US administration’s propaganda machine has begun shifting in high gear in earnest. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns in a speech recently in the UAE was spinning the same old tired rhetoric that has been the trademark of the current US administration. His target this time? Iran.

Seeking to increase anxiety and sow doubt among some of the Gulf countries, Burns stated that the Gulf was not a region to be dominated by Iran and that the US was “clearly” seeking a diplomatic solution in the region.

If Iran is trying to forcefully dominate the Gulf it is news to most of us who have been following the pattern of aggression laid down by Bush since he took over the presidency of the United States. His statement that “the United States has always had the stability of this strategic region in mind and Iran has been trying to alter it by attempting to dominate” falls on deaf ears of those who can see the true agenda behind Burn’s urgency.

Where in the past Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria were focused squarely in Bush’s crosshairs when he took over, this time around it is Iran, a country that America is fighting on behalf of Israel — a war by proxy. Israel declares regional threats Iran poses, and Bush commits to eradicate them, regardless of diplomatic or human losses. And if Burns and Co. were so concerned about regional stability, let them just ponder over the mess that is called Iraq today, a mess borne out of Bush and his diabolical staff of conspirators who attempted to fool the world on Iraq’s threat to mankind.

And had Burns studied history, he would perhaps have been surprised to note that it was the United States which covertly overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadeqh of Iran back in August 1953, in the pursuit of their version of “democracy and regional stability.”

Stability is the farthest word I would choose to describe the current situation in Iraq. And it certainly is getting worse day by day. The numbers of those killed since Bush’s grand and unjustified adventure into Iraq pale in comparison to the number of those killed under Saddam Hussein. Saddam may have worn a dictator’s hat to explain away his brutal crimes. What hat is the US president going to don to explain his?

The Gulf countries do not need the United States to remind them who their friends and enemies are. And they are not so naïve not to see that oil and the survival of Israel are behind such political rhetoric. With dialogue and diplomatic overtures, any misunderstanding between the Gulf and Iran can be removed.

Burns was on the money when he stated that “President Bush has been concentrating on Middle East issues for the last two years; the challenges of walking away are more grim than the challenges of staying in Iraq and we choose to stay. We have a responsibility and we’ll stay to overcome the obstacles.”

And they will stay to bully regional countries toward their own cornucopia of perceived threats. What Burns failed to address was the question why they were there in the first place, and against all established international laws and conventions. Why were over 650,000 people including thousands of their own killed and countless more maimed and displaced? And a country today that sinks into more warfare and mayhem. This certainly does not add up to regional stability.

Are these last attempts by a failed and fading administration to bully the regional states into their stance of aggression with no regard to the cost? While it may be comforting to some that finally the legislative body of the United States is expressing serious reservations about Bush’s vision in Iraq and the region, is it not a bit too little and too late? Just what the current US administration achieved during their occupation of Iraq and the progress toward real democracy is glaringly obvious. No more alarming rhetoric please, Mr. Bush et al. No more using alarming threats of mass destruction. If ever such a threat exists, we know the direction it’s coming from. We are not a herd of sheep or lambs. We didn’t believe in you then, and neither do we now.