The official justifications given for the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have been subjected to considerable scrutiny over the last decade, stirring intense debate over what the actual motivations for the war may have been. As is common with much of the political discourse in America, this fairly complex topic has fell victim to a continual barrage of speculation and blatant misinformation from cable media outlets, political commentators, and respected academic circles, leaving a majority of Americans scratching their heads when asked why, exactly, the U.S. government saw the need to invade Iraq in the first place. The most widely offered alternative viewpoint to the absurd myth of Saddam Hussein having posed an imminent nuclear threat to the United States is that this war was strictly to gain control of Iraq's oilfields, and not much else. This stand, while easy to digest and worthy of initial consideration, is not supported by any actual evidence, and has only served to complicate the more plausible answer outlined in the following research. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of oil contracts following the occupation were obtained by Chinese companies, not US or British firms. Given this fact, it is a mystery how this simplistic narrative remains at the forefront of the left- leaning political discourse critical of the invasion. Another popular theory, perhaps only a close second behind the "war for oil" argument, is the assertion that Iraq was invaded primarily to suit the financial interests of the military-industrial complex. While weapons manufacturing firms and private contracting agencies such as Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and Dynacorp have profited enormously from continued military operations in Iraq, there is little to suggest that these competing institutions had the means, capability, and carte blanche political influence necessary to push the US government to war. The "war for strictly profit" argument falls most noticeably short in its implied disregard of the tendencies of nation-states to employ military force in an effort to achieve geopolitical goals, which, historically speaking, has been the primary objective of almost all modern warfare. (Read: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy, for more on this). In the case of Iraq, then, it is much more feasible that the rampant war profiteering achieved by US firms has simply been the vulgar byproduct of deeply flawed international policymaking, rather than the driving force behind the war effort. Conspicuously absent from this overtly partisan dialogue has been a serious discussion regarding the well-documented imperial ambitions of neighboring Israel, supposedly the only democracy in the Middle East, and the undue influence a number of staunch pro-Israel think tanks have had in shaping U.S. foreign policy in the region. There is a mountain of evidence available which proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a prominent group of high-level U.S. neoconservative policy makers had long viewed regime change and the subsequent occupation of Iraq as a vital objective in ensuring Israels security and national interests. The following pages will explore this matter in depth, examining the historical context of the stated regional goals of the Israeli government while analyzing the influence its proponents have had in shaping U.S. policy during the buildup to war.The neoconservative movement within the U.S. government has solidified its political power by fostering a close-knit network of think tanks, institutions, and journalists that look to shape the direction of U.S. foreign policy. The term neoconservative was originally used to describe liberals who began shifting rightward on the political spectrum as the Democratic Party moved towards an anti-war stance in the late 1960s. Their gradual rise to power began during the Reagan administration, where Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Michael Ledeen, and Douglas Feith served in various prominent roles in the defense department. Political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg notes:'One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests), neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel's security. ( The Transparent Cabal, 17)The neoconservatives close ties to the Likud wing of the Israeli government were first brought to light after Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were implicated in an Israeli spying scandal in the 1970s. Although they were never indicted, Perle and Wolfowitzs dual-Israeli citizenship and strong ties to the Likud party should have served as a red flag throughout political circles. In 1981, the neocons again came under scrutiny for their heavy involvement in the Iran-Contra affair for the central role they played in illegally arming the Nicaraguan Contras. For the first time in American history, the federal government was forced to publicly acknowledge that a faction within its ranks had been engaged in a clandestine arms-dealing operation that operated outside of established international law. Elliot Abrams was charged and pled guilty to withholding information during congressional hearings. Despite his well-known criminal past, Abrams was later appointed as Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy by President Bush in 2001. The decision to appoint Abrams, along with Wolfowitz and Perle, to prominent positions within foreign policy departments