Trump is marching toward war with Iran. He hasn't bothered to make clear why | Mohamad Bazzi

"Bush warned that Saddam Hussein's regime could attack the US on any given day with chemical or biological weapons, including anthrax, mustard gas or the nerve agent sarin. He argued Iraq was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and could develop a bomb in less than a year. And if those warnings weren't enough to terrify the US public, Bush invoked the ultimate fear of an unprovoked nuclear attack."

"The world soon learned that Bush's rationale for invading Iraq was based on manipulated intelligence and outright lies; the Iraqi regime no longer had any weapons of mass destruction and was not developing them. But the administration's relentless campaign to convince Americans that Saddam was a threat had paid off by generating significant support."

"Trump has ordered the largest US military build-up in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion in 2003. To be sure, Trump has broadly described concerns over a supposed nuclear threat. But unlike in the lead-up to that war, when the Bush administration secured approval from Congress for an attack and spent months promoting its false argument that Iraq was developing WMDs, Trump and his top aides aren't bothering to make clear why they might bomb Iran."

In October 2002, President George W. Bush delivered a televised speech warning of imminent threats from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, claiming the regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and could develop nuclear weapons within a year. Bush's rhetoric invoked fears of nuclear attack to mobilize public support. The invasion proceeded in March 2003 with over 70% public approval. Subsequently, investigations revealed Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction and was not developing them, exposing the administration's case as based on manipulated intelligence and falsehoods. In contrast, President Trump has ordered the largest military buildup in the Middle East since 2003 while pursuing potential military action against Iran, but without presenting a clear public case, securing congressional approval, or articulating specific objectives for military intervention.

Read at www.theguardian.com