Over the last ten years, I have frequently been excoriated for insisting that there really were WMD’s (chemical weapons) in Iraq. I have been frequently accused of being a bling Bush supporter and a warmonger. With the recent release of new information in the media, I seem to have been exonerated to a large degree. Below is a timeline of what I maintain has happened in the Middle East, and has led us to where we are now. Feel free to comment if you see mistakes, or if you have additional, verifiable, information.

     1979. The Shah is replaced by the Ayatollahs. This brought to an end the Western/Persian alliance, replacing Persia with the Western-hostile nation of Iran.

     The 1980’s. The nations of Western Europe, along with the United States, selected Iraq to serve as a tool to oppose the potentially dangerous State if Iran. To this end, they began to arm and supply Iraq in exchange for Iraq’s willingness to enter into a war with Iran. This included chemical weapons.

     The first unintended consequence of this war was that it allowed the Ayatollahs the means (human wave warfare) of disposing of many thousands of the younger generation of Iranians—the very people who would have been willing and able to oppose the oppression of the Ayatollahs later.

     The second unintended consequence was the elevation of the Iraqi military to the status of the fourth largest in the world, giving Saddam Hussein the confidence to attack the Kurds, which was not part of the Western plan.

     1990-91. The Iran-Iraq war had ended, but instead of staying on his leash like a well trained attack dog, Saddam Hussein again violated the rules, getting off of his leash and invading the neighboring Kuwait. Not only could this not be tolerated by the Western powers, but it was also a direct threat to the physical and economic well-being of the Arab States, particularly Saudi Arabia. This led to the large coalition to both free Kuwait and to punish Saddam Hussein back into submission. Hussein was, however, not removed from power, because he was still needed to offset the animosity of the Ayatollahs in Iran. It was hoped that Hussein would step back in line and return to being a useful pawn.

     1991-2003. A critical character trait to being a successful dictator is the ability to not show weakness. This is why Saddam Hussein did not docilely submit to the instructions of the coalition and the United Nations. He resisted in the belief that he must do so in order to maintain his power over the people and government of Iraq. He was probably correct in this assessment, because weak dictators become all too frequently dead dictators. To this end, he frequently bragged about his possession of chemical weapons, and his intention to use them if Iraq was invaded. Unfortunately, his bragging was too effective, leading the Western powers to believe that he not only possessed the chemical weapons which they were responsible for, but that he had the capacity to have added to that stockpile with his own, new manufacture of more.

     2003. Emboldened by the rapid success over the Taliban, the US government decided that it was time to eliminate their misbehaving pawn, and, together with some members of the earlier coalition, began the operation to replace Saddam Hussein with a “democratic” government which could be more easily controlled. (Doesn’t this sound like the former government in Saigon?) This worked for a while, but only as long as the US military was present to bolster this new government.

     During the occupation. Chemical weapons were found, but they were not the newly manufactured ones that were alleged as an excuse for invasion. Instead, these were the chemical weapons supplied by the Western powers for use in the Iran-Iraq war. These weapons could not be used as evidence for the necessity of invading Iraq, as they would show Western culpability by their very presence. There were WMD’s in Iraq as Bush claimed, but they were the wrong ones. While most people went on believing that Bush lied to start the war for either oil or the profits of the military industrial complex, the real lie was that there were no WMD’s. Bush did tell the truth, but the truth was covered up by governments who did not want to be implicated in the use of chemical weapons earlier against the Iranians and the Kurds.

     Now. The rebellion in Syria has grown into ISIS. Remember the chemical attacks in Damascus? Who is responsible? Allegations by European and Asian publications (especially Russian) are that the rebels had the chemical weapons, and either used them on their own people to implicate the Assad government, or set them off accidentally. Before you believe the US press, and the US State Department, ask a question. Is it more plausible that Assad used these weapons, as has been claimed by the State Department, knowing full well that there would be worldwide calls for his removal as a result, or that these weapons were, in fact, possessed by the rebels, and used by them either intentionally or accidentally, in an attempt to blame them on Assad? If used by the rebels, where did they get them, perhaps from old stockpiles moved from Iraq to Syria?

     Here I must point out that Syria and Iran are allied. The Syrian rebels were funded by Iran’s enemy, Saudi Arabia. This is being conveniently ignored and replaced with the fact that now Saudi Arabia is theoretically opposing ISIS, but why? The same reason, I contend, that Iraq was invaded. ISIS was initially a puppet of the Saudis, but got off the leash and started misbehaving.

     Now, the Western powers must oppose ISIS, even though they do not really want to, in order to attempt to maintain a few friendly governments in the area. For similar reasons they are trying to foster a separation between Russia and Ukraine. Look at the following map:


     This map shows the historic trade routes between East and West. The modern routes are similar. Note that with the exception of the Suez canal, They all either cross territory through the Ukraine, through the ISIS fighting, or through Iran. If ISIS succeeds, then all of the trade routes from the East upon which Europe relies will be controlled by Egypt, the hostile ISIS, or the Russian-Iranian alliance, also somewhat hostile to the governments of Europe.

     This is an extremely brief version of my analysis of what is happening in the Middle East, and some of the immediate causes, and is far from all inclusive. Many books could be written on the full story. Think about what is reported in terms of what I have written above, and see if it makes some of the confusing actions of world leaders fall into a more sensible framework.

     Feel free to comment.