In its heavily anticipated report released on Wednesday, the Iraq Study Group made at least four truly radical proposals.

The report calls for the United States to assist in privatizing Iraq's national oil industry, opening Iraq to private foreign oil and energy companies, providing direct technical assistance for the "drafting" of a new national oil law for Iraq, and assuring that all of Iraq's oil revenues accrue to the central government. President Bush hired an employee from the U.S. consultancy firm Bearing Point Inc. over a year ago to advise the Iraq Oil Ministry on the drafting and passage of a new national oil law. As previously drafted, the law opens Iraq's nationalized oil sector to private foreign corporate investment, but stops short of full privatization. The ISG report, however, goes further, stating that "the United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise." In addition, the current Constitution of Iraq is ambiguous as to whether control over Iraq's oil should be shared among its regional provinces or held under the central government. The report specifically recommends the latter: "Oil revenues should accrue to the central government and be shared on the basis of population." If these proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be privatized and opened to foreign firms, and in control of all of Iraq's oil wealth.

The proposals should come as little surprise given that two authors of the report, James A. Baker III and Lawrence Eagleburger, have each spent much of their political and corporate careers in pursuit of greater access to Iraq's oil and wealth.

"Pragmatist" is the word most often used to describe Iraq Study Group co-chair James A. Baker III. It is equally appropriate for Lawrence Eagleburger. The term applies particularly well to each man's efforts to expand U.S. economic engagement with Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Not only did their efforts enrich Hussein and U.S. corporations, particularly oil companies, it also served the interests of their own private firms.

On April 21,1990, a U.S. delegation was sent to Iraq to placate Saddam Hussein as his anti-American rhetoric and threats of a Kuwaiti invasion intensified. James A. Baker III, then President George H.W. Bush's secretary of state, personally sent a cable to the U.S embassy in Baghdad instructing the U.S. ambassador to meet with Hussein and to make clear that, "as concerned as we are about Iraq's chemical, nuclear, and missile programs, we are not in any sense preparing the way for preemptive military unilateral effort to eliminate these programs."*

Instead, Baker's interest was focused on trade, which he described as the "central factor in the U.S-Iraq relationship." From 1982, when Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries supporting terrorism, until August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Baker and Eagleburger worked with others in the Reagan and Bush administrations to aggressively and successfully expand this trade.

The efficacy of such a move may best be described in a memo written in 1988 by the Bush transition team arguing that the Unityede States would have "to decide whether to treat Iraq as a distasteful dictatorship to be shunned where possible, or to recognize Iraq's present and potential power in the region and accord it relatively high priority. We strongly urge the latter view." Two reasons offered were Iraq's "vast oil reserves," which promised "a lucrative market for U.S. goods," and the fact that U.S. oil imports from Iraq were skyrocketing. Bush and Baker took the transition team's advice and ran with it.

In fact, from 1983 to 1989, annual trade between the United States and Iraq grew nearly sevenfold and was expected to double in 1990, before Iraq invaded Kuwait. In 1989, Iraq became the United States' second-largest trading partner in the Middle East: Iraq purchased $5.2 billion in U.S. exports, while the U.S. bought $5.5 billion in Iraqi petroleum. From 1987 to July 1990, U.S. imports of Iraqi oil increased from 80,000 to 1.1 million barrels per day.

Eagleburger and Baker had much to do with that skyrocketing trade. In December 1983, then undersecretary of state Eagleburger wrote the U.S. Export-Import Bank to personally urge it to begin extending loans to Iraq to "signal our belief in the future viability of the Iraqi economy and secure a U.S. foothold in a potentially large export market." He noted that Iraq "has plans well advanced for an additional 50 percent increase in its oil exports by the end of 1984." Ultimately, billions of loans would be made or backed by the U.S. government to the Iraqi dictator, money used by Hussein to purchase U.S. goods.

In 1984, Baker became treasury secretary, Reagan opened full diplomatic relations with Iraq, and Eagleburger became president of Henry Kissinger's corporate consultancy firm, Kissinger Associates.

