It also represents the kind of false narrative that may be popular at Washington's dominant neocon think tanks but has contributed to a string of U.S. setbacks in the strategic Middle East, from Lebanon to Iraq.
Indeed, despite the expenditure of at least $1 trillion and thousands of American lives over the past decade, the position of the United States in the Middle East is weaker than it has been at any time in recent history. But that is a reality the Washington foreign policy "elite" seeks to wish away.
So, the neocons are still pitching the notion that the "victorious" U.S. war in Iraq should have payoffs in the form of a long-term American military presence there and a lucrative U.S. claim on Iraqi oil resources.
But the hard reality appears different, with the United States facing declining influence and the power of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in the ascendance. As al-Sadr takes a more prominent role in Iraqi politics, his movement remains insistent that U.S. military forces undertake a complete and irrevocable withdrawal by year's end.
The U.S. government may be given a few consolation prizes as it is led to the exit door, but objective historians are likely to interpret the final reality in Iraq as a humiliating defeat for the American Empire.
Saudi Disgust
Even longtime U.S. allies have expressed private disgust at the consequences of ousting Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, who had been viewed by the oil-rich Persian Gulf sheikdoms as a crucial bulwark against Shiite-ruled Iran.
According to a U.S. diplomatic cable from December 2005 -- released by WikiLeaks -- Saudi King Abdullah lashed out at George W. Bush's administration for ignoring his warnings against invading Iraq in 2003, noting that the new Iraqi government was dominated by Shiites with close ties to Iran.
"Whereas in the past the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein had agreed on the need to contain Iran, U.S. policy had now given Iraq to Iran as a 'gift on a golden platter,'" the U.S. Embassy cable quoted the king as complaining.
Similarly, in Lebanon, U.S. policies in line with Israel have failed to contain the militant Shiite movement, Hezbollah. Though the United States has joined Israel in condemning Hezbollah as a "terrorist" organization, it is widely regarded in the Middle East as a resistance movement and is now poised to gain control of the Lebanese parliament.
Hezbollah's rise has marked another victory for Iran, which worked with Syria to back the movement. Meanwhile, Washington's long-term allies -- the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- are viewed as losing ground in the regional rivalries.
A key factor in the eroding U.S. position is that Washington's foreign policy elites -- the think tanks, the leading news outlets, etc. -- are still dominated by neocons who have imposed their own narrative, one that increasingly deviates from the ground truth.
This neocon take on the Muslim world -- the "clash of civilizations" favored by right-wing Israelis and far-right Christians -- reached a high point under George W. Bush, who followed the neocon notion that violent "regime change" could be used to reshape the region in ways acceptable to Israel and amenable to the secure extraction of oil resources for Western economies.
Though that strategy foundered over the Iraq War, there has been no appreciable change in Washington's thinking.
President Obama tried to shift the U.S. strategy somewhat -- with such policies as engaging Iran over its nuclear program and pressing Israel on Palestinian peace talks -- but he ran into obstacles from the neocon-dominated punditocracy and from his own appointees, like Secretary Clinton.
Faced with this political resistance, Obama soon retreated, even backing away from his own letter of encouragement to Lula da Silva regarding negotiations on the Iranian fuel swap.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
