Which has priority, Iraq or Iran?

Maybe the greatest impediment to resolving the mess in Iraq is the fact that the Neoconservatives and the rest of the Pro-Israel Lobby have moved on to other matters, most notably Iran and its so-called "nuclear ambitions."

As far as the Pro-Israel Lobby is concerned the "gathering danger" of Iraq was taken care of in the Spring of 2003 when the White House proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." Yes, the primary mission of the proponents for "liberating" Iraq really were accomplished -- Saddam Hussein was removed from power. For many, the agenda of "radical democratization" is merely a facade for taking pre-emptive military action to "take out" threats, regardless of how much chaos ensues.

Take a look at the "issues" in the Middle East for AIPAC and it is primarily about Iran and its so-called "Quest for Nuclear Weapons", with no mention of Iraq. How strange, but how true.

Where sane people might suggest that the mess in Iraq is great enough to demand attention at the UN, instead, the Neoconservatives and the rest of the Pro-Israel Lobby are doing their best to focus the Bush administration and the UN on Iran and its so-called "nuclear ambitions." How strange, but how true.

The curious thing is that maybe the lack of attention to Iraq may be best for Iraq in the long run anyway. Rather than depending on the meddling of the U.S. and the Neoconservatives and the rest of the Pro-Israel Lobby in Iraq, the Iraqi people are de facto being empowered to take their own destiny in their own hands.

-- Jack Krupansky