Kissinger Associates participated in the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum through managing director Alan Stoga. The Forum was a trade association representing some 60 American companies, including Bechtel, Lockheed, Texaco, Exxon, Mobil, and Hunt Oil. The Iraqi ambassador to the United States told a Washington, D.C., audience in 1985, "Our people in Baghdad will give priority -- when there is a competition between two companies -- to the one that is a member of the Forum." Stoga appeared regularly at Forum events and traveled to Iraq on a Forum-sponsored trip in 1989 during which he met directly with Hussein. Many Kissinger clients were also members of the Forum and became recipients of contracts with Hussein.

In 1989, Eagleburger returned to the state department now under Secretary Baker. That same year, President Bush signed National Security Directive 26 stating, "We should pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy, particularly in the energy area."

The president then began discussions of a $1 billion loan guarantee for Iraq one week before Secretary Baker met with Tariq Aziz at the state department to seal the deal.

But once Hussein invaded Kuwait, all bets were off. Baker made a public plea for support of military action against Hussein, arguing, "The economic lifeline of the industrial world runs from the Gulf and we cannot permit a dictator such as this to sit astride that economic lifeline."

Baker had much to gain from increased access to Iraq's oil. According to author Robert Bryce, Baker and his immediate family's personal investments in the oil industry at the time of the first Gulf War included investments in Amoco, Exxon and Texaco. The family law firm, Baker Botts, has represented Texaco, Exxon, Halliburton and Conoco Phillips, among other companies, in some cases since 1914 and in many cases for decades. (Eagleburger is also connected to Halliburton, having only recently departed the company's board of directors). Baker is a longtime associate and now senior partner of Baker Botts, which this year, for the second year running, was recipient of "The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers Oil & Gas Law Firm of the Year Award," while the Middle East remains a central focus of the firm.

This past July, U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman announced in Baghdad that senior U.S. oil company executives would not enter Iraq without passage of the new law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies put passage of the oil law before security concerns as the deciding factor over their entry into Iraq. Put simply, the oil companies are trying to get what they were denied before the war or at anytime in modern Iraqi history: access to Iraq's oil under the ground. They are also trying to get the best deal possible out of a war-ravaged and occupied nation. However, waiting for the law's passage and the need to guarantee security of U.S. firms once they get to work, may well be a key factor driving the one proposal by the Iraq Study Group that has received great media attention: extending the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq at least until 2008.

As the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are more thoroughly considered, we should remain ever vigilant and wary of corporate war profiteers in pragmatist's clothing.

*All quotes are referenced in my book, "The Bush Agenda."

The current media travesty is a drumbeat for the idea that the U.S. war effort must keep going. And again, in its news coverage, the New York Times is a bellwether for the latest media parade to the cadence of the warfare state.

During the run-up to the invasion, news stories repeatedly told about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction while the Times and other key media outlets insisted that their coverage was factually reliable. Now the same media outlets insist that their coverage is analytically reliable.

Instead of authoritative media information about aluminum tubes and mobile weapons labs, we're now getting authoritative media illumination of why a swift pullout of U.S. troops isn't realistic or desirable. The result is similar to what was happening four years ago -- a huge betrayal of journalistic responsibility.

The WMD spin was in sync with official sources and other establishment-sanctified experts, named and unnamed. The anti-pullout spin is in sync with official sources and other establishment-sanctified experts, named and unnamed.

During the weeks since the midterm election, the New York Times news coverage of Iraq policy options has often been heavy-handed, with carefully selective sourcing for prefab conclusions. Already infamous is the Nov. 15 front-page story by Michael Gordon under the headline "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say." A similar technique was at play Dec. 1 with yet another "News Analysis," this time by reporter David Sanger, headlined "The Only Consensus on Iraq: Nobody's Leaving Right Now."

Typically, in such reportage, the sources harmonizing with the media outlet's analysis are chosen from the cast of political characters who helped drag the United States into making war on Iraq in the first place.

What's now going on in mainline news media is some kind of repetition compulsion. And, while media professionals engage in yet another round of conformist opportunism, many people will pay with their lives.

With so many prominent American journalists navigating their stories by the lights of big Washington stars, it's not surprising that so much of the news coverage looks at what happens in Iraq through the lens of the significance for American power.