of the administration ensured the illegal precedent set by those involved in the Iran-Contra scandal would be revisited prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as this research will plainly demonstrate. The neoconservative ascension into the upper echelon of U.S. politics began in force during the 1990s. In 1997, a highly influential study group staffed by Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Richard Perle, and Elliot Abrams was formed. Using the title The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), their stated goal was for the U.S. to maintain its role as reigning superpower by exerting its military influence around the world. Their central policy document, titled Rebuilding Americas Defenses, strongly advocated for U.S. intervention in troubled areas across the globe, especially Arab states. It encouraged the waging of preemptive war where U.S. and allies interests were threatened and called for a dramatic restructuring of the Middle East. Throughout the 1990s, the PNAC members authored numerous policy papers and letters to then President Clinton, strongly urging regime change in Iraq. The language and demands found within the letters were verbatim the talking points later used during the media blitz to garner public support for the war. Political analyst Jeffrey Record notes:The neoconservatives who populated the upper ranks of the Bush administration had been gunning for Saddam Hussein for years before 9/11. They had an articulated, aggressive, values-based foreign policy doctrine and a specific agenda for the Middle East that reflected hostility toward Arab autocracies and support for Israeli security interests as defined by that countrys Likud political party (Dark Victory, Salon.com)In 1996, a study group at The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), named A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing the Realm, staffed by PNAC members and future policy makers in the Bush Administration Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser encouraged Israel's incoming Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu to favor a hardline military posture toward Middle East countries considered hostile to Israel, most notably Iraq and Syria. The study groups recommendations closely mirror the military actions taken by the Bush administration in the Middle East directly after the September 11th attacks. Importantly, it presented regime change in Iraq as a vital Israeli strategic objective: Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syrias regional ambitions. ("A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." Israeleconomy.org). Of the Clean Break papers, political observer William James Martin correctly notes that This document is remarkable for its very existence because it constitutes a policy manifesto for the Israeli government penned by members of the current U.S. government.A number of the Israeli-centric ideas found within both the PNAC letters and the Clean Break study group were first published in 1982 by Israeli Foreign Ministry official Oded Yinon. Yinon outlined a concise military doctrine titled A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, which articulated the long term geostrategic goals of the Likud wing of the Israeli government. It promoted the dissolution of a number of Arab states into smaller sectarian and ethnic provinces, thus reducing their capability of confronting or threating Israeli power in the region. The recommendations presented by Yinon served as the ideological heritage for Middle East policies that would later be undertaken by the Bush Administration, as evidenced by the militant language and objectives within the document that reappeared in numerous prominent neoconservative publications throughout the 1990s. Yinon writes: Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization. ("A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties." Cosmos.ucc.ie) Tellingly, the balkanization of Iraq into a number of sectarian provinces first encouraged by Yinon, and later by Perle and Feith, is precisely what has occurred over the last 10 years. For more on this topic, and the rise of ISIS in the region, go here: Although the interwoven strategic objectives of the neoconservatives and their Israeli counterparts have been labeled as a sort of conspiracy, there is no evidence to support this assertion. Their long standing ambitions of transforming the Middle East and promoting Israeli interests were far from hidden, as the readily available letter signed by numerous neoconservatives to then-president Bush on April 3, 2002 demonstrates: Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against IsraelIf we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors "(Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat and the War on Terrorism." Newamericancentury.org)There is an extensive amount of documentation which proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, a deliberate intent to deceive the American public and the international community by using faulty intelligence reports as evidence during the build-up to war in Iraq. A 2007 study concluded 935 false statements had been made by Bush administration officials prior to the invasion. In an ideal world, the mountain of evidence available would be used for penning criminal indictments against the architects of the war. