Despite diplomatic appearances to the contrary, Iran continues to be labelled as the destabilising force in Iraq. Some people are now even beginning to wonder whether the US-UK preoccupation with Iran should be seen within an apocalyptic mindset.

On Monday 28, 2007, three decades of diplomatic silence between the US and Iran ended. The issue that required such changes? Iraq. In early May 2007, top diplomats from both countries met at Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt), on the sidelines of an international gathering on Iraq, leading to more formal discussions, which lasted a total of four hours.
Despite what may seem to be a diplomatic breakthrough, in reality, "Blame Iran" is back with a vengeance. In the week leading up to the diplomatic meeting in Baghdad, UK newspapers headlined: "Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq." The report summarised: "Iran is secretly forging ties with Al Qaeda elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal."
The report added: "Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces,' a senior US official in Baghdad warned. 'They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

There is nothing new in the above rhetoric: they are the same, old, not even updated, claims, unsupported by evidence. The question therefore remains the same: why is the US making such claims? And why now? For some, it is merely rhetoric by a US Military that is either unwilling or blind to see its own shortcomings and blames Iran for its own failures. But closer to the truth is more likely what the unnamed official himself alluded to: the publication of the Petraeus report, which will normally deliver in early September, and which may decide the future of the US's presence in Iraq.
Washington analysts and commentators predict that the Petraeus report to the White House and Congress will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war; a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome.
Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over," a former Bush administration official said. But the White House is clearly intent on remaining in Iraq for as long as it can. And if it is able to blame Iran, it portrays itself as having a legitimate cause for such a prolonged presence in the country; in the case of a "normal civil war", it is really only the Iraqi people who can resolve their internal problems.

The "unnamed US official" argues that the summer months will see a rise in violence, and that this will be orchestrated by Iran. Clearly, some parties within the US Military if not Administration are creating an excuse, whereby a rise in violence - despite the contested "surge" of sending extra troops into Iraq - can be blamed on a ready-made and previously identified villain: Iran. Hence, with renewed focus on Iran's mythical involvement in Iraq's civil war, Bush will have a "reason" why the occupation of Iraq should continue - at a time when British forces are likely to withdraw from the conflict. And, as such, a rise in violence over the coming months will be portrayed as evidence of Iran's continued if not growing support to the Iraqi insurgency. In short: if the US would like to stay in Iraq, it requires further insurgency, which will be blamed on Iran.

Already, early indications are that Bush's highly contested surge is having no result whatsoever. A senior adviser to Petraeus reported in May 2007 that the surge had reduced violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province, but admitted that much of the trouble had merely moved elsewhere, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is at about the same level [as when the surge began in February]."
Meanwhile, Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Neither the US or Britain has been able to show any real evidence that Iran is behind or involved in this civil war. But Iran does have an opinion: America should leave Iraq. Mohammad Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs with primary responsibility for Iran's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately."

Iran, as Iraq's neighbour, has a legitimate concern in this debate; having a country that is in the midst of civil war sitting along your border is not something to be taken lightly. The May 28 diplomatic encounter was therefore required and long overdue, for irrelevant of whether Iran has a hand in the Iraqi civil war, it is clear that Iran did not lit the flame; the US-led attack on Saddam Hussein four years ago did.
That the diplomatic encounter of May 28 was more show than genuine was made clear that same day when intelligence sources no doubt not coincidentally leaked that President Bush had endorsed CIA plans for regime change in Iran.
Bush has allegedly signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs. Under the plan, pressure will be brought to bear on the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and international financial transactions. Details have also emerged of a covert scheme to sabotage the Iranian nuclear programme, suggesting that in the face of a diplomatic stand-off over this issue, covert action may delay or end any nuclear advances.
The leak came two days after claims by Iran that it had uncovered several US spy networks, suggesting that the CIA's project to destabilise Iran is indeed in operation. In a statement carried on state-run television, the Intelligence Ministry says that the espionage networks were made up of "infiltrating elements from the Iraqi occupiers" - i.e. the US and its allies.

Meanwhile, US troops are moving closer to Iran, as if the invasion of Iraq was merely a requirement for having a US military presence on "terra firma", from which it can launch a land-based attack on Iran. Vice-president Cheney has stated that the Pentagon must draw up a contingency plan for a massive terror attack on the US originating from Iran. Since 2004, there has been sporadic fear-mongering about an "American Hiroshima", in which nuclear devices would explode on US soil, for which Iran would be blamed - a desperate false flag operation, but potentially required if parts of the US are indeed intent on travelling upon an apocalyptic roadmap. If Saddam Hussein was not the Whore of Babylon, someone else clearly must be it?