The Middle East: an end to US primacy? Good.

Jonathan Marcus of the BBC exemplifies the MSM commentator's urge to explain breathlessly the myriad ways W miscalculated in his Iraq "adventure".

"The US invasion of Iraq and its quest to spread democracy throughout the region has had a series of profound but unintended consequences. Of these, the most important is the rise of Iran."

Ah yes, those "unintended consequences" of the "quest". Oh how dreadful that we're hearing so much about Iran.

Marcus sets off merrily enough as well, talking of "the barrage of bad news from Iraq"- no loaded language there then. I'll take "barrage of bad news" to mean "news the BBC is conveying".

The main contention of the article, though, is deeply contentious. Did the 2003 invasion of Iraq release Iran from fear and increase its involvement in the rest of the Middle East, or did it mean in fact that there was one less sugar daddy in the field and so terrorists had to look more directly to Iran for assistance?

To put it another way, isn't it good to talk about Iran?

Was it even the 2003 invasion that strengthened Iran- rather than the 1990 invasion and subsequent sanctions plus inspections which hamstrung Iraq, indirectly making Iran top dog?

Marcus devotes the rest of his article to demonstrating the weak position the US is apparently in, and how its era of "primacy" is over. Well, if you define primacy as preening over the powder keg and waiting benignly for it to explode in your face, perhaps so.

And if you think that the leadership of Bill Clinton, during the wait 'n' do nuthin but dabble nineties with his oh-so-successful Oslo accords and schmoozing with Arafat (with Monica under the table), was strong, then fine.

I prefer to define my primacy differently. So sod off, al-Beeb- go and sell it to Bashar, instead. No difficulty there.