Baghdad and Washington
The threat of a renewed US military attack on Iraq had appeared to recede when UN observers, departing from the script expected in Washington, declared their inspection mission in Iraq satisfactorily completed. UN official Tom Trevan told reporters that "all the sites that were tasked to the inspection team were successfully visited".
Trevan's announcement ended speculation that a new round of confrontation was due to take place between Baghdad and the UN inspectors. So the Western "allies" — the US, Britain and France — have set out to find another pretext for military action against Iraq. This time it's the supposed defence of the human rights of the Shi'ite minority in southern Iraq. (The human rights, and the lives, of the majority Shi'ite population of Iran were patently of far less concern when the US endorsed and funded Saddam Hussein's 10-year war against that country.)
Nothing justifies Saddam Hussein's attacks on the Shi'ite minority, but the safety of any of Iraq's peoples is clearly a long way from the minds of the Western political conspirators. This became transparent when it was revealed by one Western source that plans include a possible attack on Baghdad.
The timing of the US threat clearly has much to do with President George Bush lagging well behind his Democrat opponent in public opinion polls. Indeed, major newspapers openly speculated that a bombing raid would be scheduled to coincide with the Republican convention. But there is more involved here than cynical manoeuvres in the Bush-Clinton presidential contest.
Although the "Soviet threat" has vanished, Washington has no intention of significantly reducing its huge military arsenal. But to convince US workers that they should go on paying to maintain the weapons intended to enforce the interests of big business, it requires a new justification: a new "threat" (Saddam Hussein) or a "humanitarian" mission (Bosnia, Somalia).
The US government needs military interventions, and soon, to accustom its citizens to a continuation of militarism. There is no "peace dividend", and no peace, in the New World Order.