ISIS Met Pro-ISIS Groups in Istanbul Under MİT Protection

ISIS Met Pro-ISIS Groups in Istanbul Under MİT Protection
Published 24-07-2014

It has come to light that the ISIS terror organization and its supporters planned details of the attack on Mosul in a hotel in Istanbul under the protection of the Turkish Intelligence Organization between the 28 February and 2 March. The militants reportedly met in Jordan’s capital Amman on the 1 June and invaded Mosul a week later.  

Deniz Kahraman

One of the most striking allegations made over the meeting is that the first draft of the invasion was planned with the knowledge of Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The Turkish Intelligence Organization MİT in the meantime, provided ammunition, location support and transportation all over the region.

The secret meeting was revealed by Syrian Turkmens who were also present at the same hotel in Istanbul for a meeting by the Syrian Turkmen Democratic Movement held on the very same day.

The leaders of Sunni radical organizations reportedly attended the meeting including a senior of the Jordanian Intelligence Organization, the local organizations of the old Ba’ath Party and other representatives of Sunni movements.

The main issue of the meeting was allegedly the weakening of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by building a Sunni front against Shias through the ISIS terror group.

According to the claims, the al-Maliki government was aware of such meetings under the leadership of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and got in touch with some authorities regarding the issue. Despite the continuous negotiations between Tehran and Erbil, the government of the Northern Iraqi Regional Administration Prime Minister Massoud Barzani insisted on taking sides against the central Iraqi administration. Iran’s attempt to call out Ahmed Jalebi, one of the opponents of Saddam Hussein, did not come in useful, either.

In the meeting which followed in Amman on 1 June, Libyan and North African authorities also participated together with Sunni representatives. Only a week later, ISIS invaded Mosul in an operation which lasted a couple of hours.

On the 16 June, ISIS and al-Qaeda leaders and representatives of the aforementioned countries came together one more time in the Intercontinental in Amman to evaluate the circumstances after the invasion.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


Ziad Fadel

Once again, readers of Syrian Perspective will have the edge over all others in refinement, good taste and culture.  We have been blessed once more with another masterpiece by the greatest poet of the 21st Century, Sir Run Run Shaw XVIII, Poet Laureate of the English Language in Polynesia and the Far East.  This poem, written under improbable circumstances while Sir Run Run was fighting alongside desperate Crimean citizens demanding unity with Russia, is an evocation of the monumental poem by T.S. Eliot and is not meant to be taken seriously:



August is always the worst of months,

Hiding Zahraan Alloosh under a crop of rocks,

Feeding Palestinians with a snort of dry Vermouth.

Summer is always surprising

As it breathes fire over the Tihama mountains

Frying Syrian falafel with the right amount of garlic.

Al-Maliki surprised me even more than Assad,

Breeding cockroaches more backward than my kin,

Beheading people with dull, short bread knives,

Dancing Tunisian trollops with red, smelly bandanas.

Or Saudis crouching over a crate of fresh bananas.


What is clutching at my groin?  What branch of

Palestinian wretchedness must I now sabotage?

Son of a Bitch! You cannot say or mutter,

Not even cousin Faysal with his trademark stutter.

But if you stand over here where I am seated,

I will show you something rising up from the toilet

When your back is turned to greet it.

I will show you cesspools in a fistful of Saudi history.

o yako domburi

o sushi bento sandiwichi

raamuneh ni sayda

yu nu

Assad gave me headaches for the last 7 years,

They called me the  Headache Man.

But when we returned from Doha,

Your arms full of cash and credit cards

I had to speak though my tongue failed.

I was hung-over repeatedly with an airline sickness bag,

Staring into my own vomit, the stench,

Voulez vous coucher avec moi, ce soir?

Madame Prepostrous, famous First Lady

Was suffering from hormonal overdoses

And is known to be the dumbest woman in America

With a hipful of subcutaneous lard.

Here, said she, is your pack of idiot cards,

They’re about this Phoenician president,

(There’s some lapis lazuli in his blue eyes)

Meet Madame Belladonna; She’s from Tunisia.

This lady creates situations.

And here’s my husband with three Jewish pages,

And here’s his cigar box which is empty

But for the metal containers which I

Am forbidden to see.

I do not find anything interesting

And fear sex with men.

At the White House, I see people walking

Around a statue of Mike Tyson.

Thank you, if you see dear Ms. Nuland

Tell her I’ll bring the horrorshow myself.

What else do you expect?

Unreal Presidency

In a total fog during the dog days of Summer

A crowd of reporters trampled up Pennsylvania Ave.

So many liars, I can’t believe there are such liars,

They snorted, sniffed, sniffled and retched,

And each one kept his foot between the other’s feet.

They wriggled up Wyoming Street

To where the Syrian Embassy used to ready

The ballot boxes for their own campaign

Which all was flushed down the drain

By some Zionist named Daniel Rubinstein

In a fit of love for democracy!

Then, I saw one I knew, a Robert Ford!

I stopped him crying:”War Criminal!!

“You were the one who sailed the ships from Benghazi”

“The Syrian corpses you set out to bury”;

“Have your zombies started to sprout?”

“Will they go back this year?”

“Or has the mid-year heat melted down their zeal?”

“You Hyporcrite Murderer!  Babbling Idiot!”

“Bandar’s frere.”

(With a nod to T. S. Eliot.  Ezra Pound didn’t have to emend this. ZAF)

Read more 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

August 26th-27th Iraq SITREP by Mindfriedo: Sistani, Sistani, Sistani! May God keep you till the Mahdi!

Moallem: Syria Ready to Cooperate to Combat Terrorism As Per 2170

Local Editor

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-MoallemSyrian caretaker deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, said that Syria is prepared to cooperate and coordinate on the regional and international levels to combat terrorism as per United Nations Security Council resolution no. 2170 within the framework of respecting Syria’s sovereignty and independence.

In a press conference in Damascus on Monday, Moallem said that Syria welcomes resolution no. 2170 and is committed to it, despite the fact that this decision came late, noting that the consensus at the Security Council on combating terrorism is in line with Syria’s calls for drying up the sources of terrorism and facing the risks of its spread to neighboring countries and beyond.

He said that terrorism can only be combated through perseverance, comprehensiveness, and the efforts of all countries, noting that the Security Council resolution is binding for all sides.

The Minister called for putting a stop to the instigation and funding of terrorism, as well as calling for refraining from facilitating the movement of terrorists.

Moallem said all neighboring countries must pay attention to the danger threatening the region out of concern for their own national interests, and they must cooperate to combat terrorism, adding that it’s in the best interest of Turkey and its people to reconsider its foreign policies because terrorism knows no borders.

He said that combating terrorists is carried out through serious political work to dry up its sources, cooperation with the Syrian government, and joint international work, not through transgression against countries’ sovereignty, asserting that any breach of Syrian sovereignty by any side constitutes an act of aggression.

Moallem highlighted that the Syrian and Russian positions on combating terrorism are in total concordance, stressing that those who want to cooperate with Syria in combating terrorism must be honest and serious, and that they must also relinquish double standards.

The Syrian official asserted that his country strongly condemns the killing of the American journalist James Foley as well as the killing of any innocent civilian.

However, Moallem wondered why there hasn’t been any western condemnation of the massacres committed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist organization against the Syrian army and citizens.

Source: Agencies

25-08-2014 – 17:39 Last updated 25-08-2014 – 17:39


مؤتمر المعلم حول القرار الدولي لمحاربة الارهاب_د بسام ابوعبد الله ، احمد صوان 

حوار الاخبارية | حسين مرتضى ، ناهض حتر _ قرار مجلس الامن لمحاربة الارهاب

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

“Iran-US Regional Understandings”: 60 minute with Nasser Kandil on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudia, Qatar and Palestine

ستون دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل | توب نيوز 22 08 2014

القائد محمد ضيف – كتب ناصر قنديل

What if Khaled Meshaal has been seen with Sayed Hasan?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The debates took place in the political field and media platforms about the future of the war of Gaza, agree unanimously on that the steadiness of the negotiations in its place reflects a dual impasse.

On one hand, when the resistance factions refused tranquilize according to the content of Egyptian call to stop  the fight, without any commitments except entering into the indirect negotiation about the terms of  permanent stop fighting and shooting, it presented a main term which its title is the lift of siege  and thus  it becomes responsible of the blood that fell after that date if it abandons its demands, and in return, the Israeli government seems to be unable to bear the consequences of the admission of lifting the siege, because of the disgracefully symbolic meaning of its defeat.