Viewing the horrors of present-day Iraq with star-spangled eyes, New York Times reporters John Burns and Kirk Semple wrote -- in the lead sentence of a front-page "News Analysis" on Nov. 29 -- that "American military and political leverage in Iraq has fallen sharply."

The second paragraph of the Baghdad-datelined article reported: "American fortunes here are ever more dependent on feuding Iraqis who seem, at times, almost heedless to American appeals."

The third paragraph reported: "It is not clear that the United States can gain new traction in Iraq..."

And so it goes -- with U.S. media obsessively focused on such concerns as "American military and political leverage," "American fortunes" and whether "the United States can gain new traction in Iraq."

With that kind of worldview, no wonder so much news coverage is serving nationalism instead of journalism.

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Major General William Caldwell (the fourth), the Pentagon's chief press flack in Iraq, explains "Why We Perservere" -- an homage to the classic WWII propganda film "Why We Fight" -- that is anything but candid and forthright ...

I don't see a civil war in Iraq. I don't see a constituency for civil war. The vast majority of the people want hope for their families, not to massacre their neighbors or divide their country. A poll conducted in June by the International Republican Institute, a nonpartisan group that promotes democracy, found 89 percent of Iraqis supporting a unity government representing all sects and ethnic communities.

That's some cherry-picking. Download the study (PowerPoint) and you'll see that while "most Iraqis" wanted a unity government, many -- especially Arabs in the North and in Sunni areas -- didn't think that's what they got. Iraqis also said that things were getting worse in just about every area -- and this was back in June before things got noticeably worse still.

No wonder no "rebel army" steps forward to claim credit for vicious car bombs and cowardly executions of civilians.

I see debates among Iraqis -- often angry and sometimes divisive -- but arguments characteristic of political discourse, not political breakdown.

The debates this guy sees among Iraqis in the Green Zone aren't the signs of breakdown -- it's the 3,000 tortured bodies that show up each month that are the tip-off.

The Council of Representatives meets here in Baghdad as the sole legitimate sovereign representative of the people, 12 million of whom braved bombs and threats last December to vote. No party has seceded or claimed independent territory.

I see a representative government exercising control over the sole legitimate armed authority in Iraq, the Iraqi Security Force. After decades in which the armed services were tools of oppression, Iraq is taking time to build an army and national police force loyal to all. There have been setbacks, but also great successes.

I don't see terrorist and criminal elements mounting campaigns for territory. Al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't use roadside bombs, suicidal mass murderers and rocket barrages to gain and hold ground.

I studied civil wars at West Point and at the Army Command and Staff College. I respect the credentials and opinions of those who want to hang that label here. But I respectfully -- and strongly -- disagree. I see the Iraqi people suffering from overlapping terrorist campaigns by extremist groups combined with the mass criminality that too often accompanies the sudden toppling of a dictatorship. This poses a different military challenge than does a civil war.

I won't unpack all of that -- the denial here is so thick. The one thing I'll comment on is the idea that only when there's a uniformed "rebel army" attempting to hold ground can we call a civil war a civil war. It's a definition of civil war invented wholly in the last few years and specifically in order to spin what's going on in Iraq as something it isn't. I never studied ay West Point, but my degree is in international relations with a focus on security studies, and we learned that civil wars are intra-state conflicts that may on the surface be about ethnic or religious identity but ultimately come down to substate actors contesting the authority of a central government -- a civil war is ultimately about power and the chaos in Iraq fits that to a tee.

Maybe if the various militias and insurgent groups in Iraq wore gray uniforms, marched in columns and whistled Dixie, these guys would be able to acknowledge what's so obvious to everyone else, but until then I can only say, again, that good policy can't flow from bad analysis, and op-eds like Caldwell's tell us a lot about why a constructive policy in Iraq has been and will continue to be so elusive.

The military released details about five of the other troops killed on Wednesday, saying they were Task Force Lightning soldiers who were struck by a roadside bomb while conducting combat operations in the vicinity of the northern city of Kirkuk. The soldiers were assigned to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division.

The U.S. military gave no further details about identities or the other deaths, pending notification of relatives.

The attacks followed a particularly bloody weekend and raised to at least 31 the number of U.S. troops who have died in the first week of this month. At least 69 troops were killed in November and 105 soldiers were killed in October - the highest monthly toll since January 2005.

