George Bush has stepped up the rhetoric against Iran, claiming they are responsible for violence in Iraq, and claiming the Iranian regime is responsible for "murderous activities". The Administration is also about to label the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. Is it purely a president trying to pretend the Iraq disaster is not of his making, or is it setting the stage for a new phase in his Administration's Middle East policy?

One rumour had it that Karl Rove left because he could not support Vice President Cheney's ambitions to strike at Iran. Perhaps Rove knew there is only so much potential for spin. And amidst former members of Congress sending open letters, stating their fear that the Bush Administration may not only strike at Iran, but may also engineer a false flag operation on US soil to serve as a pretext for such an offensive, George Bush has personally put more oil on the fire.
On August 28, 2007, accused the Iranian regime of threatening to place the Middle East under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust and revealed that he had authorised US military commanders in Iraq to "confront Tehran's murderous activities".
Though the speech was labelled as being designed to shore up American public opinion behind his increasingly unpopular strategy in Iraq, the president lashed out against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he accused of openly supporting violent forces within Iraq - a claim for which no solid evidence exists. But as observers have noted: American people are notorious for believing something if you keep telling them the same lie. And that is precisely what the Bush Administration has been doing regarding Iran since the start of 2007.

So, Bush said, Iran was responsible for training extremist Shia factions in Iraq and for supplying it with arms and weapons, including sophisticated roadside bombs. He referred specifically to 240mm rockets that he said had been made in Iran this year and smuggled into Iraq by Iranian agents. "Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." The key word in that phrase is "could", for no-one, apart from the Bush Administration, fears that Iran's nuclear ambitions are anything other but non-military.
No wonder therefore that observers have argued that "the blunt terms in which Mr Bush portrayed the Iranian threat, and his open threat of military confrontation with Tehran involving US troops based in Iraq, elevates the increasingly tense standoff between Washington and Tehran to a new level."

Those observers have also noted that "his speech contained the implicit desire on Mr Bush's part for regime change, calling for 'an Iran whose government is accountable to its people, instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons'." It is therefore known that the US has been plotting inside Iran, in efforts to create a regime change from within. For even though an attack on Iran is definitely on the cards, it is accepted by all that the US simply does not have the military force to invade Iran. Unless, of course, it wants a real war...
Ahmadinejad in response derided the possibility of the US pursuing military action in Iran, saying it was in no position to do so, and claiming that Iran had already acquired enriched nuclear fuels - though they would only be used for peaceful purposes. "Today, Iran is a nuclear Iran," he said.

The main target of the US' propaganda campaign are the Bush Administration's effort to soon declare the 125,000-strong Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "global terrorist organisation" - a move that would be seen as provocative within Tehran. The intention, of course, is to link in this corps with the mythical "Al Qaeda".
The plan is the first concrete illustration of a shift in balance from the "doves" in the Bush administration - Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Robert Gates, the defence secretary - to the "hawks" around Dick Cheney, the vice-president, who has expressed frustration over a lack of progress by diplomats and supports eventual military action. The same "problem" existed in 2002, whereby Colin Powell supported Tony Blair's idea to use the UN to put pressure on Iraq. Soon, this option was replaced with the 2003 invasion of the country, and the removal of Powell from his position.
The labelling of the Revolutionary Guard is a concession by Rice and Gates to Cheney, but the plan is at an advanced stage: Rice informed the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, of the US intention.
When confronted with the news of this plan, the Iranian foreign ministry dismissed the suggestion of sanctions as "propaganda and psychological operations".

Rice has still to formally approve the labelling of part or all the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. The label could be applied solely to the Revolutionary Guard special unit, the Quds (Jerusalem) Force, which has been accused by Washington of involvement in Iraq, rather than the whole organisation.
The designation would mean the US regarding the Revolutionary Guard as having "committed" or posing "a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of US nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or the economy of the United States".
As well as putting pressure on Iran, the plan is aimed at influencing the United Nations security council, where China and to a lesser extent Russia are resisting further sanctions against Iran. The Bush administration is warning the security council that, if it is not prepared to shift, then the US is prepared to act unilaterally. Rice's delay in labelling the Revolutionary Guard is partly to give the security council an opportunity in which to act. But if we substitute Iran for Iraq, and Rice for Powell, and leave Cheney who is, then history may soon repeat itself.