Middle East Madness > Round Two for Iran’s Nukes - Edwin Black

 

Round Two for Iran’s Nukes 

The Lion Does Not Sleep Tonight

Aug 14, 2025 5:00 pm By Edwin Black4 Comments

It took more than 20 years of meticulous planning and practice for Israel to launch Operation Rising Lion. The Jewish State used every tool it could muster, from the clandestine forces of Mossad to its mighty air arsenal. It took almost two decades for America to develop the munitions and delivery system to finish the job. But more than mere munitions, it was the mental trigger that made the 12-Day War an explosive reality.

The turning point for Israel was October 7, followed by the frightening certitude that Iran was just two weeks from nuclear readiness. Iran’s warhead, developed with the help of Ukrainian nuclear scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko, was an R-265 shock generator assembled in two hemispheres, its surface lined with 5-millimeter channels stuffed with PETN configured to simultaneously implode with massive force from all directions, transduced into an exploding bridgewire fuse connected to a neutron initiator primed to emit a neutron into the metalized 90-percent U-235 sphere at its core to ignite the chain reaction, producing a mushroom cloud just as the Shahab-3 rocket carrying the warhead reached 550 meters above its target. The bomb prototype had been tested with tungsten in a giant bomb chamber equipped with special high-speed cameras for review. In 2024, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) detected particles of uranium enriched to 83.9 percent — basically equivalent to the weapons-grade 90 percent requisite for a nuclear explosion.

In a final flurry of murderous engineering, Iranian scientists at the Semnan Missile Site north of Tehran were trying to affix these warheads to an exospheric Ghaem-100 space-launched missile, which could attack Israel from above at an especially hard-to-intercept oblique angle.

Israel’s worried realizations fused into action under “The New Conceptzia.” The Old Conceptzia died on October 7, 2023. The New Conceptzia, born on October 8, 2023, held that it was better to be alive than to be loved, and that the manners and mechanisms of midtown Manhattan would not work in a volatile Middle East which had been slitting throats for centuries. As for America, its resolve reached a turning point on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump took the oath of office.

Unquestionably, Operation Rising Lion and Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s three central nuclear linchpins — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — suffered the 30,000-pound percussive power of 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, 30-plus submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles, and hundreds of Israeli air assaults. More than 10,000 sensitive centrifuges, plus enrichment and bomb assembly facilities, were utterly destroyed.

For all intents and purposes, the missing cache of 400 kilograms (881 lb.) of 60-percent HEU would be useless unless it could be further enriched to 90 percent by additional cascades of IR-6 centrifuges and metalized into a core for further machining in a long elaborate process that would take years to reassemble. That said, the frightening footnote is that 90 percent HEU is only required for warheads that are miniaturized to fit into a missile nosecone. If Iran wanted to build a larger bomb, the size of a VW bus, for example, only 20 percent would be needed. How much? 400 kilograms. How much is missing? 400 kilograms.

Putting aside the fallacious, low-confidence initial bomb damage assessment that spoke of a nuclear bomb process disrupted for mere months, experts at the IAEA, the CIA, Israel’s intelligence community, and top independent nuclear weapons watchdogs all agree the damage created years of forced disruption of Iran’s nuclear program. Its nuclear enterprise has indeed been halted. But for how long?

What everyone wants to know is whether Iran is actually willing to call it quits, or whether it is heaven-bent on restarting and completing its mission to destroy Israel. For those who know the “Twelver” mindset, which envisions the return of the Twelfth Imam, it is clear that the fanatical Shi’a regime will never give up just because it has sustained humiliating kinetic damage inflicted by Israel and America.

Nor will Tehran desist now that it knows it was fundamentally alone in its 12-Day War. The Axis of Resistance, embodied by Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as Hezbollah offshoots in Syria and Iraq, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and branch operations in the West Bank, fell almost completely silent during the conflict. Israel had subdued or neutralized them all in advance. Ironically, this ring of terrorist organizations was, in large measure, constructed and funded with more than a billion dollars in windfall from the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). When US President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry forced the fatal pact through the international community and the American Congress, they both knew — and both admitted they knew — that the towers of money gushing into Iran’s coffers would fund terrorists devoting to killing Jews, and as a bonus, assuredly provide a bomb within 15 years. They also knew that with cheating, this 15-year timeframe could shrink to a mere decade. That meant 2025. This means now.