On the other hand, it is unable to proceed into the war, until the balances of powers change, so it wants to go out, saving its face if the victory exceeds the ability of its army.

The analysts and the brain thinkers talk about military impasse of Israel as a greater than the ability of the government and the military leaders to solve, after it becomes evident, the understanding of the lessons of the July war, which Israel came out of defeated, it spent eight years of preparation to pass what the investigation reports have revealed  as   points of weakness that caused the defeat. Such funny talk has no place among the facts. The iron dome which the Israelis talk about, as an exceptional genius to deter missiles and prevent their access to sensitive points, it comes out that it is a failure by more than 90% , moreover the ground armies are afflicted with its specific elites as Colonel Gholani, all of these make it a subject of sarcasm in the war of lands after it lost the factor of initiative.

The Israeli debates originate from the admission that Netanyahu has entered Israel into a war of attrition, as Maariv Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz agreed , the search is focusing on an exit of this attrition war, although  the accompanying talk was about going to an inclusive ground war, so this search admits of its troubles and difficulties and maybe its impossibility, so it becomes in front two choices, the governmental vacancy despite of its danger or the UN resolution  which needs special atmosphere and justifications  exceeding this state of war, perhaps, either a ground war and a brutal bombing which surpass the limits of reason just to lure this international solution through a resolution of the Security Council . since the rockets are falling on the cities and Israeli constitutions and the Palestinian blood is abundantly bleeding, so that no one in Israel has the ability to bid to prevent the acceptance and commitment. Or accelerated making of the regional events to prepare a deterioration of the situation in the front of Syria and Lebanon, maybe almost leads to war, this justified the urgent international intervention and the acceptance at the Israeli public opinion level.

Concerning the resistance and the supported powers, there is no evasion of admitting of the danger of the attrition war against the resistance and its people and the available alternatives. The statement of Al Qassam of turning to a war in the heart of these debates has released. The debates continue in the form of (what if ), what if the resistance moves the war abroad, and hits the Israeli interests in Europe and America? What if specific martyrdom processes have been executed in the heart of occupied Palestine outside Gaza? What if the Palestinian resistance attacks the Israeli depth by missiles from the front of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

In the context of this debate, we ask: Is not the geopolitical actions change the equations, and produce new balances?

 Why we do not say, what if Hamas returns to its normal position in the resistance ally, what if we have seen its leaders in Syria? How much change will happen and how much panic will afflict the enemy and its supporters?

 To ease the difficulty on the behalf of Hamas, what if we have seen Khaled Meshaal in Beirut with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ? Is not a specific multi direction message and a change in the rules of conflicts again?

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

‘Another wave of Western intervention threatens to pull Iraq apart’

Aug 22, 2014,

The Obama administration’s recent decision to intervene in Iraq has seen the first US air strikes since the end of the American occupation in 2011, in response to the sweeping territorial gains made by militants belonging to the Islamic State group.

Two and a half years after the US military withdrew from the country, Barack Obama has pledged a renewed commitment to long-term military involvement in Iraq to counter the Islamic State’s self-declared caliphate, which has swallowed large swathes of northwestern Iraq and northern Syria.

Washington defended its renewed involvement in Iraq as being necessary to prevent the slaughter of the minority Yazidi and Christian religious communities, who fled their homes en masse as ISIS advanced. US forces did indeed provide thousands of gallons of clean water and packaged meals.

The administration’s altruism, though helpful in this case, appears highly selective, considering the subdued US response to the entrenched persecution of minorities in the region throughout the Western-backed war to topple the Syrian government over the past three and a half years.

The Obama administration’s strategic interests in the current scenario are undoubtedly grounded in bolstering the pro-American Kurdish peshmerga forces defending the semi-autonomous Kurdish region, where US energy firms such as ExxonMobil and Chevron have significant investment interests.

The United States has redeployed some 800 troops to Iraq since June, and has since conducted dozens of airstrikes in support of Kurdish peshmerga fighters and Iraqi Special Forces, who successfully retook a strategic dam near Mosul. The Iraqi army is now struggling to retake the town of Tikrit, some 130km north of Baghdad, where ISIS is firmly in control.

The specter of the Islamic State group and the appalling humanitarian crisis that Iraq finds itself marred in cannot be divorced from the legacy of the US invasion in 2003, as well as covert operations that have since been undertaken by the Obama administration to bolster rebel forces in Syria.

Following the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, Paul Bremer, then Governor of Iraq, entirely dismantled Iraq’s central government, state institutions, and armed forces with the stroke of a pen. Colonial divide and rule policies were put in place that saw the rise of Shiites into positions of power to offset the Sunnis thought to be loyal to Saddam Hussein.

Washington’s attempt at nation building fueled sectarian enmities as occupation authorities favored certain tribal groups and religious sects that were seen to be more advantageous and amenable to US interests, which inalterably and artificially restructured Iraqi society based on the dictates of neoconservative analysts and think-tanks, forcing Christians and other minorities to flee.

The political ascent of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-led government was part and parcel of US policy that sought to offset the influence of the Sunni political forces. Washington did the opposite in Syria, backing Sunni Islamist militias to undermine President Bashar al-Assad, who belongs to the Alawite sect of Shia Islam.

Terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and other affiliated groups had no presence in Iraq or Syria before the US occupation, yet a sectarian explosion has taken place across the entire region since, hastened by the sweeping gains of radical jihadist groups operating in Syria.

The fighting in Syria is not a civil war per se, but a full-blown international conflict with arms and financing being meted by various intelligence agencies and governments who want to see regime change in Damascus. The Obama administration has funneled weapons, communications equipment, and other material support to Sunni militias in Syria since 2011,according to the New York Times, in addition to providing training, cash assets, and diplomatic backing.

The Islamic State has emerged as the most efficient, disciplined, and well-funded jihadist group in history precisely by virtue of its ability to flourish in the lawless space of northern Syria, a region continually destabilized by rebel militias who have been recipients of enormous funding and support from external forces. US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey have played a significant role in aiding jihadist organizations in Syria.

The Obama administration has contributed multi-million dollar budgets to supply Syrian rebels with weapons, which have logically found their way into the hands of the most proficient fighters. When the Islamic State group captured the Iraqi city of Mosul earlier this summer, they did so with US-made equipment such as anti-tank weapons and RPGs, and have since captured Iraqi military equipment, also provided by the US.

US officials have preferred to shoulder the blame for this situation on the polarizing sectarian policies of al-Maliki’s government, but Western policies in Iraq and Syria have done far more to turn the region into a tinderbox. The unfolding horror of religious communities in northern Iraq could have even been avoided had US forces intervened or supplied Iraq with fighter jets when Maliki called for US support in June following the capture of Mosul.

Washington has long fallen out of favor with Maliki, who brought Iraq closer to Syria and Iran, and rejected American demands that any US military forces stationed in Iraq be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits. Maliki also opposed ExxonMobil’s oil exploration deal with the Kurds in northern Iraq, which was negotiated and signed directly with the US-backed Kurdish authorities without the approval of Baghdad.

Maliki visited Washington last fall with an urgent request that the US provide Baghdad with weaponry, including a long-delayed sale of F-16 fighter jets, which fell on deaf ears. As ISIS approached Baghdad, the Obama administration called on Maliki to step down before the US would honor Baghdad’s request for military assistance.

If the Obama administration allowed the Iraqis to purchase US weapons rather than use the situation to pressure Maliki to resign, Iraq could have provided air cover to protect Yazidis and Christians without relying on Washington, thereby greatly enhancing Baghdad’s ability to thwart the Islamic State’s advance.

In all likelihood, Washington’s decision to intervene was prompted by a realization the administration could effectively use the threat posed by the Islamic State as a shoehorn for achieving its strategic interests: ousting Maliki to bring in a leader more agreeable to the US, safeguarding vital economic interests in the Kurdish region, and reviving the push to launch airstrikes against Syria.

US officials have reportedly asked the Syrian opposition-in-exile to call on the international community to come to their aid by launching air strikes against both the Islamic State and the Syrian government forces, an indication that the Obama administration intends to reverse the gains of the Syrian army using airpower under the guise of beating back ISIS.

The scenario now unfolding can lead to a wider regional conflict, pitting Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds against one another, effectively destroying Iraq.

The US and France, and most likely Israel, are now directly arming Kurdish forces, independently of the central government in Baghdad, which could embolden the territory’s separatist ambitions and hasten the partitioning of the Iraqi state.

Kurdistan’s US-aligned government, led by President Massoud Barzani, declared last month that the region would soon organize an independence referendum, which could lead to the formation of an independent state aligned to Washington and Tel Aviv, which has long maintained ties with the Kurds.

