As I stated before in my last writing concerning the State of the Union address, the information (or lack thereof) contained within regarding Bush’s foreign policy—most specifically his strategy concerning Iraq—required some time for digestion and contemplation. After doing both in tandem with some research, I have formulated an opinion.

There is the mistaken assumption that the US is about to initiate an “oil war.” Of course, this conclusion is understandably drawn. The most obvious benefit the US would reap from an Iraqi regime change would be rock-bottom prices on oil. Indeed, Cheney and other members of the Bush cabinet would have and potentially still may gain great wealth from a regime change (Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an industry that specializes in the manufacture of oil-extraction equipment). However, the situation is more complex than that. Iraq is a member of OPEC, and has several other international ties that deserve consideration. For one, France—a conspicuous recalcitrant amongst the “alliance”—relies heavily on Iraqi oil, being one of Iraq’s most important customers. Then there is Russia, a state still struggling with financial burdens, which depends on regular trade with Iraq in industrial goods. Iraq post-Saddam must guarantee these relationships still exist.

Therefore it is not a stretch of reason to see the importance of Iraq remaining in the OPEC organization in the event of a regime change. To do otherwise would not only jeopardize future alliances with powerful voices in the EU (France), but could seriously disrupt world-wide oil prices and set a precedent worrisome to Vladimir Putin; straining US-Russia relations. These are not strategically viable moves during a time whilst the US is still engaged in the “War on Terror.” International cooperation—not isolation, is in the interest of a nation suddenly made aware of its vulnerability to those who would like to see it crumble.

This indeed is not an oil war. This is a war anticipated and requested by the Project for a New American Century (www.pnac.org). Of which Donald Rumsfeld is a member. In 1998 PNAC wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton requesting he lay the political ground for a swift invasion of Iraq. This letter was signed by Richard Armitage, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, Zalmay Khalilzad (envoy to Afganistan), and Paul Wolfowitz—all members of the current Executive Cabinet. Another member of the Cabinet, William Kristol, is the current chairman of PNAC.

At the time the letter hit Clinton’s desk, however, the political capital to instigate such an ambitious campaign was lacking; and Clinton knew this. Clinton also knew the reason behind the letter’s request, and it was not oil.

Instead the reason was Israel. If it were possible to dispense with an international player that no one in the world was especially fond of (Hussein), and in his place establish an American-friendly democratic regime, there existed the possibility that “democracy fever” would sweep the Middle East; the monarchy of Saudi Arabia and the repressive government of Iran would fall down to the ideals of democracy. Should these events come to pass, the Palestinians would become much more likely to accept future Israeli-favorable peace treaties.

Having said this much, a peculiar line from the State of the Union address now makes much more sense to me. President Bush, who has for the past two years all but turned his back entirely on the Palestinians, said he wanted to see, “A secure Israel and democratic Palestine.” This statement presumes two things: 1) A separate state named “Palestine” will exist. 2) A future Palestine will be democratic.

Is it possible Bush is seeking to do that thing which evaded Clinton at the end of his tenure as President? Can it be that Bush longs to bring an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in lieu of Camp David; but by the back door through an Iraqi regime change?

I certainly hope this is not the case. If Bush subscribes to the ideals of his PNAC fellows, then many assumptions about the culture of Islamic peoples and the capability of the United States to use its military might to export democracy have been made. Experience has taught me that when the chain of assumptions grows, the number of mistaken ones grows as well.