"Our thoughts are with all 11 families who lost family members yesterday. Taking care of them right now is the military's highest priority," U.S. spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver said.

At least 2,919 service members have been killed since the war started in 2003, according to an AP count.

At least 75 people were killed or found dead across Iraq on Wednesday, including 48 whose bullet-riddled bodies were found in different parts of the capital.

Gunmen also broke into a school in western Baghdad, killing its Sunni headmaster in his office, then instructing teachers not to return, an Iraqi army officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday urged university professors and students to ignore a Sunni Arab insurgent group's warnings to avoid class, calling them "desperate attempts."

The group had sent e-mails to students and posted signs at schools and mosques saying students should stay away while it cleanses the campuses of Shiite death squads, according to a statement from Mr. al-Maliki's office late Tuesday.

The Iraqi government said the U.S. Iraq Study Group's report recommending a change of course in Iraq did "not come as a surprise," and it agreed that Iraq must take the lead in its own security.

"The situation is grave, very grave in fact, and cannot be tolerated," Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh said on the pan-Arab satellite TV channel Al-Arabiya. "Absolute dependence on foreign troops is not possible. The focus must be on boosting the Iraqi security forces."

Regular Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad greeted the Iraq Study Group report with widespread skepticism.

"This report is no different than others we have received from national unity conferences or regional conferences in the last three years, ones that came up with nice words that had no effect," said Khalid Abdel-Rahim, 42, a Sunni Arab employee of Iraq's Industry Ministry.

The U.S. report warned "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating."

It recommended the U.S. reduce political, military or economic support for Iraq if the government in Baghdad cannot make substantial progress toward providing for its own security.

On the highly emotional issue of troop withdrawals, the commission warned against either a precipitous pullback or an open-ended commitment to a large deployment.

"Military priorities must change," the report said, toward a goal of training, equipping and advising Iraqi forces. "We should seek to complete the training and equipping mission by the end of the first quarter of 2008."

Mr. Saleh, the deputy prime minister, said the government agreed with the broad recommendations of the panel but acknowledged "there may be some details on which we differ." He did not elaborate.

The Iraq Study Group released its report on Wednesday, recommending that the U.S. engage Syria and Iran to resolve the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq. Bush and Blair are close allies in the war.

The two leaders were expected to meet on Thursday at 9:35 a.m. ET and to hold a news conference at 10:55 a.m.

Blair was interviewed by members of the study group before it issued its report on Wednesday. Blair, who arrived in Washington on Wednesday night, is expected to be in the U.S. for a single day.

Aides told the Associated Press that a meeting between the two has been planned for weeks, and it was a coincidence the meeting closely follows the release of the report. But there is no question that Iraq will dominate the meeting's agenda.

Britain has already begun to pull some of its troops out of Iraq.

Continue Article

According to the report, which made 79 recommendations, the U.S. should speed up training of Iraqi security forces and conduct a "diplomatic offensive" to stabilize the country. It's hoped this would allow for the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008. The report does not provide an exact timeline for withdrawal of troops, however.

The U.S. focus on Iraq has "necessarily diverted attention from Afghanistan," the report said, adding that a troop withdrawal could allow the U.S. to bolster its contribution to NATO's Afghan mission, which includes more than 2,000 Canadian soldiers fighting the Taliban.

The report painted a bleak picture of Iraq nearly four years after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein. During that time, the U.S. government has spent about $400 billion US in Iraq, it says.

It calls for the creation of an Iraq support group including "all of Iraq's neighbours ... and key states in and outside the region," including the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, as well as Egypt, Syria and Iran.

Many of the report's recommendations had been leaked in advance and in some cases - for instance the deployment of US troops with Iraqi units - are already being carried out on the ground.

But, crucially, the bipartisan report may provide the political cover required by Mr Bush to break from his refusal to alter strategy.

With every day bringing more bad news from Iraq, and with US casualties having passed 2,900, Mr Bush is under increasing pressure to offer a solution to the violence and to find some way of withdrawing the 140,000 US troops.