Haider al-Abadi has been slated to replace Maliki as Iraqi Prime Minister, and the new leadership faces enormous challenges. Abadi must prioritize reconciliation with the Sunnis, many of whom deeply resent the Shiite leadership and hold sympathetic views toward the Islamic State.

If the Kurdish regional government pushes ahead with independence, it would deprive the central government of key oil revenue and effectively guarantee continued infighting among Sunnis and Shiites as both vie for resources and political power, opening the door to Iraq’s fragmentation and demise.

If the countries that invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003 were serious about defeating the Islamic State group and their perverted and nihilistic fundamentalism, they must realize that this can only be accomplished through partnering with the legitimate governments in Damascus and Baghdad rather than undermining then.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


Against Any Further US Intervention in Iraq:

“More US intervention is the last thing that is needed in Iraq. The current phase of conflict (the rapid advance of the Islamic State forces, also referred to as either ISIS or ISIL) is in many ways the direct outcome of US and other international intervention in Iraq over the past quarter century at least (and the failed campaign to back the armed overthrow of the government of Syria).

The effective partitioning of Iraq to separate the Kurdish zone is one consequence of the illegal no-fly zone instituted and enforced by the US and UK throughout the 1990s.

The gradual and then drastic destruction of the Iraqi state, via international sanctions and then with the invasion and occupation that started in March, 2003, deliberately and intentionally created disorder. This was a grand act of vandalism, designed to terminate a unified, secular state that had been forced to oppose US interests. Arming and training sectarian militias as part of the “surge” and General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy, opened the door to atrocious ethnic cleansing that has not ceased since it began under US tutelage. An unstable government in Baghdad, and inter-ethnic violence, is precisely what American victory looks like.

…As we see, the US is only bombing ISIS when it gets too near to US business interests in Kurdistan—which is not to say that the US should do something otherwise. Otherwise ISIS can do as they like, as they have in Syria with the support of Turkey, a member of NATO, and US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with US funding and equipment itself. Further US intervention can only further delegitimize the Iraqi state and army.”


Bashar al-Jaafari on Syria, ISIS [VIDEO]


from about 8:10, the eloquent Bashar al-Jaafari continues in English ( a nicer English than the UK man who stumblingly) “thanked” al-Jaafari for his statement–while cutting him off… Al-Jaafari speaks with the dignity of Syria, approving the (3-years-belated) the UN resolutions to combating terrorism. The obvious rhetorical question: ummm, where were the resolutions over the past few years? Why none when Syria was (is still) being terrorized?


Syria asks UN why its warnings on ISIL were ignored for 3 years [VIDEO]:


Hezbollah chief calls for regional unity to confront ISIL


‘ISIS a pretext for US-sponsored regime change in Iraq’:

[excerpts] The ousting of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is part of a broader US plan for Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

Against the backdrop of the war against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Washington has managed to kill two birds with one stone, as the saying goes. Not only has the US removed a political leader who had proven to be problematic due to his opposition to US military presence in Iraq, as well as his staunch support for Syria and President Assad, they have also created the conditions for the dismemberment of the Iraqi state.

The US and its allies are supporting de facto ‘independence’ for the Kurdish region in the north of the country, using the IS as a convenient pretext for openly arming and supporting Kurdish forces. Naturally, one should not look for altruism in Washington’s motives. Rather, this strategy is to benefit western oil companies with dollar signs in their eyes, licking their lips in anticipation of being able to deal directly with Kurdish President Barzani.

Additionally, Maliki’s ouster deprives Syrian President Assad of a key ally, thereby emboldening the IS and the other militants waging war against Syria. It provides further evidence, as if more were needed, that the political future is bleak for any Iraqi leader who dares to break from the script written for him by Washington. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the US and its allies to be the leading force politically in the war against the IS, an organization created by US policy and covert operations in the region. …

While the IS was waging its brutal and vicious war against the Syrian people and government however, the IS was merely an afterthought, simply a group of extremists fighting the ‘brutal dictator’ Assad.

It seems then that the danger of ISIS and the necessity to eradicate it is directly correlative to US interests. Put another way, the IS is a useful tool in Syria and southern Lebanon where it creates chaos to the detriment of Assad and Hezbollah respectively, while in Iraq, the IS is dangerous where it threatens the US client regime in Kurdistan and Western oil interests. But of course, the detail consistently left out of most analysis of the IS problem is the simple fact that it is a creation of US intelligence and its covert war on Syria.

As early as 2011, the US CIA was involved in an elaborate and widespread program to covertly arm militant extremists in Syria in order to overthrow the government of President Assad. As the New York Times and other media outlets reported in 2012, the CIA was working with the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups along the Turkish-Syrian border to funnel weapons, communications equipment, and other military materiel to terrorist groups at war with Damascus. Despite vehement claims by Washington that only ‘moderate rebels’ were receiving such support, it is an open secret that much of those supplies ended up in the hands of then-ISIS, which already by 2012 was beginning to establish itself as a dominant fighting force in the Syrian war.

Perhaps it should then begin to make sense why, when ISIS launched its allegedly ‘surprise’ attack on the critical Iraqi city of Mosul in June, they were so well armed and equipped with everything from matching pickup trucks to anti-tank weapons, RPGs, and a host of other US-made equipment. Naturally, in the days and weeks following the attack, ISIS armed itself even further with confiscated Iraqi military equipment, also provided by the US. So it would be fair to say that, consciously or unconsciously, the United States helped to create and unleash the IS we know today.

No longer simply another militant organization among many, the IS has grown, thanks to US sponsorship, into the premier terrorist fighting force in the region, capable of engaging national militaries (Iraq, Syria) and other well-organized armed groups such as Hezbollah. In effect, the IS has become the enforcer of US foreign policy, a proxy force that furthers the US agenda without any significant US military presence needed. …

Since as early as 2011, Western oil companies sought to bypass Maliki and the legal government in Baghdad by making independent deals with the Kurds. Not only did they not want to pay the taxes that would be used to fund the recovery of Iraq from more than a decade of war, they attempted to play the Iraqi and Kurdish authorities off one another in a cynical ploy to more effectively and efficiently exploit the corruption and competition that exists in both.

Of course, it should be noted that the US, Israel, and other Western powers have long maintained very close ties with Barzani and the Kurds. A valid argument could be made that Kurdistan represents a forward base for US military power projection in Iraq and, particularly against Iran. Additionally, Israel has long maintained close ties with Kurdish authorities, both in terms of political support as well as covert intelligence and espionage-related activities. …

Washington’s decision to use military force against ISIS is a cynical ploy to protect intelligence assets, economic interests, and create a nominally independent Kurdish state which will become integrated into the US-Israeli sphere of influence in the region. In order to achieve these strategic objectives, first and foremost, Maliki had to be gotten rid of.

And so, regime change has once again come to Iraq, this time through the backdoor. By arming ISIS in Syria, the US unleashed a monster in Iraq, which it now uses as the pretext for fulfilling the long-standing goal of de facto partition of Iraq….”


Hezbollah leader claims battles would have reached Beirut if party had not intervened in Syria:

“Resistance took off in Iraq, and a large part of it was, to put in quotes, a Shia resistance, in the sense that the factions engaged in resistance were affiliated to Shia Iraqis. A large number of the operations were documented by video, but the Arab satellite channels, like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya and others, refused to carry them. Isn’t that odd? Why did that happen? Because they did not – and this is not an accusation against Sunnis but against some regimes – want to acknowledge the existence of a Shia resistance with ties to the Iraqi Resistance.


From the outset, they opted for sectarian agitation in the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese issues. …

Those who want to continue using this characterization let them do whatever they want. But for us, we were keen from the beginning on stressing that our presence in Syria was not on a sectarian basis, and that we had helped resistance in Iraq on non-sectarian grounds as well. We have helped Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Palestinian factions, which happen to be Sunni. It has always attempted to cover up our contribution in Palestine to project upon us a sectarian motive. We say: Where we can defend Palestine, the Resistance Axis, and the people, where we can be present and where we can help, then we will do so. If Hezbollah has the will to defend its people and the cause of its nation, and is willing to do so, then this is not a crime or a sin. The question should be directed to the others: Why do you not shoulder your responsibilities and why do you not defend?”


