It continues to be common to hear remarked that W’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake, a failure, had unintended consequences, or should have been handled differently. It should be clear now that the consequences were as intended, that the country be destroyed, and broken up into smaller, non-secular entities, which would compete with each other and have as an entrepot for whatever redevelopment emerged, Tel Aviv. The country of Iraq, both the size of it (and the ability of a that-sized country to maintain a standing military force); and the secular nature of it, posed a threat to non-secular Israel. The war was about the removal of that threat.

Likewise, the destruction of Libya removed from the region a country which could assist other nations beleaguered by Israel’s expansion. As it stands now, the destruction of Syria has been thwarted. The rehabilitation of Bush may be a piece of a strategy to reverse Syria’s victory, which will be accomplished, or will fail to be accomplished, as a result of a war with Russia, Syria’s ally. (Hence the need to demonize Russia unsparingly.)

Bush, his advisors, and his backers, didn’t make a mistake with Iraq. They set out to destroy the country, mercilessly, and they succeeded in their mission. This followed on the heels of years of crippling sanctions from the Clinton administration, sanctions which raised humanitarian concerns. Condemnation of W’s war, if it is to be thoroughgoing and comprehensive, should also include condemnation of the Clinton Administration’s posture toward Iraq. Likewise, Obama did nothing to reverse the course or effects of W’s invasion, and carried on the same war by proxies in Libya and Syria. (Obama’s first State visit to Turkey likely involved discussions of this.) To the degree that Bush is evil, Obama carries the same mantle.

You are correct when you write, “Iraq was part of a preexisting plan, and so are many other Middle Eastern countries.” The only reversal we have seen in this plan — apart from the victory of the SAA and their allies — has been at the initiation of a U.S. administration, with Secretary Tillerson’s refusal to certify the result of a plebiscite which would have rent an “independent” (independent, but allied with Israel) Kurdistan from the carcass of Iraq (and would likely have been later conjoined with a remnant of Syria).

With Tillerson gone, and his replacement — replacements, really: both Bolton and Pompeo, as both positions have influence in these matters — presumably more loyal to Trump, but otherwise indiscernible (Bolton objected to the Qaddafi-removal strategy in Libya), we’ll have to wait and see. Trump’s executive authority will likely be a factor, so all this incessant ragging on The Donald would seem to serve primarily to empower the faction that boosted W into power, and has been pursuing the Greater Middle East Strategy.