On Tuesday his nominee for Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, admitted the US was not winning in Iraq and last night Tony Blair arrived in Washington intent on pressing the President to adopt the ISG's proposal of finding a regional solution. The two leaders are due meet later today. Before leaving for the US, Mr Blair was challenged in the Commons by the Tory leader, David Cameron, as to whether he agreed with Mr Gates's bleak assessment.

The Prime Minister replied: "Of course. On July I said myself that the situation Baghdad with sectarian killing was appalling and the bloodshed was appalling.

"What is important, however, is, as he went on to say, that we do go on to succeed in the mission that we have set ourselves."

Mr Bush said he would take "every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion". But the President is not obliged to adopt the report's recommendations and he has continued to insist he is not seeking a "graceful exit out of Iraq".

The report does not directly criticise the government and neither does it consider how the US happens to be involved in a bitter, bloody conflict that has claimed the lives of perhaps 655,000 Iraqis. But taken together, its recommendations can be read as both a clear rebuke of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and a rejection of its rhetoric about the extent to which events have slipped out of US control.

For instance, whereas Mr Bush pursued a policy of unilateralism, the report now recommends launching a "diplomatic offensive"; whereas Mr Bush insists the US is "winning", the report makes clear that attacks against US and Iraqi forces are "persistent and growing"; whereas Mr Bush often speaks as though the US is the blameless bystander in the middle of a sectarian war the report makes clear that "because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the US has both a national and moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy". It concludes that the current strategy "is not working".

In addition to recommending that the number of US troops embedded with Iraqi forces be increased in the short term from 4,000 to up to 20,000, the report also considers ways of improving Iraq's oil sector, the reconstruction efforts and US intelligence capacity.

It said there was significant under-reporting of the level of violence in Iraq and raised questions about the effectiveness of US intelligence saying the government "still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias".

Though written overwhelmingly from a US perspective, the report also stresses the issues faced by the Iraqi population. "There is great suffering and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement," it says. "Pessimism is pervasive."

Underlining such an assessment, at least eight more people were killed and dozens wounded yesterday in the Sadr City district of Baghdad by a mortar assault and a suicide bomb attack.

The devastating findings

* US should launch new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region, drawing in every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of its neighbours. They and other key states should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq

* US should engage Iran and Syria constructively, given their ability to influence events within Iraq. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran's nuclear programme should continue to be dealt with by the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq

* Troops not needed for force protection could be pulled out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, depending on the security situation. "Substantially more" US combat troops should switch to a role of training and advising Iraqi security forces by working within Iraqi units

* There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts.

Olmert made the remarks at the Editors' Conference in Tel Aviv, which is Israel's first official response to the report.

"The Middle East has a lot of problems that are not connected to us," Olmert said, adding that "I am not convinced that this report imposes all of the U.S.' troubles on Israel's shoulders."The highly-anticipated report has recommended major changes in the policy adopted by the U.S. President George W. Bush on the Iraqi issues.

Meanwhile, the ISG report called for direct talks with Iran and Syria to stabilize Iraq, saying they need a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria and a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

However, Olmert said Thursday that the conditions were not ripe for Israel to reopen talks with Syria.

"Syria's supports to Hamas and its efforts to destabilize Lebanon minimized the chance of having negotiations with the Syrians at any time soon," Olmert said.

"Nobody wants to negotiate more than we do," said the prime minister, adding that "The question is, what can we get from the Syrians if enter negotiations."

Syrian President Bashar Assad has called in recent months for a new round of talks with Israel, but Olmert has rejected them out of hand.

Olmert also voiced his support for the U.S. war in Iraq at the conference.

Addressing the controversy over Iran's nuclear issue, Olmert reiterated Israel's position that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran, but would not take unilateral action.


Talking on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Olmert said that Israel wants "with all our might" to restart peace talks with the Palestinians.

Despite occasional rocket attacks by Gaza militants at Israel,"we will continue to show restraint," he added.

Israel and Palestinians reached a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip on Nov. 25. The move was welcomed by the international community, but seemed fragile due to occasional violations of the truce deal by both sides.

