Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had asked for permission to visit the site, often known as Ground Zero, on Sunday, during his visit to the United States to address the General Assembly of the United Nations. The request has been turned down so far by the New York City Police, allegedly for security reasons, but the response from US politicians has been vigorously negative.

A report by CBS details part of an interview by its journalist Scott Pelley with the Iranian president, containing the following extraordinary exchange regarding the controversy:

“Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans,” Pelley says.

“Why should it be insulting?” Ahmadinejad asks.

“Well, sir, you’re the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world,” Pelley replies.

Ahmadinejad says: “Well, I wouldn’t say that what American government says is a– is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations. Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And– also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation.”

“But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world,” Pelley says. “You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans.”

“Well, I’m amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?” Ahmadinejad says. “You are representing a media and you’re a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there.”

It is extraordinary enough that a CBS journalist should parrot the government line as if it is naturally the opinion of a monolithic block, “the American people”, the incident being rather reminiscent of the North Korean media or Pravda during the Soviet era.

But from the exchange I detect an intimation that Ahmadinejad, with his request to lay a wreath at the World Trade Centre site and with this interview, is trying to appeal past the government and media portrayal of his nation directly to the American public.

Perhaps he recognises that if future confrontation is to be avoided it will be via American public opinion putting a brake on the Bush administration and an olive branch in the shape of a wreath to America’s dead may generate sympathy.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, has condemned what he calls Iran’s attempt to use the site for a “photo op”.

However, if it is a photo opportunity then it is surely a telling one and we should bear in mind how many of the public activities of world leaders could be interpreted in just such a manner without that necessarily reflecting on their significance in other respects. Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly making a political and diplomatic calculation here but that calculation will necessarily include a consideration of how such a gesture as laying a wreath at Ground Zero will play at home amongst the Iranian people.

When he says that many innocent people were killed there and that Iran is “very much against any terrorist action and any killing” and against “any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations” he must believe that this is something large numbers of people in Iran will accept.

But the establishment zeitgeist, in Britain almost as much as in the United States, is of an evil Iran bent on terror and destruction. And any consideration that half way across the world in Iran there may be millions of normal, working people who share with us the kind of basic values expressed in their president’s statement about the attacks of 2001, would interfere with that picture and may serve to provoke opposition to war.

Thus a request to publicly, in full view of the world’s media, signal respect for those Americans killed on September 11 must be greeted with hysteria and condemned as an “insult”.

Given that there has been a drip feed of media reports regarding American threats to Iran for some time now, it is too early to make any informed judgment about whether we are at the outset of a sustained campaign leading to an act of war. However, there does seem to have been a spike in reports, especially from US media sources.

“Iran Linked to Iraq Rocket Attack” claims ABC News, adding:

U.S. military officials in Iraq tell ABC News that a rocket used in an attack on coalition headquarters at Camp Victory Tuesday was made in Iran. Officials say the rocket, which narrowly missed its target, was fired from an area of Baghdad controlled by Shia militia leader Moqtada al Sadr.

One awaits the headline “United States Linked to Rocket Attack” breathlessly reporting how a rocket used by some group or nation somewhere in the world was manufactured in America, thus demonstrating US involvement.

Meanwhile those rigorous upholders of the highest standards of the fourth estate, Fox News, reveal that US officials have begun planning the bombing of Iran:

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, “everyone in town” is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

This nonsense falls neatly into that category so familiar from reporting leading up to the invasion of Iraq, “the inevitability of war”, a soporific designed to suppress opposition and outrage by implanting in the public mind the erroneous idea that resistance is futile, war is coming no matter what. After all, “everyone in town” has agreed it is just about the timeframe now.

Yahoo reports a new statement from US Secretary of State, “Rice says U.S. needs to keep Iraq safe from Iran”:

“Iraq has very troublesome neighbors. Iran is a very troublesome neighbor,” she said, noting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that if the United States leaves Iraq, Iran is prepared to fill the vacuum.

Rice said the United States needed Iraq and other allies in the region “to resist both terrorism and Iranian aggression.”

Condoleeza Rice fails to note that Iraq also has some fairly troublesome non-neighbours, with the United States continuing to bomb densely populated urban areas of Baghdad.

The Australian Herald Sun features claims from General David Petraeus, yes that man again, that Iran’s involvement in attacks on US soldiers is “very clear”:

General David Petraeus said the evidence included captured hard drives that contained digitised items taken from the wallet of a US soldier killed in an assault in January in Karbala along with four other US soldiers.