Yet, as the smoke clears and the rubble is fully visualized, the fanatical theocracy in Iran shouts that it will rebuild its program and try once again to construct and deliver its weapons of mass destruction.

Iran’s parliament approved a measure banning all cooperation with the IAEA. This bill was approved by non-elected members of the Guardian Council, thus becoming law; although in a loophole, the law permits future inspection if authorized by the Supreme National Security Council. When the measure was ratified, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf promised Iran’s nuclear program would be reconstituted. IAEA inspectors, fearful for their safety, exited Iranian territory in early July 2025.

In their post-war rage, the ayatollahs have issued a fatwa beseeching anyone to murder Donald Trump. In an effort to discover all the epithelial embeds of Mossad, which still maintains a vast array of operatives and unseen operations in Iran, the Tehran regime arrested more than 700 “suspects,” rushed to execute seven of them just three days after the war, imposed a nearly complete internet blackout, and begun randomly stopping citizens the street and confiscating their phones. Nuclear engineer Rouzbeh Vadi admitted to his spy activities for Mossad in a televised confession and was then quickly executed at 4 am the next morning without a formal trial or notification to family. Among the targets for random roundups and executions were Jewish Iranians and anyone uttering a syllable of criticism toward the authoritarian regime. Ordinary Iranians are now leaving their phones at home and living in fear of the knock at the door.

Iran is desperate to save face, save its program of death and destruction, and save its regime from the 70 percent of Iranians who reject the theocracy. In the throes of dislocation and desperation, on August 11, 2025, Tehran president Masud Pezeshkian has somewhat broken with the mullahs, telling media executives that it would be futile for Tehran to rebuild its nuclear facilities because Trump would just bomb them again. This realism prompted the Tasnim News Agency, controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, to issue a quite rare public condemnation. In an editorial, Tasnim scolded, “When the enemy hears these words, what decision will they make and what impression will they form of Iran?” It added that such talk proffers a “weak and desperate” view of the ayatollah regime. Other regime-friendly print and broadcast voices joined in the condemnation. All this potential fragmentation just illuminates how desperate Iran is, and how desperate its recourse my become.

While Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan are indeed collapsed and shattered, Iran may try to reconstitute its demolished centrifuge manufacturing capability at any of 24 of other decentralized nuclear installations. These may be burrowed into mountains, such as the Pickaxe facility, located a short distance from Natanz, or be covertly installed in an ordinary barn, or in the massive hold of an oil tanker. Iran has militarized several converted oil tankers, including the IRIS Makran, the IRIS Kurdistan, and the Shahid Bagheri. Tehran could even consider secretly relocating part or all of its bomb-making process to a renegade territory such as Yemen.

Two things can be true at once. Yes, Iran’s nuclear capa­bility was obliterated, and the brain trust behind it killed off. But what has been obliterated can be reborn. Any fanatical, apocalyptic regime that has spent decades and billions of dollars and endured global sanctions and national stagnation to engineer weapons of mass destruction can and will be willing to reconstruct its projects and harden its obsession. Therefore, so long as there is no regime change in Tehran, so long as its mullahs remain devoted to mass murder, so as long as the world permits it, we might well see Iran’s nuclear program return — or perhaps see another method of death and destruction not yet envisioned.

Iran has coyly agreed to negotiate on its nuclear program, but only if its right to enrichment remains sacrosanct, which itself is an explicit, if indirect, pledge to resume building a bomb. IAEA experts have been invited to return to Tehran for so-called “technical talks,” with no access to sites. At the same time, Tehran has just relocated its remaining nuclear scientists and their next-generation replacements to a secret location where they can work and live 24×7 away from their identifiable homes and the risk of Israeli reach.

Resuscitation of the suffocated Axis of Resistance is now underway. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being funneled through Turkey to rebuild Hezbollah’s attack capabilities, even at the risk of sparking another civil war with a bold new Lebanese government that demands Hezbollah disarm. We now even hear Iran deny that a ceasefire with Israel was ever reached — only a Hudna (mutual pause in military action). What’s more, Iran has tried to fabricate a “victory legend” in which it falsely describes its conduct of the war as triumphant.

Yet, President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have repeatedly promised to strike again if they see signs of a reconstituted program. Netanyahu loudly warned, “We will treat Iran’s nuclear program like a cancer that needs to be constantly monitored and possibly treated again.”