Wahhabi Cleric Explains Proper Way of Beheading to his Followers: You Should Enjoy Yourselves [VIDEO]

“A video has recently emerged that shows a Wahhabi cleric explaining to a group of his followers the proper way to behead people. He points out that it is different from slaughtering animals. He states that the sword should be placed on the neck and then moved back and forth while slitting the throat. He said that people performing the killing should enjoy themselves while doing it.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Nasser Kandil: On Iraq Daash and Lebanon

حوار اليوم | ناصر قنديل 17-8-2014

حديث الساعة | غالب قنديل – أنيس النقاش 15-8-2014

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Nasser Kandil: Syria and Lebanon, Between Mleha and Ersal سوريا ولبنان .. بين المليحة وعرسال

حديث اليوم _ ناصر قنديل _ سوريا ولبنان .. بين المليحة وعرسال | الاتجاه 16 08 2014

عرسال _ نهاية الطريق الى القلمون | الاخبارية 16 08 2014


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

‘ISIS a pretext for US-sponsored regime change in Iraq’


Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of

Aug 15, 2014, Eric Draitser, RT

The ousting of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is part of a broader US plan for Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

Against the backdrop of the war against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Washington has managed to kill two birds with one stone, as the saying goes. Not only has the US removed a political leader who had proven to be problematic due to his opposition to US military presence in Iraq, as well as his staunch support for Syria and President Assad, they have also created the conditions for the dismemberment of the Iraqi state.

The US and its allies are supporting de facto ‘independence’ for the Kurdish region in the north of the country, using the IS as a convenient pretext for openly arming and supporting Kurdish forces. Naturally, one should not look for altruism in Washington’s motives. Rather, this strategy is to benefit western oil companies with dollar signs in their eyes, licking their lips in anticipation of being able to deal directly with Kurdish President Barzani.

Additionally, Maliki’s ouster deprives Syrian President Assad of a key ally, thereby emboldening the IS and the other militants waging war against Syria. It provides further evidence, as if more were needed, that the political future is bleak for any Iraqi leader who dares to break from the script written for him by Washington. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the US and its allies to be the leading force politically in the war against the IS, an organization created by US policy and covert operations in the region.

In the sales and marketing industry, there is a term known as ‘solution selling’ whereby the salesperson either creates or exaggerates a problem, then presents his or her product as the invaluable solution. Indeed, this sort of sales strategy is precisely the approach Washington has taken in the region, and specifically in Iraq.

The IS disease

The IS has only very recently become an internationally recognized epidemic of militant Islamist extremism that must be eradicated at all costs. That international recognition came only when the organization began taking control of territory in Iraq, threatening Western oil and gas interests. While the IS was waging its brutal and vicious war against the Syrian people and government however, the IS was merely an afterthought, simply a group of extremists fighting the ‘brutal dictator’ Assad.

It seems then that the danger of ISIS and the necessity to eradicate it is directly correlative to US interests. Put another way, the IS is a useful tool in Syria and southern Lebanon where it creates chaos to the detriment of Assad and Hezbollah respectively, while in Iraq, the IS is dangerous where it threatens the US client regime in Kurdistan and Western oil interests. But of course, the detail consistently left out of most analysis of the IS problem is the simple fact that it is a creation of US intelligence and its covert war on Syria.

As early as 2011, the US CIA was involved in an elaborate and widespread program to covertly arm militant extremists in Syria in order to overthrow the government of President Assad. As the New York Times and other media outlets reported in 2012, the CIA was working with the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups along the Turkish-Syrian border to funnel weapons, communications equipment, and other military materiel to terrorist groups at war with Damascus. Despite vehement claims by Washington that only ‘moderate rebels’ were receiving such support, it is an open secret that much of those supplies ended up in the hands of then-ISIS, which already by 2012 was beginning to establish itself as a dominant fighting force in the Syrian war.

Perhaps it should then begin to make sense why, when ISIS launched its allegedly ‘surprise’ attack on the critical Iraqi city of Mosul in June, they were so well armed and equipped with everything from matching pickup trucks to anti-tank weapons, RPGs, and a host of other US-made equipment. Naturally, in the days and weeks following the attack, ISIS armed itself even further with confiscated Iraqi military equipment, also provided by the US. So it would be fair to say that, consciously or unconsciously, the United States helped to create and unleash the IS we know today.

No longer simply another militant organization among many, the IS has grown, thanks to US sponsorship, into the premier terrorist fighting force in the region, capable of engaging national militaries (Iraq, Syria) and other well-organized armed groups such as Hezbollah. In effect, the IS has become the enforcer of US foreign policy, a proxy force that furthers the US agenda without any significant US military presence needed. And yet, the IS is presented in the mainstream media as the greatest threat in the Middle East. Why so? Why were they no threat at all in Syria, but have become the great menace in Iraq?

Iraq, Maliki & Western interests

The US waged an aggressive war and occupation of Iraq for nearly a decade for the purposes of establishing a puppet government that would be amenable to Western economic and geopolitical interests. In many ways, that project failed as PM Maliki emerged as a strong, nationalistic leader who was unwilling to accede to the demands of the occupiers.

Washington wanted to permanently base US troops in the country, and Maliki rejected this proposal, demanding the permanent withdrawal of all US forces by the end of 2011. Maliki purged Iraq of the US-sponsored terrorist organization the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) which had waged a decades-long campaign of terrorism against Iran by closing down Camp Ashraf, the base from which the organization operated. Maliki also sacked two key figures in Iraq’s banking establishment, both of whom were close associates of neocon darling, and failed Iraqi presidential candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, thereby earning him the ire of Washington, which sought to maintain its grip on the purse-strings of Iraqi wealth.

But of course, these were by no means Maliki’s only ‘crimes’ in the eyes of the US. He also challenged Western oil companies looking to make massive profits off of Iraq’s vast energy deposits. Perhaps the best-known instance occurred in 2012 when ExxonMobil signed an oil exploration deal with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq. Maliki rejected the validity of the deal, noting that any oil contracts must be negotiated with the central government in Baghdad, rather than Barzani’s US-aligned government in Arbil. Maliki’s spokesman noted at the time that:

“Maliki views these deals as representing a very dangerous initiative that may lead to the outbreak of wars… [and] breaking up the unity of Iraq…Maliki is prepared to go to the highest levels for the sake of preserving the national wealth and the necessary transparency in investing the wealth of the Iraqis, especially oil… [He] sent a message to American President Barak [sic] Obama last week urging him to intervene to prevent ExxonMobil from going in this direction.”

It is no secret that Maliki’s strong-willed resistance to this deal, in addition to his refusal to pay ExxonMobil upwards of $50 million to improve production at one major southern oilfield led directly to the oil company pulling out of the lucrative West Qurna-1 project. Essentially then, Maliki took on the very powerful oil corporations (BP is no friend of Maliki either), seeking to get a better deal for Iraq. It would be safe to assume that the endemic corruption in Iraq would have made it easier for Maliki and his associates to enrich themselves by skimming off the top and/or receiving payouts from other oil interests. However, this is secondary to the primary ‘crime’ of challenging the hegemony of oil companies in Iraq.

And it is here that we see quite clearly why the US has been so keen on protecting their Kurdish puppet government, which really should be understood as a ruling clique centered on President Barzani and ex-President of Iraq Talabani, their families, and cronies. Since as early as 2011, Western oil companies sought to bypass Maliki and the legal government in Baghdad by making independent deals with the Kurds. Not only did they not want to pay the taxes that would be used to fund the recovery of Iraq from more than a decade of war, they attempted to play the Iraqi and Kurdish authorities off one another in a cynical ploy to more effectively and efficiently exploit the corruption and competition that exists in both.

Of course, it should be noted that the US, Israel, and other Western powers have long maintained very close ties with Barzani and the Kurds. A valid argument could be made that Kurdistan represents a forward base for US military power projection in Iraq and, particularly against Iran. Additionally, Israel has long maintained close ties with Kurdish authorities, both in terms of political support as well as covert intelligence and espionage-related activities. As Israeli scholar Ofra Bengio recently wrote in the pro-US, pro-Israeli publication the Middle East Quarterly:

“From the 1990s on, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) maintained relations with Kurdish officials since ‘pro-Israel Jewish activists viewed support for the Kurds, a small nation struggling for self-determination in a hostile Arab neighborhood, as helping Israel reach out to a natural ally.’ According to Morris Amitay, AIPAC’s executive director from 1974 to 1980, ‘Our Israeli friends always appreciated our friendship with the Kurds.’ Amitay’s son, Mike Amitay, also served as executive director of the Washington Kurdish Institute (WKI) from 1996 to 2005.”