When Hezbollah puts a million people on the streets of Beirut, it doesn't appear on the front page of The New York Times. That spot is reserved for Bush's "made-in-Washington" extravaganzas like the Cedar, Orange or Rose revolutions. Those bogus revolutions were cooked up in American think tanks and engineered by US non-governmental organizations (NGOs); that's why they got headline coverage in the Times. The Beirut demonstrations don't promote the political agenda of the America's ruling elite, so they're stuck on page 8 where they'll be ignored.

Some things never change.

But the demonstrations are an important part of the drama which is currently unfolding in the region. They signal the shifting of power away from Washington and Tel Aviv to a new Shiite-dominated Middle East. The American-backed government of Fouad Siniora is the next domino on the list which could fall in a matter of weeks. Time appears to be running out for Siniora and there's nothing Bush or Olmert can do about it.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is moving Lebanon towards "democratization" by demanding greater representation for the country's majority, the Shiites. So far, he's decided to take the peaceful route, but the massive protests are an impressive "show of force" that could be a sign of things to come. If the situation deteriorates, Hezbollah will do what is necessary to defend its people and its interests. Siniora knows that Nasrallah has the power to bring down the government or to plunge the country into civil war. So, it's all a matter of who blinks first.

Ironically, Nasrallah's tactics mirror those that were used during the so-called Cedar Revolution which put Siniora in office and forced the Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Now, the situation has reversed itself and tens of thousands of mostly poor Shi'ites have set up camp in Bierut's main square, the Riad el Soloh, and are hunkering-down for the long haul. There defiance is as much an indication of class struggle as it is a rejection of the Siniora government.

Megan Stack of the LA Times clarifies this point: "Some of the poorest and most marginalized people in the country, Shiite Muslims, have abandoned their homes in suburban slums to camp out on the nation's priciest bit of real estate. Though they often have trudged through Lebanese history as war refugees, now they have managed to displace Lebanon's wealthiest shop owners. They also have surrounded Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, barricaded in his office."

"Class struggle" is a big part of the present confrontation. The media has tried to emphasize the religious differences to promote their theory of a "clash of civilizations"; the ongoing struggle between modernity and Arab reactionaries. It's all the same gibberish Americans read every day in op-ed columns by Tom Friedman, David Brooks or the other neocon scribes.

The "clash of civilizations" theory is a great boon to those who would like see war in the Middle East continue into perpetuity or at least until every Arab country is broken up into little defenseless statelets.

But the truth is that the Shiites are mostly poor and underrepresented and are entitled to a bigger place at the political table. Does that mean they would have the right to "veto" legislation? (which seems to be the main bone of contention)

Yes, of course, if they are in the majority, but that doesn't imply that Lebanon is destined to become an Islamic theocracy. Nasrallah has already dismissed the idea of an Iranian-type "Mullahocracy," run by ayatollahs who strictly apply Sharia law. Nasrallah is fiercely nationalistic despite his clerical robes. His main objective is to remove the US-Israeli agents, like Siniora, from the government and reestablish Lebanese sovereignty. Remember, Siniora refused to even deploy the Lebanese army to fight the Israelis when they invaded his country and killed 1,300 Lebanese nationals. For the hundreds of thousands of victims in the south, there's no doubt as to where Siniora's true loyalties lie.

Siniora is Washington's man. In fact, he even kept the lines of communication open with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice while his country was being bombed with American ordinance dropped from Israeli planes. After the war he quickly reopened the US embassy even though his country's infrastructure was still in ruins from Israel's 34-day rampage. He has been a great asset to US-Israeli plans to create a "New Middle East," but utterly useless for the great body of poverty-stricken and homeless Lebanese civilians.

Michel Chossudovsky summarized the administration's goals in Lebanon this way: "Washington's objective is to transform Lebanon into a US protectorate. The Lebanese people are demanding the resignation of a government which is acting on behalf of the US and Israeli invaders of their country. They are demanding the formation of a national unity government which will defend the Lebanese homeland against US-Israeli aggression."