True, the White House has been implying that some sort of a peace agreement with Iran may be in the offing. But no one expects Iran to honor any negotiated commitment, just as it refused to honor the JCPOA. So, the diplomatic verbiage is just ephemeral, sort of a clause between declarations of force.

Salient in all the discussions is that both the Israeli and American administrations remain skeptical — and laser-focused on Iran’s promised resumption of its nuclear chess game. Tehran has already announced that its newly-appointed head of the armed forces would remain anonymous for his own protection. Mossad was quick to issue a message: “Know that we know his actual name and are well acquainted with him.”

The Rising Lion will not sleep tonight. Israel’s leadership and the halls of Trump’s White House know that the goblets of victory are not half full; they are half empty.

BOOK LAUNCH TRAILER:

*****

Edwin Black is the award-winning, New York Times-bestselling author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just-released scoop volume Israel Strikes Iran: Operation Rising Lion: The 20-Year Backstory, which can be found at IsraelStrikes.com. He hosts The Edwin Black Show podcast.

==============================================================================

Norway Didn’t Know Much About Libya Yet Helped Bomb It Into Chaos, State Report Finds

Why should this not be considered a war crime?

© Goran Tomasevic / Reuters

A Norwegian state report says the officials “had very limited knowledge” of what was going on in Libya, but promptly decided to join the US-led intervention, turning the once thriving North African nation into a terrorist hotbed.

Norway rushed to help its NATO allies to pound Libya with airstrikes in 2011, without understanding what was actually happening on the ground or the dire consequences the intervention might lead to, a new state report has concluded. The commission, chaired by former Foreign Minister Jan Petersen, found that politicians in Oslo “had very limited knowledge of Libya” when they dragged the nation into the US-led bombing campaign against the Libyan government.

“In such situations, decision-makers often rely on information from media and other countries,” the report says.

Apparently, they learned nothing from the WMD intel on Iraq.

Furthermore, the commission states that there are “no written sources” indicating that, before deploying warplanes against Libya, the Norwegian officials “assessed the type of conflict Norway was taking part in.”

The attack, dubbed ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn,’ was aimed at aiding the armed anti-government rebels in ousting longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi and eventually led to his brutal murder. After Gaddafi’s assassination, Libya quickly descended into civil war and became a hotbed for terrorism. The country is still divided between warring factions.

Benghazi, 7 years on

Norway had provided six F-16 fighter jets during the air campaign. According to the report, these jets flew 596 strike missions between March and July 2011, dropping 588 bombs on Libyan targets. This amounts to about 10 percent of all coalition strikes against Libya that year.

The report’s revelations led some politicians to re-examine the country’s involvement in the Libyan campaign. “When you look at what happened next, with Libya becoming a hotspot of terrorism, this is not a decision to be proud of,” former Center Party leader Liv Signe Navarsete said.

Socialist Left Party leader Audun Lysbakken told local media that “Norway should not have participated in the Libya war,” given what the nation knows today.

Given what it 'knew' in 2011, it should not have participated in the Libya war.

video 4:07

The new information “is quite painful” for the political class, said Morten Boas, researcher at the Norwegian Foreign Policy Institute. “The authors of the report are expressing regret. They say that they didn’t really understand the [possible] outcome.”

In 2011, many in Norway thought that the country was getting into the fight against Gaddafi “mainly for humanitarian reasons,” Boas said. “The other key players saw beyond the humanitarian reasoning and were basically interested in regime change, getting rid of Gaddafi. I  don’t think that necessarily all Norwegian politicians really understood this.”

And if they did, they would still be wrong. The real reason for the removal of Gadaffi and the destruction of Libya had to do with Gadaffi's plan to replace the French Franc in French-speaking Africa with a gold standard. France, NATO, the EU and the USA, could not allow such a thing to happen. 

Rep. Gabbard Under Fire After Refusing to Accept ‘Assad did Chemical Attack’ Without Proof

This is the 3rd story I've done on Tulsi Gabbard in the past few months.

It is becoming more and more obvious that she may be the smartest person 

in American politics and quite likely possessing the most integrity

(ie not owned by the military industrial establishment) 

Rep. Gabbard under fire after refusing to accept ‘Assad did chemical attack’ without proof 

Tulsi Gabbard © Alex Wong / AFP

Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has provoked a backlash from senior Democrats after refusing to take Syrian President Bashar Assad’s complicity in the Idlib chemical attack at face value and demanding proof.