Naturally, the Israeli connection is not strictly a benevolent one. Rather, Israeli intelligence and special forces have been deeply intertwined with their Kurdish counterparts as far back as 2003 and the commencement of the second US war in Iraq (though likely decades before that). As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh noted in 2004:

“The Israelis have had long standing ties to the Talibani and Barzani clans [in] Kurdistan and there are many Kurdish Jews that emigrated to Israel and there are still a lot of connection. But at some time before the end of the year, and I’m not clear exactly when, certainly I would say a good six, eight months ago, Israel began to work with some trained Kurdish commandoes, ostensibly the idea was the Israelis — some of the Israeli elite commander units, counter-terror or terror units, depending on your point of view, began training — getting the Kurds up to speed.”

So, as should be self-evident, Washington’s decision to use military force against ISIS is a cynical ploy to protect intelligence assets, economic interests, and create a nominally independent Kurdish state which will become integrated into the US-Israeli sphere of influence in the region. In order to achieve these strategic objectives, first and foremost, Maliki had to be gotten rid of.

And so, regime change has once again come to Iraq, this time through the backdoor. By arming ISIS in Syria, the US unleashed a monster in Iraq, which it now uses as the pretext for fulfilling the long-standing goal of de facto partition of Iraq. With Kurdish independence robbing Iraq of vital oil resources, it is unlikely that any ruling coalition consisting of Sunnis and Shia will effectively govern the country, regardless of the individuals at its helm. And this is precisely the point. Sadly, in the interests of the West, Iraq will now endure yet another civil war and period of misery and despair. There will be no economic development, no political progress, no peace. Exactly what Washington wanted.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Signs of victory ..Not settlement indicators

 سمير الفزاع

سأقدم هنا لمحة سريعة لعدد من أهم المحطات التي جرت في الأسابيع القليلة الماضية ، وبأقل التفاصيل ؛ لنسترجع المشهد الكلي :

1- 7/15/ 20141 ، انتخاب سليم الجبوري رئيسا جديدا لمجلس النواب العراقي بعد أخذ وردّ .

2- 7/16/ 2014 ، علي أكبر هاشمي رفسنجاني ، رئيس مجمع تشخيص مصلحة النظام في الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية ، يقول : “أن الجيش العراقي لم يحقق انتصارات كبيرة في العراق لأن قلوب الناس ليست مع الحكومة ، والمتشددين اليوم أصبحوا يهددون كل الانجازات التي حصلت في العراق … وحذّر المالكي من خطورة التفرّد بالسلطة ، لأن الحكم يجب أن يكون بالتوافق بين الطوائف العراقية المختلفة ، مشدداً على أن وحدة وتلاحم الشعب مع الحكومة سيوفران الأرضية لحل الأزمة وخروج قوات “الدولة الاسلامية” والانفصاليين من العراق .

3- 24/ 7/ 2014 ، إنتخاب فؤاد معصوم رئيساً لجمهورية العراق .

4- 2014/08/8 فجأة ، يعود سعد الحريري إلى بيروت عبر مطارها ، وليس عن طريق مطار دمشق كما أعلن سابقاً ، وبعد ثلاثة أعوام عجاف من الإنتظار . عاد وفي جعبته مليار دولار “لدعم” الجيش اللبناني في معركته ضد الإرهاب ؛ وأنا أصدق هذا الكلام ، ولكن هناك أهداف أخرى .

5- 8/8/ 2014 قال أوباما حول الوضع في العراق “بإمكاننا أن نتحرك ، بحذر ومسؤولية لمنع حصول عملية إبادة محتملة ” . وأضاف “لهذا السبب أنا أجيز توجيه ضربات جوية محددة الأهداف إذا تطلب الأمر ذلك ، لمساعدة القوات العراقية في القتال الذي تخوضه لفك الحصار وحماية المدنيين العالقين هناك”.

6- 2014/8/9 مشروع قرار أعدته بريطانيا يندد بالتجارة المباشرة أو غير المباشرة مع داعش، وجبهة النصرة جناح تنظيم القاعدة في سوريا، للتصدي لمتشددي داعش وذلك من خلال إضعافهم ماليا ومنع تدفق المقاتلين الأجانب والتهديد بفرض عقوبات على الذين يشاركون في تجنيد مقاتلين للجماعة ومساعدتها ، ويهدد مشروع القرار بفرض عقوبات على كل من يفعل ذلك ويدعو الدول إلى تقديم اسماء الافراد والكيانات التي يعتقد انها تدعم الجماعتين..ومن المتوقع أن يتم التصويت عليه في وقت لاحق هذا الأسبوع .

7- 2014/8/9 باراك أوباما، يقول: إن تقدم مقاتلي تنظيم داعش في شمال العراق كان “أسرع” مما كنا نعتقد … لن أعلن جدولا زمنيا محددا، لأنه كما سبق أن قلت منذ البداية، حيث هناك تهديد للطواقم والمنشآت الأميركية، فإن من واجبي ومسؤوليتي كقائد (للقوات المسلحة) أن أتأكد من حمايتها .

8- 2014/8/10 أكد الرئيس الفرنسي، فرانسوا هولاند، في محادثة تلفونية مع نظيره الأميركي، باراك أوباما، أن فرنسا والولايات المتحدة متفقتان تماما حول أسلوب محاربة تنظيم داعش . ورحب الرئيسان بقرار مجلس الأمن الداعم لمحاربة “داعش” في شمال العراق، وأكد الرئيس أوباما للرئيس هولاند أن العمليات العسكرية ستظل مفتوحة حتى تتم استعادة العراق لسيادته على جميع أراضيه.

9- 2014/8/10 ، سريان هدنة جديدة بين فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية وإنطلاق مفاوضات جدية حول التهدئة ، وكلام عن تقدم جوهري في عدة بنود .

10- 2014/8/11 وزير الدفاع الأسترالي السيناتور ديفيد جونستون في تصريح لوسائل الاعلام الأسترالية اليوم أن استراليا مستعدة “لمساعدة الجيش الامريكي والحكومة العراقية بأي طريقة كانت للتعامل مع هذه المنظمة الارهابية”. وكان رئيس الوزراء الاسترالي توني ابوت ووزيرة الخارجية الاسترالية جولي بيشوب قد عقدا جلسات احاطة أمنية على مستوى عال مع الولايات المتحدة ومسؤولين بريطانيين مؤخرا وذلك في محاولات الرئيس الامريكي باراك أوباما لحشد التعاون الدولي ضد المسلحين الذين يحتلون مساحة كبيرة من العراق وسوريا.

11- 2014/8/11 يصل وزير خارجية الإمارات عبدالله بن زايد آل نهيان إلى جدة (غرب السعودية) مساء الاحد، بالتزامن مع زيارة يقوم بها الرئيس المصري عبد الفتاح السيسي إلى المملكة في زيارة هي الأولى له منذ انتخابه رئيسا قبل شهرين.

وفي وقت سابق، استقبل العاهل السعودي الـملك عبدالله بن عبدالعزيز آل سعود في قصره بجدة (غرب المملكة) مساء اليوم الرئيس المصري عبدالفتاح السيسي، وعقد الجانبان اجتماعا موسعا، أعقبه عقد اجتماع ثنائي مغلق بين العاهل السعودي والسيسي قبل أن يطير إلى روسيا الثلاثاء للقاء الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين .

12- 2014/8/12 ، يعود الوفد الصهيوني المفاوض إلى القاهرة لإستكمال المفاوضات مع المقاومة الفلسطينية عبر الوسيط المصري ، بعد مشاورات عاجلة مع قيادته .

13- 2014/8/12 علي شمخاني أمين المجلس القومي الإيراني “إن طهران تدعم العملية القانونية التي أدت إلى اختيار رئيس للوزراء في العراق” ودعا “جميع الأحزاب والائتلافات في العراق إلى الوحدة للحفاظ على المصالح الوطنية مع الأخذ بعين الاعتبار سلطة القانون والظروف الحساسة التي يمر بها العراق و التهديدات الخارجية التي يتعرض لها” .

وكان ونظيرته الإيطالية فدريكا موغريني دعيا في وقت سابق اليوم إلى “الإسراع في تشكيل حكومة وحدة وطنية في العراق بعد اختيار حيدر العبادي رئيساً للوزراء”.

وشدد الجانبان خلال اتصال هاتفي نقلته وكالة أنباء إيران الرسمية على “ضرورة مواجهة الهجمات الإرهابية التي يشنها تنظيم داعش وأكدا على اهمية اتخاذ خطوات دولية لحماية الأقليات والمدنيين في العراق”.