“The evidence is very, very clear,” Gen Petraeus said. “We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander and others. And it’s in black and white.”

While US efforts continue at the United Nations over the Iranian nuclear weapons programme no IAEA has yet found any sign of, including efforts to undermine the inspection programme itself, the main thrust of the media campaign now appears to be Iranian involvement in Iraq.

Right now, when it comes to Iran, every shard of metal is a smoking gun; in a classic case of doublethink, while we threaten Iran it is Iran who are the threat; as America and Israel actually train nuclear missiles at Iran the slightest indication that Iran might one day get a bomb of its own justifies the most horrific aggression; and the decisions have already been made, war is inevitable.

There is something eerily familiar about this strategy, isn’t there:

And as the Independent newspaper in London reports that 350 British soldiers, 250 of whom were told just days ago that they were on their way home, have been diverted at American request to new posts along the Iran-Iraq border, it appears that Gordon Brown, just like Tony Blair, just cannot bring himself to say “no” to the US.

I first noticed it while listening to the report on Channel 4 News yesterday evening but checked various online sources to make sure the echo chamber was in sync. Here is the view of BBC Online:

A record 168,000 US troops are now in Iraq after 30,000 arrived in the surge between February and June.

Gen Petraeus told the joint House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees that troop numbers could be reduced to pre-surge level by next summer without jeopardising the security situation in Iraq. But he warned that “a premature draw-down of our forces would likely have devastating consequences”.

And the Guardian beneath the headline “Petraeus upbeat over reducing US troop levels” (my italics):

America’s top officials in Iraq yesterday claimed the surge strategy had produced real gains, and that 30,000 troops could be withdrawn by the summer of 2008, beginning with a modest redeployment this year.

While a certain level of scepticism (surely justified) pervaded the media coverage, not one highly-paid journalist noted the problem with the above analysis:

The apparent “success” of the surge amounts to little more than being able to end the surge!

Think about it. Petraeus went to Washington and told Congress that the surge had produced some, fairly small, gains in security. Even this is extremely controversial and has been disputed by too many sources to mention. And in light of the uncertainty over whether there has been any reduction in the level of violence, much of the British media focussed on Petraeus’s claim that by next summer he would be able to withdraw 30,000 troops.

I am sure the White House hopes the notion that the US military is to withdraw 30,000 troops is going to play well with an American public exasperated and exhausted by the war, but if that withdrawal is just enough to get the troop commitment back to what it was before the escalation then how much of a withdrawal is it? Hopefully the US public will not be bamboozled quite so easily as British hacks.

And given the whole point of the surge (now seemingly forgotten in some quarters) was to improve the security situation precisely in order to create the conditions for the political breakthrough we are still waiting for, how much of a success?

So here’s that Petraeus report in full: “We’ve put in lots more soldiers. So we will be able withdraw the same number. Erm… That’s it.” (With apologies to Private Eye)

And with that kind of definition of success, Bush is pretty much guaranteed a triumph.

Update: For more detailed appraisals of the significance of Petraeus’s report see this article by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, and this comment piece from today’s Guardian by Matthew Yglesias, who points out:

…after six months of dodging questions about Iraq by saying we should wait for Petraeus’ report in September, the new story is that we need to … wait six more months to evaluate things then. And in March, we can expect the can to be kicked six months further down the road.

And so the occupation continues.

While George Bush continues to trumpet the deserts of Iraq as an essential battleground in an apocalyptic battle against evil forces threatening the western way of life, his apparent sworn enemy bin Laden gives it to us straight.

In his new video, released just days before the sixth anniversary of the terrorist atrocities of 9/11, the Al Qaeda leader points out that since that fateful day in 2001:

“Many of America’s policies have come under the influence of the Mujahideen, and that is by the grace of Allah, the Most High. And as a result, the people discovered the truth about it, its reputation worsened, its prestige was broken globally and it was bled dry economically, even if our interests overlap with the interests of the major corporations and also with those of the neoconservatives, despite the differing intentions.”

While the slightly unusual last line is no doubt referring to the symbiotic nature of the relationship between bin Laden’s comrades and the most outspoken leaders of the War on Terror, the first part of the paragraph is of more significance.

He could hardly state it any more clearly. He’s not worried by the bold and aggressive reaction by the United States to the terrorist attacks of 2001, this is playing into his hands and those of his allies. America’s policies “have come under the influence of the Mujahideen”. He and his allies are pulling the strings.