Speaking live on CNN in the aftermath of the US missile strike against the Syrian airfield near Homs, Gabbard said she remained “skeptical” of the allegations, and reminded the host of the destructive invasions in Libya and Iraq, the latter based on a false intelligence pretext. The Democratic representative from Hawaii also called out US President Donald Trump for the “reckless” and “unconstitutional” attack.

The remarks infuriated some “progressive” Democratic figures, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Howard Dean and former Hillary Clinton policy director Neera Tanden, now the President of the Center for American Progress, a pro-Democratic Party think tank. The two suggested on Twitter that Gabbard, who also famously visited Syria for a covert “fact-finding” mission, should be expelled from Congress for her doubt of Assad’s guilt.

“People of Hawaii’s 2nd district – was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?” Tander wrote on Twitter on Friday, referring to Gabbard’s recent comments she made to CNN.

Dean, who served as Vermont Governor from 1991 to 2003 and led the DNC from 2005 to 2009, branded Gabbard’s stance on Syria “a disgrace.”

“Gabbard should not be in Congress,” he wrote on Twitter on Sunday. Asked by one of the users why the former Governor did not display a similar indignation over “Hillary Clinton’s mistakes,” Dean responded: “Engaging in dialogue isn’t the problem. It’s claiming there is doubt Assad uses chemical warfare.”

But where no proof exists - isn't that the definition of doubt? If proof exists there is no problem, but who would accept 'intelligence' reports at face value on anything anymore? I know America doesn't want to reveal how its sources operate. It may, in fact, be Israeli intelligence reporting on Syria, who knows. But having seen what Dick Cheney did to American intelligence reports on Iraq, it would be absurd to accept it at face value, particularly when it is used as basis to start a war.

In an interview to the channel which aired on Saturday, Gabbard refused to be convinced by the undisclosed evidence that Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have cited when justifying the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian airbase.

Despite being repeatedly pressed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to unconditionally accept the so far unrevealed intelligence, Gabbard retorted: “Last time I checked, Wolf, the Congress has the authority and responsibility for declaring war, for authorizing use of military force.”

“Whether the President or the Pentagon or the Secretary of State say they have the evidence the fact remains that they have not brought that evidence before Congress, they have not brought that evidence before the American people and have not sought authorization from Congress to launch this military attack on another country,” Gabbard said.

She went on to argue that the US has been waging an illegal proxy war aimed at toppling the Syrian government “for years,” which has only resulted in the “suffering of the Syrian people, hundreds of thousands of people dead, millions of refugees and the strengthening of terrorist groups in Syria like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.” 

Exactly!

Gabbard, who is an Iraq War veteran and sits on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, cited the Iraqi invasion as an example of “completely destructive, counterproductive war.”

Not to mention completely bogus intelligence - intelligence that was altered by Dick Cheney as an excuse to launch the war.

The congresswoman courted controversy after going on a private fact-finding mission to Syria earlier this year, after it was revealed that she met with Assad, as well as with civil, religious, and opposition leaders and civilians.

“Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between ‘moderate’ rebels and Al-Qaeda / Al-Nusra or ISIS – they are all the same,” Gabbard said at the time, drawing strong criticism from the US establishment, with many accusing her of cozying up to Assad.

She has been a vocal opponent of Washington’s support for the rebels in Syria, arguing that weapons often end up in the hands of the terrorists.

Isn't that the real objective though - to move weapons. I've stated and documented several times how America often supplies weapons to both sides of a war. Now that wars are getting very complex with half a dozen different factions, America may very well be supplying weapons to more than two proponents. 

My fear is that Trump is being manipulated by establishment pressures to make decisions that provoke Russia. There has been a remarkable series of NATO led decisions in the past few months that justify its existence by provoking the bear. NATO uses a tremendous amount of military hardware which is very good for American prosperity but a nightmare for world peace. 

In December, Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, designed to stop the US government from providing direct assistance to terrorist entities, urging to “prohibit the Federal government from funding assistance to countries that are directly or indirectly supporting those terrorist groups.”

UK Inquiry Find Blair Went 'Beyond the Facts' Promoting Iraq War; No Inquiry for USA

The 7 year inquiry made it clear that there was no real evidence of WMDs or any immediate threat from Iraq. It found that Blair pushed for war without any scrutiny from parliament.

