Chapter One   Fort Knox Guarded by a Chihuahua   "You give us the money. We give you the truck. Nobody gets hurt."   --Advertisement for the 2003 Hummer SUV   The Hummer SUV pictured along with this snappy ad copy is a massive fortress-like vehicle--something suitable for, say, taking the whole family for a spin through downtown Baghdad. With the playful, whimsical look of a Brink''s truck, the Hummer practically sings out: "Out of my way, motherfucker." There''s no mistaking you''ll feel safe inside. But, of course, the joke in the ad turns on the old bank robbery line: if everybody just co-operates, "nobody gets hurt." That''s where the fine line between sassy advertising copy and outright lying is crossed.

In fact, huge gas-guzzling SUVs like the Hummer are one of the fastest-growing causes of global warming, with its potentially catastrophic impacts for human life on the planet.   Here then is how the ad should read: "You give us the money. We give you the truck. Everybody gets hurt."   ------   If nothing else, Washington''s saber-rattling against Iran in the spring of 2005 should have evoked a sense of déjà vu. The Middle Eastern country was said to be run by very bad men who oppress their own citizens and who are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even the name of the country is strikingly similar: Iran, so like Iraq. Both roll off the tongue with ease, both are well endowed with the world''s most valuable commodity, and both conjure up frightening images of men who prefer weird Biblical outfits to proper business attire.

So it turned out to be an easy transition. Without a blush of awkwardness, media commentators began preparing the public for a new reality: Washington might have to intervene in Iran in order to protect the American people and bring peace to the world.   If so, it wouldn''t be the first time. Washington intervened in Iran back in 1953, after Iran nationalized its oil industry. The U.S. orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran''s democratically elected government, and installed a pro-U.S.

dictatorship. This led to the rise of a fiercely anti-American Islamic fundamentalist movement that eventually took control of Iran and spread throughout the Middle East and beyond.   This background rarely makes its way into the current debate over Iran, nor is consideration given to the possibility that Washington might be motivated in part by a desire to regain control over Iran--along with its considerable oil reserves.   Instead, the media keeps its focus on Washington''s allegations that Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons--just as it kept its focus on Washington''s allegations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.   (Ironically, it was Washington that first supplied Iran with nuclear technology back in the days when it was a U.S. ally. And it has been Washington''s unceasing hostility to Iran''s Islamic revolution that has encouraged the country''s Islamic rulers to think of developing a nuclear deterrent.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has not, however, found Iran to be in contravention of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.)   The media learned a bitter lesson when CBS anchor Dan Rather blindly trusted the credibility of a source discrediting President George W. Bush. But as for trusting the Bush administration--which has already gone to war over weapons that didn''t exist--no lesson has apparently been learned.   ------   Meanwhile, Washington''s ongoing intervention in Iraq was now said to be on the right track.   With the turn-out of millions of Iraqis in the elections of January 2005, there was a giddiness among Washington war planners not seen since jubilant Iraqis had toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, with the help of an American tank that happened to be on hand. After almost two years of unrelentingly bad images from the Iraqi war front, here finally were some good-news images to feast on--Iraqis dancing with joy in the streets, celebrating their dramatic experience with a ballot box. For supporters of the U.

S. invasion, long pushed onto the defensive, this was indeed a moment to savour, a moment to celebrate how justified the invasion had been all along. This point was made repeatedly. Anyone who had opposed the war was now pretty much exposed as an enemy of democracy, and as an unrepentant Saddam-lover.   To listen to the giddy media commentary, one could easily have concluded that Iraqis had voted to show their support for America. Yet, the one platform common to all parties that took part in the Iraqi election had been the need to end the U.S. occupation.

"Many of the voters came out to cast their ballots in the belief that it was the only way to regain enough sovereignty to get American troops back out of their country," noted Juan Cole, a professor of Modern Middle Eastern History at the University of Michigan. Some voters may have had simpler motivations; there were reports that proof of voting was necessary for access to food rations. Certainly it was a stretch to interpret the electoral results as encouraging for America. Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who emerged as prime minister after several months of post-election wrangling, was affiliated with the Dawa Party, a fiercely anti-American group believed to be implicated in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.   Besides, if there was a "hero" of the emerging Iraqi democratic process, it wasn''t U.S.

President George W. Bush, but rather Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the moderate, influential Shi''ite leader who had doggedly pushed for elections right from the start, and sent hundreds of thousands of his supporters out onto the streets to back up his demands. Bush, on the other hand, had doggedly resisted elections right from the start, preferring that Iraq be run by a U.S. proconsul, with a new constitution to be drawn up by a few hand-picked exiles. "If it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship," according to Cole.   When Washington finally agreed to elections, Sistani, seeing an opportunity for his long-oppressed Shi''ites to gain political clout, issued a fatwa making it a religious duty to vote. So chalk up the big turn-out on election day to enthusiasm for democracy--and loyalty to the ayatollah.

  Next time Bush wants to "liberate" a country, we''ll no doubt be shown post-election footage of Iraqis dancing in the streets, without any acknowledgement that those joyous Iraqis were probably celebrating the first step in pushing foreign occupiers out of their land.   The media''s portrayal of the Iraqi elections as a triumph of democracy was yet another step in the ongoing presentation of U.S. actions in Iraq as a tale of good intentions. Keeping to this narrative has been challenging at times--particularly back in March 2003, when Washington launched its invasion.   The invasion brought to an abrupt end the United Nations weapons inspection that had been proceeding methodically for months. Suddenly, the whole orderly process had to be forcibly shut down so that Washington could begin dropping bombs on Baghdad, a city of five million people--an attack that U.S.

Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld promised would be "of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before." Without a trace of irony, George W. Bush had explained in a televised address that he was dropping these bombs "to make the world more peaceful." (One can only imagine what he might do if he were trying to make the world more violent.) So, instead of nightly footage of Iraq destroying its Al-Samoud missiles under the watchful eye of the UN inspectors, our TV screens were suddenly filled with images of explosions and buildings burning in Baghdad.   But these seemingly hostile actions somehow appeared rather benign on U.S. television, which covered the war in a curiously upbeat manner.

Every TV station had its own in-house military experts, equipped with coloured pens to trace troop movements--like weathermen showing an approaching cold front or sportscasters sketching a particularly good play in the backfield. And every station had its own war logo ("Target Iraq," "Attack on Iraq," "Strike against Iraq.") A more appropriate logo for CNN would have been: "The Joy of War" or "Kicking Ass." With a CNN reporter describing an American tank rushing towards Baghdad as "the most lethal killing machine on earth," anchor Aaron Brown could hardly conceal his excitement. "Are you dazzled by what you see?" he asked, turning to CNN in-house general (and later Democratic presidential candidate) Wesley Clark. Together the two men marvelled at the American killing machines speeding across the sand.   As a massive phalanx of U.S.

troops moved into Iraq, Rumsfeld publicly warned Iraqis that setting oil fields on fire would be punished as a "war crime." Clearly, it''s one thing to drop mega-bombs on a densely populated city, quite another to do something really evil--like destroy a perfectly good oil well.   Rumsfeld''s comment might have been seen as a clue that oil was a key concern of those who had ordered the invasion. But such a notion was vehemently denied, including by Rumsfeld himself, who declared: "An Iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with oil." The denial was also, curiously, insisted upon by most commentators in the mainstream media, who were quick to roll their eyes at the very suggestion.   The media barely mentioned the fact that Iraq was bountifully endowed with oil, ranking second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of the sheer size of its reserves. But, unlike Saudi.