He wants America to wage its War on Terror.

As it has done so its reputation across the world has worsened, its prestige has been broken, in pretty much every area of the world apart from so-called New Europe, as countless polls and surveys have demonstrated. As it pours ever more money into the sandpit of Iraq, America’s economy could be heading for a deep recession, with the world fretting over the global impact of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.

And yet even this astounding confluence of setbacks for the United States is, in actuality, far from being the greatest gain of the War on Terror for the loose band of extremists that is the mysterious Al Qaeda.

No, the real boon, one which is no doubt causing bin Laden to rub his hands together in a perverted glee, is that America’s (and Britain’s) war is creating the conditions for more and more and more terror.

That the War on Terror is the greatest of all recruitment tools for violent extremists has been pointed out by several commentators but let’s consider the situation in more detail.

It is pretty much a truism of any kind of “movement”, mass or otherwise, that at the centre are the true believers. This group, sometimes the founders, provides the intellectual expression of the movement, articulating its beliefs and motivations. In a group such as Al Qaeda these are the most malignant. Nothing but death, incarcaration or victory (whether by violence or eventual negotiation) is likely to stop these people. Just outside this you will find a hardcore of lieutenants who constitute the most radical and committed field commanders. Then, from this group outward there are hordes of foot soldiers, whose commitment to the cause comes in fine gradations and fluctuates depending on the influences which come to bear upon them from a number of different sources.

It is in the extent and commitment of this final group, the reserve of foot soldiers, that the War on Terror is having its greatest effect.

For any social, political and religious grouping you care to identify, in every nation on this planet, there are those who would not countenance certain life choices, certain actions, unless pushed into them by the most extraordinary circumstances. This effect has produced both the greatest acts of heroism and the most dreadful acts of villainy. But aside from such people, there are those, whether they are American or Saudi, Muslim, Christian or Jew, who are more prone to making a fateful move, those who are disaffected, desperate, angry, or those who are simply easily manipulated or influenced by charismatic figures offering a cause which provides a shape and direction to their life.

This last kind of person, of which there are far more than I think most of us would like to admit, are, in Muslim communities across the globe, albeit in far, far smaller numbers than is often portrayed, choosing to become, or drifting into, that reserve of foot soldiers willing to carry out the nefarious orders coming from the various centres of the diffuse terrorist entity called Al Qaeda.

And not only is the War on Terror providing a set of conditions which increases the likelihood of such moves into terrorism, once a person has made that move, the War on Terror is also likely to exacerbate the problem even further by pushing them towards the centre, a view already broadly articulated by Britain’s own Muslim community leaders.

I want to be very clear here. I have made the point before in other writings that I find it highly dubious that there could ever be a terrorist attack on civilians that had a sound moral justification, just as I stand, for moral reasons as well as practical ones, against the dreadful occupation of Iraq.

The point I am making in this article is not about justification. There can be no justification, for example, for the 7/7 attacks on ordinary people heading to work on the London transport network in 2005.

But if you do care about the lives of those people who died, and others like them, then it is simple irrationality to refuse to take into account facts that may help explain how they died and how we might make choices which could help prevent such terrible events in the future.

The War on Terror is creating the conditions whereby vulnerable, or in many cases downright despicable people, are going from relatively inconsequential life paths onto paths which lead to hate, murder and atrocity.

While we rightly damn and revile the likes of 7/7 bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan, and acknowledge that nobody bears the moral responsibility for his murders but he, we will never know how his life may have turned out without the War on Terror. And we can consider and care about this not for his sake but for the sake of those who died at his hand.

Osama bin Laden wants an apocalyptic clash of civilisations and we are giving it to him. In any confrontation the realisation that you are doing exactly what your enemy wants you to do gives you good reason to reconsider that course of action.

It is time to reconsider.

Postscript: With impeccable timing, I note with interest that, interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News this evening in Washington, CIA veteran Paul Pillar posed the question for himself: Are we generating more terrorists than we are killing or capturing? And answered it in the affirmative.

The confrontation, described as a “testy exchange” by MSNBC, came at that Pacific Rim Summit in Australia when President Roh Moo Hyun questioned Bush’s position on a formal end to the Korean War:

The tense moments with Roh came as the leaders each made statements to reporters after their meeting. Roh concluded his by questioning why Bush had not mentioned the issue of the war’s end.

