The Shia of Iraq have been advocating strong ties with Iran, their Shia bretheren for some time. Many Iraqis found it particulary offensive to be forced into battle during the Iran- Iraq war, so describing an Iraqi-Iranian alliance as a 'way for Iraq to survive as a nation' demonstrates a western view of a 'problem' that only exists in our eyes. When the lines were drawn in the sand, and countries of the middle east like Iraq were formed, we (the British actually) paid no attenition to religion, tribal alliances and the structure of society in the region. The close alliance has nothing to do with 'survival as a nation' unless you believe that the United States or some other occupying power will choose to invade Iraq. Who do you believe poses a threat to Iraq, and why would they invade? Don't tell me 'the oil' only to say that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. Given the plans for a presence in Iraq for several more decades, the assertion that these military arms are necessary for national defense are a bit specious.

And are we forgetting that we supplied Saddam with arms, building his military to the fourth largest military in the world at one time, only to then say he posed a threat to us?

We are flooding a volatile region with arms. Compare the current plan for Iraq with the Marshal plan for rebuilding Japan. Japan has not been invaded, nor have they been under a threat of invasion, yet their Constitution severly restricts the amount they can spend on military arms. Even if this is about 'national defense', this is like giving kids matches to play with dynamite.