14- 2014/8/12 وزيرة الخارجية الإيطالية في اتصال لها مع وزير الخارجية الإيرانية محمد جواد ظريف تقول : إن خطوة الرئيس العراقي في تكليف العبادي لتشكيل الحكومة الجديدة يمكن أن تفتح الطريق أمام الاستقرار السياسي في العراق . وأكدت موغريني على ” أهمية مشاركة اللاعبين الإقليميين بمن فيهم إيران ودول الخليج إضافة إلى الإمكانات الداخلية العراقية في مواجهة ظاهرة الإرهاب في العراق وإعادة الأمن والاستقرار إليه .

15- 12/8/2014 الرئيس نبيه بري يرجئ جلسة مجلس النواب الى الثلاثاء في 2 ايلول المقبل لانتخاب رئيس جديد للجمهورية .

* الإستنتاجات :

1- بعد حرب غزة الأخيرة ، ووصول أمريكا وحلفائها إلى قناعة ، بإستحالة تحقيق نصر حاسم على المقاومة الفلسطينية ؛ إلا بإرتكاب مجازر مهولة ، يذهب ضحيتها عشرات الآلاف الناس ، وتدمير كبير في كيان العدو ، وإرتفاع مخاطر تدحرج الحرب إلى مستوى الإقليم ، وإهتزاز صورة بعض العروش … رضخت أمريكا وحلفائها لمبدأ الإقرار بالهزيمة الإستراتيجية ، وقبلت ببعض المكاسب المرحلية ؛ بل والدعائية أحياناً .

2- صار واضحاً بأن هناك حلف إقليمي – دولي يتشكل من أجل محاربة “داعش” ، وسشكل هذا الحلف ، المدخل لحفظ ماء وجه أمريكا وحلفائها ، وإعادة فتح الأبواب المغلقة مع محور المقاومة بعد الفشل في إسقاط درة التاج فيه ، سورية .

3- ستلعب مصر دور مهم في حفظ أمن دول الخليج ، ولن يكون هذا “الإنتشار المصري العسكري” في دول مجلس التعاون دون موافقة روسيا ، وبقية حلف المقاومة . ولا تغيير يذكر على “الحصة” الأمريكية في نفط جزيرة العرب .

4- تركيبة السلطة السياسية في لبنان باتت جاهزة تقريباً ، ولن يقبل حلف المقاومة بأقل من ميشيل عون رئيساً للجمهورية .

5- إنفراجات كبرى على المستوى الميداني والعسكري في سورية ، وتحسن ملحوظ في مستوى الخدمات ونوعها ، وتقدم مهم على الصعيد المعاشي في .

6- لا تقسيم ولا تفتيت للعراق ، وبرزاني سيدفع ثمن مغامرته آجلاً أو عاجلاً .

7- لا ضمانات لمستقبل الكيان الصهيوني ، وفشل أي محاولة لإطلاق مشروع التسوية من جديد .

8- سورية ، وحلف المقاومة في مرتبة المنتصر ، وإنطلاق ورشات إعادة إعمار كبرى في سورية وغزة .

* ربما يقول أحدهم بأن هذه أماني ، وليست إستنتاجات . ولكن ما هو البديل لأعداء سورية ، وحلف المقاومة ؟ أي خيارات بقيت لديهم ؟

1- الجيش العربي السوري ، ذراع تطل على طرق دمشق – حلب ، وذراع تمتد نحو المنطقة الشرقية ، وغوطة دمشق قاب قوسين أو أدنى بعد السيطرة على المليحة .

2- المقاومة الفلسطينية ، صامدة ، ولن ترضى بأقل من رفع الحصار ، والميناء ، وحرية الصيد ، وإعادة الإعمار … .

3- الجماعات الإرهابية على الحدود اللبنانية السورية في وضع حرج وتنتظر الراعي الإقليمي – التركي والقطري – لإنقاذها ، أو الإنزلاق إلى الفوضى العارمة في لبنان ، والتي قد يكون أحد مخارجها حرب إقليمية تنهي وجود الكيان الصهيوني مهما غلت الأثمان .

4- المخاوف من إنتشار “داعش” والجماعات الإرهابية الأخرى في دول الإقليم ، بعد تعرضها لضربات قوية في سورية والعراق ، يوجب على دول الإقليم ، ورعاتهم الدوليين ، الإنفتاح على محور المقاومة والتنسيق معه لإنشاء منطقة “إبادة” لهذه الجماعات دون تمددها خارج حدودها .

5- إنتصار سورية وحلف المقاومة في هذه الحرب دون تفاهمات إقليمية ودولية ، قد يكون له تداعيات كبرى وخطيرة جداً على كل الدول التي شاركت في هذه الحرب ، إقليمياً ودوليّاً . لنتخيل ، سورية تنتصر ، وكذلك غزة ، والعراق ، ولبنان … من يستطيع منع هؤلاء من سحق الكيان الصهيوني مثلاً في حرب تلي هذه الحرب مباشرة ، وقبل أن “تبرد” سواعد الرجال ؟! .


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


By: Ziad Abu Fadel, Esq.

An English expression comes to mind immediately when I think of Obama’s, NATO’s, Saudia Arabia’s, Turkey’s and Qatar’s astounding defeat at the hands of the people of Syria: “Try to get in through the back door what you couldn’t through the front”.  There can be no question that the Shi’i Crescent is obsessing the Neo-Con traitors in Washington D.C.  It is also giving Europeans a bad case of dyspepsia that won’t just go away with anti-biotics, emetics or indigestion medication.   In the latter case and in the case of Qatar/Turkey, it’s the natural gas that promises to be the idee fixe for the next 25 years as Russia finds new markets in China whilst the Levantine entrepreneurs begin to flex muscle that will embolden Iran and marginalize the Zionist Settler State.  In a sense, the West is reacting to a prophecy about its imminent decline – a decline that promises to be very painful – a massive shock to the system.

The war that must go on:   Iraq stands right in between everything.  The Syrian episode is evolving into a major military and foreign policy catastrophe for Obama; almost as humiliating as G.W. Bush’s titanic blunder in Saddam’s Iraq that cost over a trillion dollars and took the lives of 4,500-plus innocent American GIs – leave aside the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis he mercilessly slaughtered with the indifference of a Greek god.   The only distinction of any major kind between the hapless rube, Bush, and the Chicago gutter rat and swindler, Obama, is that the latter has had the good sense not to blurt out: “Mission Accomplished” in Syria.

It is undeniable that the Zionist machinery that controls the foreign policies of the U.S., France, Germany and the U.K. is revving up to confront the man in the street.  This is a battle to the death and no amount of common sense or rational behavior is going to affect the decision to ramp up the mayhem even more in order to accomplish the following 2 goals crucial to the durability of the European Jew Settler State in Occupied Palestine:

1.  The dissipation of Iranian influence.  Iran terrifies the Zionist brain.  Iran is developing a technological foundation that will compete with Zionism’s own.  It is part and parcel of the Jewish mind to make itself useful for the oppressive majorities among whom Jews have to live.  Once their usefulness comes into question, Jews automatically fear the worst: a Pogrom, Inquest, Inquisition, Genocide.  It is imperative for Jews to be viewed by the powers that be as crucial to the health and welfare of the state.

There is a belief that Jews are smart.  Some wags have gone so far as to suggest that Jewish people are from another planet (even though they do not perform better than Japanese on intelligence examinations).   Jews themselves foster this notion by reveling in a self-fulfilling prophecy adorned with the title of a “Chosen People” of God.  But, for many centuries, Jews in Europe had to suffer the stain of Caiaphas’s treachery – his insistence on crucifying the Son of God – an insistence that would engulf Jewry in an ongoing battle with non-existence itself.  In the Muslim World, that made no difference because Muslims don’t believe Christ was crucified.   But in Christian Europe, where Jews had to make the King look with favor upon them, there was always a tenuous truce between Jews and the Christian hoi polloi who were indebted to them looking for a way to escape the obligations.  They had to be the best musicians to entertain those who counted.  They had to be the best physicians to prolong the lives of their putative oppressors.  They had to excel in mathematics to wow the intellectuals who would steal their ideas for personal fame, in exchange for which they would receive a probationary stay of execution.  It is through this process of threat that Jews became smart and developed a mechanism to continue their lives by indoctrinating generations in the methodology of survival.  It is seen today in their fear of a resurgent Iran.  You can even see it in their fear of a vibrant, economically successful Palestinian state.  It is ultimately, of course, a form of paranoia.

