Hans Blix’s recent assertion that the Bush Administration was planning to invade Iraq regardless of the presence of weapons of mass destruction seems to fit in with the view expressed by the PNAC in September 2000. In fact, they go one step further, saying that Saddam Hussein’s regime isn’t even the real issue at hand:

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

-Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Rebuilding America’s Defenses, page 14

Blix also pointed out something which is one of the biggest problems with the PNAC approach to foreign policy — that it encourages potential enemies of the US to pursue arming themselves with vigor. He specifically cites North Korea’s recent declarations of defiance:

“The United States maintains that the war on Iraq is designed to send a signal to other countries to keep away from weapons of mass destruction. But people are getting a different message. Take the announcement North Korea (news - web sites) has just made. It’s tantamount to saying ‘if you let in the inspectors, like Iraq did, you get attacked’.

“It’s an important problem,” Blix continued. “If a country perceives that its security is guaranteed, it won’t need to consider weapons of mass destruction. This security guarantee is the first line of defence against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

Full story:
Iraq war planned long in advance; banned arms not the priority: Blix