The USA did the same only VP Cheney knew the facts and altered them presenting outright lies to the people and to the world. 

And, based on those lies, pressured other countries into joining their illegal and immoral war. The US needs an inquiry to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Blair went ‘beyond the facts’ & damaged UK politics when advocating for Iraq invasion – Chilcot

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair © Neil Hall / Reuters

Former British PM Tony Blair resorted to rhetoric unsupported by any compelling evidence when he promoted the Iraq invasion to his cabinet and the British people, eroding public trust and inflicting long-term damage on UK politics, Sir John Chilcot said.

The author of the 2.6-million-word inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the US-led invasion in Iraq in 2003, Chilcot told the House of Commons Liaison Committee on Wednesday that he could “only imagine” how much time it would take to repair the trust of the UK public in politics damaged by Tony Blair, who manipulated public opinion and his own cabinet by strong words into invading Iraq, rather than presenting hard evidence. 

"I think when a government or the leader of a government presents a case with all the powers of advocacy that he or she can command, and in doing so goes beyond what the facts of the case and the basic analysis of that can support, then it does damage politics, yes," Chilcot said, as cited by the Independent, after being questioned about the longstanding repercussions of Blair’s policy.

In his parliamentary address to the nation on March 18, 2003, Blair had employed all his rhetorical prowess to persuade the public of an “imminent threat” that did not exist, the report has found.

"A speech was made in advocate's terms and putting the best possible inflection on the description that he used," Chilcot said, adding that “objectively” the decision to send troops to Iraq was “unreasonable.”

However, Chilcot was cautious about blaming Blair for duping the British people into believing what he knew was not true, saying, “It’s impossible for me to say what was going through Tony Blair’s mind when he came to the conclusions he did,” the Guardian reported.  

While Chilcot does not consider Blair to be an outright liar who would “state falsehoods knowing them to be false,” he believes that the former PM had exploited his “political and personal dominance” over the cabinet to shun any debate on the issue.

Even when some cabinet members attempted to initiate a debate and seek more info from the PM on the weapons of mass destruction the then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was claimed to possess, Blair appeared to dodge the questions, Chilcot said.

"They were promised it sometimes, but the promises were not delivered,” Chilcot said, as cited by Daily Mail, recalling the evidence he was given by Blair’s foreign secretary Jack Straw.  

The single-handed manner in which Blair dealt with the issue bypassing his government’s oversight resembles the way it could have been handled in the absolute monarchy of the 18th century, with Blair being a sovereign himself, Iain Wright, the member of the committee from the Labor Party, pointed  out.  

"Is it almost the 21st Century equivalent of Louis XIV – 'I am the state'?" he asked Chilcot, as cited by the Guardian. Chilcot, in turn, agreed with the notion.

"I observed what can be described in that way,” he said.

"Sir John's evidence confirmed what many of us have long suspected – in making his case for war, Mr Blair went beyond the facts. In doing so, Mr Blair eroded the trust of the electorate in its leaders, a shocking legacy," the committee chair said, commenting on the questioning session.

The much-awaited seven-year investigation into the Iraqi war, the Chilcot Report, was published in July. While the report did not raise the issue of the legality of the war, it shed light on the lack of evidence that would suggest that Iraq posed immediate threat to the UK, and blamed government for “wholly inadequate” preparations of the UK army to the war and underestimating its consequences.

In the wake of its release, Blair defended his controversial decision to venture into the war, arguing it was “the right thing to do” saying that he was acting in “good faith.”

Faith in who, or what? You acted recklessly, Mr Blair, and sorely tarnished a legacy that would otherwise have been complimentary, and you did it deliberately. No, it was not 'the right thing to do', as time has made clear, 'it was the wrong thing to do' as any immoral act always is.

British Spies Gave Faulty Intelligence on Iraq, Then Quietly Withdrew It - Chilcot

But where is the American inquiry into 

this incredible atrocity?

Detail of a declassified handwritten letter sent by the then British PM Tony Blair,to George Bush, former President of the United States, is seen as part of the Iraq Inquiry Report presented by Sir John Chilcot at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in Westminster,In London,Britain July 6, 2016. © Reuters

The Chilcot report into Britain’s invasion of Iraq is highly critical of the UK intelligence services, saying it provided “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

In his damning report on the Iraq war, released on Wednesday, Sir John Chilcot slams security agencies such as MI6 over major errors in their intelligence gathering and assessments.