The Zionist movement tried its hand at pushing the U.S. to strike Iran militarily with the argument that Tehran was building a nuclear weapon.  On three occasions, their efforts failed.  One might therefore ask Ziad: If the Zionists control U.S. foreign policy, why did they fail?  As I said, they control foreign policy………not military policy.   When Obama was being pushed by America’s resident nut and war-monger, John McCain, to attack Syria on the now debunked red herring that Dr. Assad used Sarin gas, it was the Pentagon which said “Nyet” – it wasn’t Kerry.  American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, testified openly that Syria posed no threat to the U.S. and told senators in private session that the Russians would go to war over this corner of their empire.  He told Obama that the U.S. would lose bombers to Syria’s robust air defense systems.  The Pentagon drew the line where Zionist influence stopped.  Both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, Obama could not get any support for a strike against Syria.

The first Zionist target was Damascus.  It was where weapons flowed into South Lebanon to Hizbollah – Iran’s mighty surrogate force that beat the stuffing out of Zionism’s army in 2006.  If Syria could be destroyed quickly, Hizbollah would become subject to the whims of the Zionist military machine financed by the Saudi Arabian and Qatari Wahhabist monkeys.  As we wrote before, ad nauseam, the machinery for this process was in place by 2007 with American ambassador Robert Ford holding the strings.  It would be quick and decisive.  Over in a matter of months.  The Americans reckoned on the Lebanese model – a sectarian army breaking up.  But they didn’t reckon with the Ba’ath Party.  The plan bombed.

What to do?

2.  Control over natural gas reservoirs and pipelines: There are reportedly huge reservoirs of natural gas off the coasts of Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus.  The Turks want access to these very badly.  The Europeans, like the French, think in old colonialist ways: control Syria and Lebanon and stick a thumb into the eye of Putin and his arrogant Gazprom monopoly.  The Zionist State will be in the pocket anyways since the Europeans will look askance at Zionist exploitation of natural gas reservoirs off the coast of Gaza and all to the benefit of Europe.  The Palestinians don’t have a chance.

But, Syria didn’t fall.  It is now more powerful militarily than before.  Iran and Russia have committed to Assad’s longevity, a fact more perfervidly seconded by Syria’s massive turnout for the July elections that catapulted Dr. Assad to a third term with more than 80% of the votes.  Hizbollah demonstrated its alliance with Syria’s government by helping in some battles, mainly at Al-Qusayr and Tal Kalakh.  There seems to be no way to break the Fatimid Crescent extending from Iran all the way to Ra`s Al-Naaqoora, Lebanon.  But the Neo-Cons think otherwise.  As I wrote before, Neo-Cons have ditched the idea of a Fatimid Crescent and now think of the structure as a necklace or rosary with separate beads.  One defect on the Iraqi bead is Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki.  For the American foreign policy makers and their Zionist puppeteers, he must go in order for the plan to work.


A New Glasperlenspiel


Nusra is a flop.  Jaysh Al-Islam is folding.  Jabhat Al-Islam is starving.  Free Syrian Army is a running gag in Damascus.  Take all the fanciful monikers for all the franchised terrorist groups, put them all together into one pot, and you get the following dish: stuffed squash without the stuffing.  It was a game invented for the moment, became a fad, and then evanesced into the old route for all silly board games, straight to the attic, under some old blankets or a question for some trivia game.

But, how to get rid of Al-Maliki?  What is it about him that makes Americans, Turks, Saudis and Zionists want to remove him?  The answer is nothing more than: he exists.  The U.S. needs to both recover from the Rabelaisian disaster of Iraq and the dismal record of war crimes and failures in Syria.  In order to do all this, the game has to change.  The Iraqis must be convinced that their savior is not Iran, or Al-Maliki’s peculiar policies, but, the United States.  The decision by Iraq not to permit large U.S. military bases in Iraq; their decision to buy Sukhoi jets from Russia; their downgrading diplomatic relations to the point where the overblown U.S. embassy in Baghdad now seems like a W.R. Hearst fantasy; Al-Maliki’s tight relations with the Syrian government, all, together, combined to create a situation, if you like, that opened doors to a new plan in Wonderland.  This plan is much more complicated than the one to oust Dr. Assad.  Like Das Glasperlenspiel, it is a plan or a game that only a few seem to understand.


Dr. Bashar Al-Assad told the NATO countries and the Saudi/Qatari Wahhabist troglodytes that fooling around with Syria was to dilly-dally with forces existing on the edge of regional tectonic plates.  He was dead on right.  He predicted the metastatic spread of terrorism into other Arab countries in the shadow of the infelicitously named “Arab Spring”.  But, as we wrote before, the plan was not about terrorism;  it was about the Fatimid Crescent and the natural resources.  It made no difference that hundreds of thousands would have to die so a clown, like Guido Westerwelle, could rub noses with the arch-sociopaths in England and the U.S.  The need to destroy Syria and, thus, to break the Crescent and Hizbollah (failed); and to commandeer the natural gas in the Mediterranean (pending) was the treasured heroin fix waiting at the end of their dark tunnel.

That it didn’t work in Syria is clear.  So, what’s the next bead? ask the rabid dogs of the Neo-Con cabal in D.C.  “Iraq!”, answers the wily white rabbit, another Neo-Con.  As you read more into this article, remember that John Kerry, the  bi-polar/schizophrenic bumbling U.S. Secretary of State, is trying his best to get Mr. Al-Maliki to quit his post.  Remember too that Hillary Clinton, who eyes the presidency like a bitch studying her master’s clutch on a succulent, but disposable chine bone, has already intimated, in her book, that Obama’s weak policies made the atmosphere appropriate for the proliferation of “Islamist” groups.  Interesting how she didn’t mention the fact that American allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the Zionist Settler State all played active roles in creating these forces.

ISIS did not come out of the Void.  It’s collaboration with Saddamist Ba’athist Forces did not emerge because of ideological similarities.  To be sure, Saddam’s Ba’ath was built on minority Sunnis controlling a majority Shi’a population. But Saddam’s Ba’ath was completely anti-Islamist.  As we wrote accurately before, the ISIS assault on Mosul and subsequent seizure of arms and ammunition from the Iraqi army was accomplished by Saddamist Ba’athist officer-moles inside the military divisions around and inside the city who ordered troops to stand down and permit the invasion to succeed.  It was the collusion between Abu Bakr Al-Baghdaadi and former RCC member, ‘Izzaat Ibraaheem Al-Doori, which sealed the fate of the city and propelled Al-Doori to the temporary position of chief commanding officer of ISIS.  (That position is no longer available to him based on Intel we have at SyrPer).

In one authoritative article from Iraq, this writer read that an investigation of the causes of the Iraqi army failures were former Ba’athist officers ordering their troops to change uniforms and don civilian attire to avoid extermination.


Uncle Sam not only wants you, Iraq, he needs you desperately.  Here’s what he needs to do to get you on board:

1. Make the Al-Maliki government seem frail, ineffective and flaccid;

2. Have the ISIS killers run amok killing minorities and Shi’a and staking claims to territory effectively pushing out any semblance of government;

3. Make Iran appear distant as it continues to rail in the media about “takfiris” while doing nothing to help.  You see Obama’s spooks are aware that direct Iranian interference will agitate an already stressful sectarian crisis;

4. Strike at ISIS even if it is a creation of the United States and a factotum for Erdoghan’s psychopathic regime;

5. Continue to strengthen ISIS, even as it is pushed out of Iraq, and forced to move into Syria to create greater instability for Dr. Assad.

And here is what Uncle Sam’s bottom line is:

1.  Force a new Iraqi government to reevaluate its posture as it relates to the American military presence;

2.  Force any new Iraqi P.M. to agree to U.S. anti-aircraft missile batteries on Iraqi soil;

3.  Force any new Iraqi P.M. to permit the U.S. to fire on Iranian supply aircraft heading to Syria;

4.  Force the Iraqi P.M. to cease any assistance to the Syrian government.

Sounds pretty wicked, doesn’t it?

As I write, the Iraqi Shi’i coalition has nominated a person to replace Mr. Al-Maliki despite the fundamentally anti-constitutional quality of the American-induced process.  Mr. Al-Maliki is very adamant about his rights and will not give up without a fight.  Iraq will have another governmental crisis.

In the meantime, note that the U.S. has a consulate in Irbeel, the capital of any future Kurdish state.  The U.S. has evacuated the consulate on the grounds that the ISIS organization is too close for comfort with the Kurds supposedly unable to guarantee their safety.  The fact that the U.S. would never permit ISIS to attack the U.S. consulate is irrelevant if you want to have the appearance of being opposed to ISIS. The Turks set up their own hostage scenario when ISIS attacked the Turkish consulate in Mosul.  All their diplomats are secretly back in Turkey enjoying the sunshine.

