Charles Paul Freund, writing at reasononline more than two years ago, said:

…The U.S.’ actual intentions in Iraq may have very little—perhaps nothing—to do with the reasons that have been offered by the administration, either before the UN or in the domestic debate. The U.S. may actually be pursuing a strategy it is unwilling to articulate in public….

Getting rid of Saddam and installing a friendly government in his place would have immediate consequences, because it would give the U.S. a number of strategic options it currently lacks. For one thing, the U.S. could count on access to Iraq’s immense oil resources. To some critics on the left, Iraq’s oil is the whole purpose behind Bush’s bellicosity, because he wants to distribute it among his oil-industry cronies. But there is another possibility: Access to Iraqi oil would profoundly alter the U.S. role in the region, because it would alter the nation’s relationship with Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have long been trapped in a relationship that neither party much likes. But because America needs lots of oil, and because the Saudis need security, the two nations have tried to find a way to deal with each other. The terror attacks have shaken this relationship of interdependence. Most of the hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, and much of the money being funneled into global terrorist networks reportedly originates from there as well. If the U.S. seeks ultimately to choke off the finances of Al Qaeda and groups like it, it must first do something about its dependence on Saudi oil. In that sense, the road to Riyadh runs through Baghdad.

So, perhaps, does the road to Tehran. According to numerous accounts, the mullahs’ control of Iran has been crumbling for months. Many Iranians have had enough of their failed revolution and their economic stagnation. They’ve had enough of being arrested for listening to music on the radio, and of being jailed for attending private gatherings where both men and women are present. Iran’s revolution is now reportedly so shaky that it may collapse even if the U.S. does nothing in the region. Were the U.S. to succeed in establishing a regime in adjacent Iraq that exhibited at least some democratic values and allowed greater personal freedoms, the fate of Iran’s ruling mullahs would probably be sealed, and the future of any future democratic government there bolstered.

A region that features at least relatively democratic regimes in both Iraq and Iran, a Saudi Arabia whose leverage on the West is greatly reduced, and, as Bush put it at the UN, “an independent and democratic Palestine,” however that might be achieved, would be a region where modern political values are advancing and retrograde dictatorship and theocracy are declining.

In his UN address, Bush hinted at the outlines of “a very different future” for the Middle East. As he put it, “The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.”…

Precisely. That’s about what I’ve been saying all along, most recently here:

…The invasion of Iraq was — and is — a means of removing an avowed enemy of the U.S. and gaining a base in the Middle East. If Bush wins re-election, watch the dominos fall in Syria and Iran — both of which are assuredly sponsors of terrorism….

Freund, you’re a genius.

(Thanks to Virginia Postrel for the pointer.)

The Washington Post reports:

French Push Limits in Fight On Terrorism

Wide Prosecutorial Powers Draw Scant Public Dissent

By Craig Whitlock

Washington Post Foreign Service

Tuesday, November 2, 2004; Page A01

PARIS — In many countries of Europe, former inmates of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been relishing their freedom….

Not so in France, where four prisoners from the U.S. naval base were arrested as soon as they arrived home in July, and haven’t been heard from since. Under French law, they could remain locked up for as long as three years while authorities decide whether to put them on trial — a legal limbo that their attorneys charge is not much different than what they faced at Guantanamo.

Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe, the French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other people deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate the proper balance between security and individual rights, France has experienced scant public dissent over tactics that would be controversial, if not illegal, in the United States and some other countries….

French counterterrorism officials say their preemptive approach has paid off, enabling them to disrupt plots before they are carried out and to prevent radical cells from forming in the first place. They said tips from informants and close cooperation with other intelligence services led them to thwart planned attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Paris, French tourist sites on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean and other targets.

“There is a reality today: Under the cover of religion there are individuals in our country preaching extremism and calling for violence,” Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin said at a recent meeting of Islamic leaders in Paris. “It is essential to be opposed to it together and by all means.”

Thomas M. Sanderson, a terrorism expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said France has combined its tough law enforcement strategy with a softer diplomatic campaign in the Middle East designed to bolster ties with Islamic countries.

“You do see France making an effort to cast itself as the friendly Western power,” as distinct from the United States, he said. “When it comes to counterterrorism operations, France is hard-core. . . . But they are also very cognizant of what public diplomacy is all about.”

France has embraced a law enforcement strategy that relies heavily on preemptive arrests, ethnic profiling and an efficient domestic intelligence-gathering network. French anti-terrorism prosecutors and investigators are among the most powerful in Europe, backed by laws that allow them to interrogate suspects for days without interference from defense attorneys.

The nation pursues such policies at a time when France has become well known in the world for criticizing the United States for holding suspected terrorists at Guantanamo without normal judicial protections. French politicians have also loudly protested the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, arguing that it has exacerbated tensions with the Islamic world and has increased the threat of terrorism.

Despite the political discord over Iraq, France’s intelligence and counterterrorism officials say they work closely with their American counterparts on terrorism investigations….

It’s their country, their rules. C’est la vie.