Chilcot says it worked on the “misguided assumption” that Saddam had WMD - a threat which turned out to be non-existent and was the basis for war - and made no effort to investigate otherwise.


This file photo taken on December 22, 2005 shows British Prime Minister Tony Blair (C) with troops at Shaiba Logistics Base in Basra, Iraq. © Adrian Dennis

“At no stage was the proposition that Iraq might no longer have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or programmes identified and examined by either the joint intelligence committee (JIC) or the policy community,” the report says.

In September 2002, MI6 reported it was on the edge of a “significant breakthrough” after finding a new source inside Iraq with “phenomenal access” to information about WMDs.

The source, which said Iraq had accelerated production of chemical and biological weapons, was later described in MI6 notes as having been lying to SIS over a period of time.

However, the reports were used to provide assurance in drawing up a 2002 dossier preparing the case for war. Reports from that agent were still being reissued in April 2003.

According to the Chilcot report, MI6 “did not inform No 10 or others that the source who had provided the reporting issued on 11 and 23 September 2002, about production of chemical and biological agent, had been lying to SIS.”

In July 2003, the reports were officially withdrawn, but in a “low key manner compared with the way in which the original intelligence was issued.”

Blair was not originally told the source’s information had been withdrawn.

The Chilcot report is highly critical of Sir John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, and the then MI6 chief, Sir Richard Dearlove.

Chilcot says Scarlett is to blame for failing to ensure the assessments of the intelligence community were properly reflected.

Chilcot says intelligence services got some assessments correct, which were largely ignored by Blair.

They included that while Saddam had the potential to proliferate WMDs to Islamic terrorists, he was unlikely to do so. Furthermore, Iraq was likely only to mount a terrorist attack in response to military action and if the existence of the regime was threatened. 

Consequently, invading Iraq dramatically increased the danger of Saddam using WMDs, so why then invade? Did they know there was no risk because Saddam didn't have any WMDs?

The intelligence community also assessed it would take Saddam four to five years to acquire enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon, but the Blair dossier claimed it could be achieved within a year or two.

The report says Blair presented assessments by the spy agencies to parliament with a “certainty that was not justified” by the intelligence that had been gathered.

The report says “the flaws in the construct and intelligence were exposed after the conflict.”

If I were a conspiracy theorist, actually I am a conspiracy theorist, and I assumed that Mr. Blair heard what he wanted to hear, the elements of this intelligence farce couldn't have come together more perfectly. 

It's not a coincidence that British Intelligence made the same mistakes as American Intelligence. That in itself is reason to suspect collusion. I'm pretty sure that an inquiry would find the same results in America, but we will never see that.

I'm not a Clinton fan, nor a Democrat, but why haven't there been investigations into this intelligence failure that resulted in 250,000 Iraqis dead, 5000 Americans dead, and was undoubtedly responsible for the formation of ISIS? Why? 255,000 dead + ISIS compared to 4 in Benghazi, and there have been numerous investigations into Benghazi and none into the decision to invade Iraq - an unequivocally illegal act with astounding repercussions.

I can't help but think that if Saddam had used WMDs, there would have been way fewer casualties than a quarter of a million.

Why Iraq is the 'Worst Strategic Failure Since the Foundation of the United States'

'The people at the top should be held accountable for what went wrong' former adviser says of Iraq

By Kevin Sylvester, 
CBC News 
The Sunday Edition

People evacuate the body of a victim killed in a bombing at Baghdad's Jameela
 market on Aug. 13. A massive truck bomb ripped through the popular
food market in a predominantly Shiite neighbourhood, killing at 58.
(Karim Kadim/Associated Press)

Emma Sky was in the middle of the storm in Iraq, and she still isn't quite sure how she got there.

In 2003, Sky, a British civilian, volunteered to help in the post-invasion reconstruction of Iraq. She ended up spending much of the next 10 years there, watching the country collapse even further into chaos and violence.

Sky, who has written a new book about that time called The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq, says she was opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but signed on to help in the reconstruction of the country.

"I wanted to apologize to the Iraqi people," she told CBC's The Sunday Edition. "But when I arrived, the Iraqi people didn't want an apology. They wanted their country to work again."

Emma Sky

Sky spent much of the next decade serving in a number of positions, from ad-hoc governor of Kirkuk to political advisor to numerous U.S. generals, including Ray Odierno, the commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq. 

