After having tried numerous propaganda strategies to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq, finally the ****New York Times**** quoted a high-ranking White House official on Thursday -- who spoke to the ****NYT*** on condition of anonymity -- as saying that Washington's final plan has been designed to avoid the mistakes made in Afghanistan using another approach to "control the target".

The plan -- whose general outlines were also confirmed by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday -- envisions installing an American military government in Baghdad to replace Saddam Hussein and exercising control over all Iraqi domestic affairs, similar to the post-World War II occupation of Japan. The ****New York Times**** source even directly pointed to Iraq's vast oil reserves as the reason and said that U.S. dominance over the resources -- estimated to make up about 11 percent of the world's total energy reserves -- would "forever remove any U.S. concerns regarding its energy needs and its control over world oil markets."

A brief look at political developments in the Middle East over the past century shows that regional upheavals have always been manipulated to serve the interests of the U.S. and the Zionist regime, with the cost being borne by other nations.

Covert and indirect support by the global Zionist lobby and U.S. authorities for rebellions and adding fuel to regional tensions were indeed successful in the past in attaining Washington's goals and its policy of control and domination over the oil resources of the Middle East.

However, as the nations of the region grow more aware of global issues and begin to long for true independence and develop new aspirations and tendencies -- particularly modern Islamic tendencies -- the need for a new strategy for the U.S. and the Zionist regime to further their interests has become ever more pronounced.

This perceived need prompted the U.S. to work out a new approach to directly control energy resources of the region and maintain a permanent presence in global geo-strategic areas, rather than exercising the desired control though puppet regimes which gave the U.S. indirect control over Middle Eastern affairs.

This approach, of course, needed a pretext to justify the change and fine-tuning of the new U.S. strategy. It is meant to be carried out in such a way so as to create ambiguity and illusion among regional nations with a view to first, prevent them from comprehending the realities behind such a strategy, and second, if they become aware of its intentions, to deny them the means and power to resist such policies and plans.

The September 11 attacks -- whose details and full dimensions are yet to be revealed by boastful U.S. intelligence organizations -- could plausibly be considered an adequate pretext and justification for Washington's new strategy.

The U.S., which itself founded and fostered the Taleban, dropped its most modern and deadliest ordnance on the Afghan nation under the pretext that it was trying to track down its "own operatives". The White House accordingly promoted the dominance of its troops in a country that, although bereft of any significant industry, is replete with an underground treasure called natural gas.

Furthermore, Afghanistan, surrounded by China, India, Russia, Iran and Pakistan, is regarded as a highly strategic regional location deemed necessary by U.S. officials to secure long-term American interests.

It could be easily guessed that, regarding Washington's second target, i.e. Iraq, it will not feel obliged to reveal the true identity of the perpetrators of the September 11 terror attacks, nor the results of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, nor the inability of U.S. troops to track down the world's most wanted terror suspect, Osama bin Laden, nor any need for a UN resolution to launch an attack. Still, the very point that "Iraq, is not Afghanistan" provided enough reasons for Washington to reduce risks as much as possible in its plans to control the world's second largest oil reserves. For sound judgement considers currently accessible oil more valuable than natural gas found later! It was therefore not too unexpected when the U.S. suddenly began calling Saddam Hussein -- the leader of one of its puppet regimes in the Middle East -- "the most dangerous man to world peace."

However, once one takes into consideration Iraq's internal conditions, Iraqi opposition groups, and the strategic position of Iraq in the region, it would seem very unlikely that the White House would try the experience of Afghanistan with Iraq.

In fact, the report by the ****New York Times**** that the U.S. has devised a plan to occupy Iraq and install an American military government there is only meant to test the sensitivities of regional countries and prepare the ground for an anticipated regime change in Baghdad. Under the dark shadows of such U.S. gangsterism, the world is currently witness to growing atrocities by the Zionist army aimed at wiping out the last remnants of the Palestinians. However, the important question is whether Muslims, particularly the Arab nations of the region, will eventually adopt any particular course of action regarding the Israeli occupation of Islamic lands, or if they will continue to remain indifferent toward the issue?