Iran and Iraq - for the US the only difference is a consonant.

                       “They have good reason to be suspicious of our intentions.”

                                              Ivan Oelrich, senior fellow, Federation of American Scientists                

The above quote is uncharacteristically humble, responsible and reasonable on the part of the West, and from a Washington-based group to boot. But then again, the speaker is a scientist and not a politician. That said, it's still the first sign of some admission that the West is even remotely responsible for the defensive posture Iran has had to assume - nuclear armament or not  - and especially since the Bush administration declared it was part of the enigmatic 'Axis of Evil'. 

The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, US and UK) along with Germany, are in Geneva conducting a second round of talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But the first item on Iran's agenda was the November 29 killing of Iranian nuclear physicist, Majid Shahriari, in a Tehran bombing. Most telling was not the US denial of involvement, but unwillingness of the UK and Israel to comment. Is silence consent?

The issues are many, but there are a few I'd like to highlight: 1. The agenda began by the Bush admin seems to be moving ahead apace 2. The scenario is eerily similar to that pre-Iraq invasion 3. The entire Region, not just Iran, has reason to beware. 

As mentioned, it was the Bush admin that initially proposed the 'Axis of Evil' concept, citing that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were somehow the world's greatest threats. Iraq has already been appropriated and its oil fields sold off to private interests - mission accomplished - if Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons, who can blame them? Iran has the world's largest oil reserves second only to, and this might surprise you, Iraq. Nothing stopped the invasion of Iraq; not facts, lack of evidence, diplomacy or common sense - what reason does one have to believe anything will stop the implied invasion of Iran under almost identical circumstances? 

So what's the blatant implication? The American/Western corporate agenda takes precedence over any political or ideological agenda regardless of who is president - and that makes it ok for him or her to be Black and erudite (as in the case of Obama) or embarrassingly undereducated and inarticulate (as in the case of he-who-doesn't-have-to-be-named). That the scenario is almost identical to pre-Iraq invasion is obvious, what is alarming is that no one seems to care. Not the American public, not the Iranian public and not even Iran's neighbours who are likely to be next on America's hit list. 

In this context, the recent alleged 'Leak' that has dominated headlines in recent weeks, seems to play right into a Western pretext for an Iran invasion. It claimed the Saudi King urged the US to conduct missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and somehow painted the US as a reasonable and reluctant participant in the same. 

That the oil rich Middle East has been in Western crosshairs for some time is no secret. Some argue that Israel is its loyal 'watchdog' armed to the teeth and a constant destabilising force, now joined by an occupied Iraq. Divide and conquer seems to be the order of the day. Even now the GCC countries are meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE to discuss Iran's predicament, among other things (importantly a unified stance against terrorism). We hope they make real concrete process. Even though Iran doesn't always see eye to eye with its Gulf neighbours, there is a common interest that may warrant some call for unity, cooperation or least dialogue that indicates, not support for the American agenda, but solidarity on an inclusive Middle East agenda.

Even as the US plays an essential role in brokering relations between Israel and the Arab world (and hence makes a logical ally for Arab states), its historical actions seem to indicate it has other more pressing concerns that may supersede all others. I'm not making any accusations, but there may be a reason to be 'suspicious'.