But so much of that journey seemed to happen by chance.

"When I arrived to Iraq I had no training, no briefings," she recalled. "I had no idea what my job would be, and then I was suddenly in charge of Kirkuk. It was a indication of the problems there. There was no plan."

Wishful thinking

Sky said the United States led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to oust a dictator, Saddam Hussein, and to help establish a democratic beachhead in the Middle East. But after the invasion, it was the military that was left with the job of trying to keep the country together.

"They had been told to go in and take care of Saddam and that was it. They were completely unaware of the situation there. They had to make the best of the situation they found themselves in."

According to Sky, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush believed that democracy would take hold on its own; they had no road-map for how to make that happen.

"These plans drawn up in Washington were all wishful thinking," she said.

This is what I have been saying for many years - the US had no plan for what they should do after invading Iraq other than to capture Saddam Hussein. It's one of the most spectacularly stupid decisions ever made by an industrialized nation. It makes Pearl Harbor look like a brilliant move.

At one point, Sky recounts in the book, Donald Rumsfeld showed up for a military briefing in northern Iraq, and didn't know where neighbouring Iran was on the map.

In Emma Sky's book, 'The Unravelling:
High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in
Iraq,' she details the country's collapse into
chaos in the wake of the U.S. invasion
and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

"No one has ever been held accountable for the decisions, for the false intelligence that led them to invade Iraq," she says. "They should be. The people at the top should be held accountable for what went wrong."

Sky was blunt in her assessment to General Odierno, telling him that America's blundering in Iraq was the, "worst strategic failure since the foundation of the United States."

His response, said Sky, was, "What are we going to do about it? We're not going to leave it like this."

In Sky's view, the army began to adapt to the reality, changing their focus from attacking "the enemy" to protecting Iraqi civilians and supporting the Iraqi armed forces. The so-called surge, from 2007 to 2009, put more U.S. troops into Iraq and helped to stabilize the country. Things looked hopeful.

But the biggest missed opportunity happened following the first national elections in 2010, when the sitting Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, failed to gain a majority.

"Iraqis had become convinced that politics, not violence, was the way forward." she says. "All the various groups came out to vote, and the bloc that won ran on a platform of 'no to sectarianism.'"

Sky was blunt in her assessment to Gen. Ray
Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq (centre),
 telling him that America's blundering in Iraq
 was the, "worst strategic failure since the
foundation of the United States."
 (Karim Kadim/The Associated Press)

Sky believes this presented an opportunity to oust Nouri al-Maliki, a man who was consolidating his own power base, in favour of a true - or at least fledgling - democracy.

"But it was a close result. Maliki refused to accept the results," she said.

The U.S. decided that backing al-Maliki, even with his faults, was the best chance for stability. This wasn't something the military supported.

"The ambassador at the time, Chris Hill, had no experience of Iraq and didn't really want to be there."

Sky writes that Hill spent most of his time trying to make the embassy in Baghdad "normal." He even brought in rolls of sod to make a lawn where he could practise lacrosse.

"General Odierno was adamant that the U.S. should protect the political process, allow the winning group 30 days to form the government. Hill didn't have the same feel for Iraq and he said 'Maliki is our man, the strong man the country needs.' In the end Biden went with the ambassador's recommendation."

Sky believes it was a huge mistake.

"Maliki's politics were poisonous," she said.

Fading confidence

Sky was disheartened as she watched the Iraqi people lose confidence in the country's leaders, especially groups such as Sunni Muslims, who felt there was no place for them and no chance to be part of the government.

"If you were Sunni, you made the unfortunate decision that supporting ISIS was a better option than supporting the central government in Baghdad," she says.

Current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has been trying to reform the government. This week he cut the cabinet in an attempt to oust some of the old guard, and dropped quotas for government positions that were based on ethnicity.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Iraq's parliament unanimously 
approved an ambitious reform plan on Aug. 12 that would cut spending
and eliminate senior posts following mass protests against corruption 
and poor services. (Karim Kadim/Associated Press)

Sky is cautiously hopeful that the new government may help turn things around, but says it will not be easy.

"It is difficult in Iraq. The best case scenario is some form of confederation of Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq, with power taken away from a central power.

"The near future is pretty grim, but Iraq has an incredible history of different groups working together. Hopefully that past can inspire a new future. But it's going to take an awful long time."