Chossudovsky adds: "The Beirut government is taking orders directly from the US embassy. The Siniora government has allowed the deployment of NATO forces on Lebanese territory under the pretext of a UN-sponsored peace-keeping operation. NATO warships under German command are stationed off the country's eastern Mediterranean coastline. NATO has a military cooperation agreement with Israel." ("Mass Demonstrations against the US-backed Lebanese Government," Michel Chossudovsky; Global Research)

The US and Israel are working feverishly behind the scenes to destabilize Lebanon as part of their broader plans for the entire region. The assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel can only be understood in this larger context. The assassination strengthened the US-Israel position vis-a-vis Syria and increased the likelihood of a confrontation between Hezbollah and government forces. This is precisely what Israel wants. It allows Tel Aviv to stay uninvolved while their 34-Day War resumes via their Lebanese proxies.

Megan Stack of the LA Times reports, "The Lebanese government has nearly DOUBLED the size of its security forces in recent months by adding about 11,000 mostly Sunnis and Christian troops, and has armed them with weapons and vehicles donated by the UAE, a Sunni state." ("Lebanon Builds Up Security Forces, LA Times)

The dramatic increase in the Interior Ministry troops, including the creation of a controversial intelligence unit and the expansion of a commando force, is meant to counter the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah, its Shiite ally in Lebanon. . . . The quiet, speedy buildup indicates that Lebanon's anti-Syria ruling majority has been bracing for armed sectarian conflict since the withdrawal of Syrian forces in the spring of 2005. It also reflects growing tensions across the region between US-allied Sunnis Muslims who hold power in most Arab nations and the increasingly Shiite-ruled Iran and Hezbollah." (LA Times)

The Siniora government has actually moved troops out of the army into the Internal Security Forces (ISF). The implication is clear. Siniora has no interest in defending his country from foreign (Israeli) invasion; he's simply getting ready to fight his own people. Clearly, the weapons from the United Arab Emirates are being provided under Bush's authority to help Siniora in a future confrontation with Hezbollah.

Mark Mackinnon of the Globe and Mail confirms much of what appeared in the LA Times. Mackinnon says, "Since the Syrian army's departure from Lebanon in early 2005, the US and France have been providing money and training to the Internal Security Forces (ISF). With the political situation souring further in recent weeks, the UAE stepped in to provide the unit with an emergency 'gift' of thousands of rifles and dozens of police vehicles." ("West helps Lebanon build Militia to fight Hezbollah"; Globe and Mail)

Even though Siniora's troops have been armed and trained by Western powers, Israel is still not confident that they can prevail. In fact, Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported, "The mounting crisis threatening the Siniora government in Lebanon, and the specter of a Hezbollah takeover, have spurred senior Israeli government officials in Jerusalem to raise several proposals in recent days aimed at strengthening Siniora. . . . (They are) increasingly concerned that Siniora's government will fall, resulting in a Hezbollah takeover that would turn the country into what an Israeli government official source termed 'the first Arab state to become an Iranian protectorate.'"

But Israeli fears may be unwarranted. While Hezbollah receives military assistance from Iran, it certainly does not compare to the high-tech weaponry and foreign aid that Israel gets from the US. Nor is there any indication that Hezbollah is merely a puppet of the Iranian Mullahs. This is just more baseless scare-mongering. In fact, a strong nationalist government in Beirut could serve to stabilize the region by developing a more credible deterrent to Israeli aggression. (Israel has invaded Lebanon four times in 25 years) That might undermine Israel's regional ambitions but, it would be infinitely better for the Israeli citizens who simply want peace and security.

Nevertheless, Israel is preparing for any eventuality; especially since it is unlikely that Bush will be able to commit any American troops if war breaks out. Ha'aretz summarized the somber mood of the Israeli high-command in an editorial earlier in the week: "The army's conclusion is that a war in the near future is a reasonable possibility. As Amir Oren reported several weeks ago, the IDF's operative assumption is that during the coming summer months, a war will break out against Hezbollah and perhaps against Syria as well."

But there is room for optimism. By summer, the Bush administration should be winding down in Iraq. This is bound to have a profound effect on the entire region. Israel will be less likely to restart its war with Lebanon if the administration is engaged in fragile negotiations with the neighboring states. And, who knows, a phased withdrawal of troops in Iraq might force a compromise in the Israel-Palestine standoff. (Olmert has already begun talking to Saudi Arabia about a comprehensive peace plan modeled on the Road Map)

So far, only one thing seems certain: that US-Israeli influence will steadily decline just as Shiite power continues to rise. Another bloodbath in Lebanon won't change that reality.