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.Literally all of the propagated evidence used as justification for the war came directly from an office within the Department of Defense. This office was staffed by hard line neoconservatives from The Project for A New American Century that were heavily influenced by Likud wing Israeli officials whose stated goal was to reshape the Middle East to favor their interests. This theory is not limited to opponents of the Iraq war. Neoconservative Philip Zelikow, prominent member of Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, notes: Why would Iraq attack America or use their nuclear weapons against us? Ill tell you who I think the real threat is and actually has been since 1990 its the threat against Israel.. In an August 2002 interview, Four Star General and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark commented: Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel. ("Whos Afraid of Iraq?" Counterpunch.org)In April 2002, Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz created the aforementioned intelligence cell within the DOD named the Office of Special Plans (OSP) headed by Clean Break author and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith. It is an irrefutable fact that the OSPs sole purpose was to cherry pick intelligence reports in order to justify the facts around the policy of regime change in Iraq. The OSP operated independent of the established intelligence community, enabling Feith and his team to routinely disseminate discredited and faulty intelligence reports directly to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelds office. The Office of Special Plans was frequently visited by Israeli generals and diplomats who were allowed to bypass normal security screening. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked directly under Feith, notes :I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within the OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president. (Karen Kwiatkowski Sourcewatch.com) In 2005 George Tenet, former Director of the CIA, corroborated Kwiatkowskis claim, observing that:A special intelligence unit at the Pentagon provided private prewar briefings to senior White House officials on alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda without the knowledge of [the] CIA Director ... [and the] disclosure suggests that a controversial Pentagon office played a greater role than previously understood in shaping the administration's views on Iraq's alleged ties to the terrorist network behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and that it bypassed usual channels to make a case that conflicted with the conclusions of CIA analysts. (Senate Report on Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq,Psu.edu) An Inspector General report issued in 2007 found that Feith and the OSPs actions were inappropriate because a policy office was producing intelligence products and was not clearly conveying to senior decision-makers the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. In 2005, OSP employee Larry Franklin pled guilty to espionage charges for passing classified documents to American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy director Steve Rosen and AIPAC Iran analyst Kenneth Weisman. Franklin was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Rosen and Weisman were later indicted for illegally gathering and disclosing classified information regarding U.S. national security to Israel. The case was eventually dismissed, likely due to the enormous amount of influence AIPAC has over U.S lawmakers in congress. The occurrence of these blatant crimes being committed within the OSP strengthens the case surrounding the central role Israeli interests played in the buildup to the war.The most notorious intelligence failure during the buildup to the invasion was the widely promoted myth of Sadaam Hussein having obtained weapons of mass destruction. When UN Resolution 1441 was issued in 2002, it ordered weapons inspectors to report any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, upon which the U.N. Security Council would convene and consider the situation and the need for (Iraqi) compliance. Hans Blix, the head of the UN inspection team, found no evidence of any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons during its five months in Iraq. Nevertheless, Resolution 1441 was later used as the legal justification for the invasion by the Bush Administration. Obviously, no such weapons were ever found. Recent evidence has emerged detailing how CIA and British intelligence agencies were well aware prior to the invasion there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The purposeful misinterpretation of Resolution 1441 and the many lies preceding it clearly brings the international legality of the war into question. The deception hardly stopped at the WMD myth, however. Literally every pre-war bit of evidence used for justifying the invasion of Iraq has been proven to be the product of suspect intelligence and, in almost all cases, outright deception. The now infamous Niger forgeries, which indicated Iraqi officials had illicitly purchased yellow cake uranium, were known by the CIA prior to their release to be poorly crafted fakes. They have since been attributed to neocon Michael Ledeen. Nevertheless, the forgeries were used as hard evidence of Saddams procurement of uranium when Colin Powell presented the Bush Administrations case for war to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. Another widely discredited report used as justification in