. Austria is investing in Iranian gas fields.

And for Dick Cheney, being vice president means never having to be frustrated again.

Jake Bernstein @ CIF