“I might be wrong. I think I did not hear President Bush mention a declaration to end the Korean War just now,” Roh said through an interpreter. “Did you say so, President Bush?”

“It’s up to Kim Jong Il,” Bush said.

Roh pressed on. “If you could be a little bit clearer,” he said, prompting nervous laughter from the U.S. delegation and a look of annoyance from Bush.

The Guardian said Bush had been “prodded” into what amounted to commitment to a formal end to the Korean War, with a security arrangement to replace the armistice which has been in place since 1953, adding:

In a further sign of progress, nuclear experts from the US, China and Russia will travel to North Korea next week at the regime’s invitation to survey the nuclear facilities targeted for closure.

The unusually cordial diplomatic relations between Washington and Pyongyang have raised hopes for a peace deal to their highest level in decades, but there is still a long way to go before the two sides are likely to agree on terms for a verifiable disarmament of North Korea’s nuclear programme.

However, with dreary predictability, the MSNBC story contains an all too oft-repeated misrepresentation of the division of the Korean peninsular, downplaying the role played by the great powers:

The two Koreas were divided by the conflict, which ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, meaning they still remain technically at war.

That the two Koreas were “divided by the conflict” is not really correct, as Korea was artificially divided by Russia and the United States at the end of the Second World War, with each concerned to install their own dictator, backed by communists in the north and former Japanese collaborators in the south.

Historian Jeffrey Kimble deconstructs Bush’s appeal to how history will judge him here, pointing out:

Of course, we all know that those who appeal to The Verdict of History are desperate. Bush is desperate, and that is why he is embracing this historical security blanket. The overwhelming majority of his compatriots do not believe he can or will succeed in Iraq even if the troops stay there for years or decades. They do not even know what Bush means by success. In any case, they question the costs of the war in relation to its putative necessity.

Nevertheless, it started me thinking about the reliability and significance of the verdict of history, especially given the socio-economic and political environments within which historians inevitably work. As George Orwell noted in 1984: “He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past.”

While living in South Korea I had some correspondence with the English language daily Korea Times over its regular publication of a syndicated column by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in which I pointed out to the bemused editor:

While I can hardly bring myself to be surprised at Henry Kissinger’s typically cynical and factually dubious analysis of the situation in Iraq*, I am slightly surprised that this man warrants half a page in the Korea Times.

Although records of his dubious, if not downright criminal, activities during his years in high office in the United States government are easily available they do not appear to have entered popular consciousness to the appropriate degree. This is shown by the fact that he is still judged to be an acceptable, or even desirable, commentator for newspapers such as the Korea Times.

Kissinger’s many iniquities, familiar as they may be to some, are worth repeating: the bombing of Cambodia and Laos and numerous other despicable actions during the devastation of Indochina; involvement in the coup against Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, and the takeover by Pinochet’s murderous military junta; complicity in Operation Condor, the mid-1970s campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of the US-backed Latin American terror states; and many others.

Well here we are 30 years on and Kissinger is still feted on chat show sofas, political talk shows, and in newspapers around the world, when any realistic assessment of his record should disqualify him from polite company, never mind the media.

If one accepts that three decades is a sufficient time by the end of which to expect the verdict of history to be in then Kissinger’s continued appearances in the mainstream media may give one pause.

However, there are actually some encouraging signs that the verdict of history, far from vindicating people such as Bush, may even be able to catch up with them in the now. As has been documented by Christopher Hitchens in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, and in several newspaper articles, Kissinger can now barely leave the United States for fear of arrest.

While international law remains subject to the forces of geopolitical power relationships, more and more nations have demonstrated a willingness to at least make attempts at internal enforcement, even if it means bringing former leaders and international statesman to court.

Of course, the idea of Tony Blair or George Bush ever standing trial at the Hague remains extraordinarily remote, despite the strong case against them under international law. Nevertheless there are signs that a guilty verdict from history is starting to be able to catch up with offenders.

In many ways, international law and the international environment has not yet progressed much beyond the law of the jungle. However, as the examples of Pinochet and Kissinger demonstrate, once you are no longer the 900 pound gorilla in your own little jungle clearing you might one day find yourself in danger.

* I cannot help but point out that every single aspect of this analysis by the “great statesman” turned out to be completely and utterly wrong, as I predicted at the time.

“Either man will abolish war, or war will abolish man.”

- Bertrand Russell