the lead up to the invasion was a supposed transfer of anthrax between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraq officials during a meeting in Prague in 2001. Attributed to Israeli intelligence sources, this blatant lie was intended to promote the idea that Sadaam Hussein had a role in the September 11 attacks. The fictional meeting in Prague, along with speculation of mobile biological weapons labs under Saddams palace, first appeared in numerous PNAC papers in 2001 and was reported by neoconservative journalist Judith Miller in the NY Times. Miller later went to prison for her role in Valerie Plame-Lewis Libby scandal. Her close connection with PNAC contributor and Assistant to The President Lewis Scooter Libby allowed her unauthorized access to classified information concerning Plames status as a CIA operative. Plames husband and Foreign Service Agent Joe Wilson had written a piece in the New York Times disputing the purchase of yellow cake uranium by Iraq. Although impossible to confirm, it is likely Plame was ousted as a CIA agent as retribution for her husband providing significant pushback against the Bush Administrations lies concerning the Niger forgeries. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison; unsurprisingly, his sentence was later commuted by George Bush upon his leaving office in 2007. The Plame-Libby affair offered a prime display of the interconnected network and overlapping sphere of influence the neoconservatives had in shaping the view promulgated by major U.S. news media outlets.Shortly after the staged toppling of Saddam Husseins statue in Baghdad in 2003, which was later admitted to be part of a massive U.S. propaganda campaign, the initial evidence used as justification for the war began to fall apart. A new, even less plausible motive for the invasion began to take shape throughout the state sanctioned U.S. media. Audaciously, the U.S. government began to claim there to be a moral imperative in liberating the Iraqi people from Sadaam Husseins tyrannical rule, a narrative that, when juxtaposed with historical record, was mind bogglingly absurd. Any sudden concern to help Iraqi civilians seemed preposterous when contrasted to the 500,000 Iraq children who died as a result of U.S. led international sanctions in the 1990s. When asked about the staggering number during a 60 Minutes report, Secretary of State Madeline Albright replied It was worth it. Or in light of the fact the U.S. government stood by silently as Saddam murdered over 5,000 Kurdish civilians in 1988 with chemical weapons supplied to him by the U.S. government during the Iraq-Iran war. Furthermore, the U.S. government has seen fit to fully fund and provide material support to repressive and brutal authoritarian regimes all over the world for decades. These easily verifiable examples make the purported humanitarian motivations on behalf of U.S. policy makers a tough pill to swallow.By all accounts, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. The war has left an incomprehensible amount of human suffering in its aftermath. Conservative estimates put the death toll at 150,000 Iraqis, although that number continues to climb. Cities such as Fallujah have seen a four time increase in infant mortality rates and a dramatic uptick in the instances of cancer as a result of highly toxic munitions such as depleted uranium having been used during the occupation. The country continues to be plagued by sectarian violence. Iraqs infrastructure is in ruins and plans for reconstruction have been thwarted by rampant corruption and mismanagement. Basic necessities such as food and water are not being met and many hospitals lack electricity and adequate medical supplies to treat patients. An estimated four million Iraqis have been displaced or forced to flee their homes as a result of the occupation. These conditions virtually guarantee Iraq will remain a breeding ground for extremist groups during the ongoing struggle for political power. Here at home, the Iraq war has left a powerful and irreversible imprint on countless families. 4,488 U.S. soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands substantially wounded and maimed during the occupation . The emotional toll on the psyche of those who have been in combat has led to an incredibly high rate of suicide among military members returning home from the war . In every way imaginable, the invasion of Iraq and its bloody aftermath has had devastating consequences for all parties involved. This research aims to illustrate the broad scope and complexity of international affairs while highlighting the pivotal role played by a select group of policy makers in the lead up to the war in Iraq. There are an extensive amount of government policy papers and documents concerning this topic available, making it somewhat difficult to pick those most relevant to the discussion. However, the ideas repeatedly articulated by the neoconservatives help provide a stunning birds-eye view of the Middle East through an explicitly imperialistic, Israeli-centric lens. Viewed in a vacuum, and without the support of high ranking U.S. bureaucrats, these policies would be nothing more than bellicose rhetoric on behalf of a small faction within the Israeli government. When combined with the unprecedented power of the neoconservative ideologues within the Bush administration, however, the long standing ambitions of the Israeli Likud party became the driving force behind U.S. policy in the Middle East.***