But, is the U.S. really opposed to ISIS?  The U.S. government has said nothing about ISIS in Syria, it’s persecution of Christians, Shi’is and tribes in the east.  Is there something we’re missing?  No. No. You see, the plan is to continue the war against Syria, but, now, from Iraq. It’s the back door we just mentioned in the first sentence of this article.  Now it should all begin to make sense. 

As this situation evolves, watch carefully the narratives in the mainstream western media.  Look for this:

1. The Kurdish peshmergha is no match for ISIS

2. The American-trained Iraqi army is no match for anything

3. The rise of radical Shi’i militias spells doom for democracy in Iraq

4.  The rise of radical Shi’ism plays into the hands of Iran’s clergy


Bandar bin Sultan, cannot be fired.  He is the nephew of Simian Number One, King Abdullah.  He is also the only one who knows the malicious business of Terrorama – after all – he has been its principal architect since 2002, at least.  He is also Saudi Arabia’s most virulent Persian-hater for reasons that must have to do with his jealousy of the Persian intellect.  When he was relieved of his duties as Chief of Saudi General Intelligence (the world’s most blatant oxymoron), he disappeared first in the United States and then reappeared in Morocco where he rested at his own home near Marrakesh.  Robert Ford, before his resignation, castigated the NACOSROF buffoons in Istanbul when they talked of Bandar and the need for more loot, telling them that Bandar was no longer around and that they would have to come together to meet the challenges of being an irrelevant, useless and parasitic group of exiled felons, malcontents and hotel rats.  Everybody thought it was over for Bandar.

During 2013, ISIS expanded operations from Iraq, where it was known as ISI, to Syria where it renamed itself ISIS.  That was fine with the Saudis until ISIS began to massacre their’s and Erdoghan’s favorite butchers in Jabhat Al-Nusra.  The Saudis watched in horror, and so did Erdoghan, as ISIS began to do the Syrian Army’s job of eliminating the bad guys.  Even some naive Syrians thought that Dr. Assad must have invented ISIS because it was so zealous in pursuing all those Saudi-funded and Turk-enabled “patriots”.  Dr. Assad must have had a raucous time celebrating ISIS’s constant harrying and decapitating of the Nusra group, all to the plangent litanies of Ayman Al-Zawaahiri’s calls for forbearance, unity and resort to the “Shari’ah” arbitration process.  The laughter continued in Damascus.

A typical response from Bashar Al-Assad whenever ISIS is mentioned.

The Saudi hierarchy was unable to either understand or control the new anarchy unleashed by their Nabob of Nihilism.  Bandar was the only ass in the entire pace of asses ruling the kingdom who could communicate with the illustrious new Caliph Ibraaheem, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdaadi,  and control his actions because Bandar was tight with the CIA.  Unfortunately, the Saudis misread the whole situation.  For it wasn’t Bandar who invented ISIS – it was the United States with Zionist and Turkish help.  The Saudis were out of the loop, and they didn’t even know it.   


He doesn’t look like Laurence Harvey, but, at least he has an Iraqi accent – unlike Mr. Harvey, a transplanted Lithuanian with a strong Londoners West Country lilt playing an American.  Laurence Harvey’s real name was Laruschka Mischa Skikne.  Mr. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdaadi’s supposed real name is Ibraaheem bin ‘Awwaad bin Ibraaheem bin ‘Ali bin Muhammad Al-Badri AlSaamirraa`iy. Given the opportunity to lounge around in the custody of the CIA, and then get gently transferred to Occupied Palestine to Mossad HQ which, under the supervision of CIA operatives, performed some tests on him, he became the Sunni/Shi’i nightmare: a Sunni working for the Mossad against the Shi’a for the sake of the Zionist Entity.  But what you don’t know is that the U.S. never released this ape to the Mossad.  It simply relocated him to a friendly country in order to get his mind straight.  All readers are invited to take note of Al-Baghdaadi’s recent statements about the Palestinian/Zionist conflict.  He never criticizes Zionism and doesn’t call for war against it.  He doesn’t support the Palestinians.



The U.S. denies holding Al-Baghdaadi for 4 years.  Instead, the story is that he was “detained” from February to December 2004.  Investigators have uncovered the fact that he was in custody for 4 years (2005-2009) at Camp Bucca in Southern Iraq.  But, there is no record of that with the Pentagon.  Instead, the Pentagon claims he was released in December 2004 after it was determined he was not a threat to the U.S.

Query: Where was he during 2005-2009?  Nobody knows. He was not in Afghanistan as some suggested because no mention of him is found anywhere while his alleged ideological soul-mate, Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqaawi is mentioned frequently in Salafist and Takfeeri posts on the internet.  Nobody has ever come forth with an explanation why he simply disappeared from the map.  It was like the 11 years of Christ’s life for which we can’t account.

The Syrian Military Intelligence people have a different version of the events:  Al-Baghdaadi was arrested in February 2004 for activities deemed suspicious by the U.S. military authorities.  When he was tested by psychiatric personnel from the CIA because of his “radical Islamist beliefs” as part of a study on the subject, a doctor found that Al-Baghdaadi had certain traits which made him an ideal candidate for “mind manipulation”.  He was extremely easy to hypnotize, for example, and tended to bond with any person who showed him respect.  He proved to have a keen interest in how Christians thought about Islam.  He also did not exhibit any aversion to Jews.

Al-Baghdaadi was released to the CIA in December of 2004.  He was told he would be moved to the United States for further investigation.  He was injected with drugs and flown to Tel Aviv where he found himself in a hospital staffed by Americans or people who spoke English.  He was subjected for 3 years to massive indoctrination and, it is reported, to sub-cranial procedures which are not known to this author.  When he was released in 2009, he found himself in Iraq and Turkey with a mission to establish a parallel Al-Qaeda organization that would bring about the mess you are seeing today in order to reestablish the U.S. and its allies in Iraq.  The set-up came to fruition when the U.S. killed his superior, Abu ‘Umar Al-Baghdaadi on April 18, 2010 so that Al-Baghdaadi could ascend to the leadership.  From then on,  wearing a Rolex watch given to him by a Zionist psy-ops specialist, he began the process of establishing a new movement whose purpose was to remove the pro-Iranian Shi’a government and establish a buffer between Iran and Syria.  The minimal fall-back plan was to control large swaths of Iraqi territory in order to allow American anti-aircraft missiles to be deployed to prevent Iranian supply planes from traveling to Syria.

The plan has not worked well.

It started out nicely.  Al-Baghdaadi did what he was supposed to do in the beginning; he cooperated with Bandar and Robert Ford in setting up a large Al-Qaeda organization in Syria called the Jabhat Al-Nusra.  It is said that Ford picked the name for Jabhat Al-Nusra because it was intended to only “support” the fledgling Syrian terrorist movement that simply did not have the wherewithal or numbers to defeat the Syrian military.  But, then, he went wild.  Although he was indoctrinated by the CIA and Mossad to limit Al-Qaeda’s influence, he took a much more hostile position as he broke with Ayman Al-Zawaahiri and Nusra (which he created) and began to exterminate its members all over Syria.  That some Syrians believe he worked for Dr. Assad is a product of this 180 degree turn-around.

It may be that the U.S. has now achieved mostly what it wants in Iraq.  If the Americans can engineer Al-Maliki’s fall and replace him with a more malleable leader, the plan will be to kill Al-Baghdaadi to prove that he was never America’s man to begin with and to be rid of a rogue agent whose programming has deteriorated.  It was never the intent of the United States to create a new Caliph………Or was it?  Ziad Amin Abu Fadel, Esq.
Read more 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Profile: New Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi

A hand out photograph made available by the offices of Iraqi President on August 11, 2014, shows newly elected Iraqi parliament speaker Salim al-Juburi (L) watching as Iraqi President Fuad Masum (2nd L) shakes hands with deputy parliamentary speaker Haidar al-Abadi (R) after he was tasked with forming a government during a brief ceremony broadcast on state television. (Photo: AFP-Iraqi presidential office)
Published Tuesday, August 12, 2014
The name of Haider al-Abadi was not widely circulated in Iraqi media; the man liked to keep to himself and to stay out of the spotlight. People who know him, however, describe him as a “modest” and “practical” man, not a narcissist.
After long weeks of debates, dialogues, political battles and fiery statements, Haider al-Abadi, depicted as the nominee of “political compromises,” was chosen as new prime minister of Iraq, although his name was only recently suggested in the hallways of the house of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the head of the National Coalition political bloc.
Deputy speaker of the house, and member of the State of Law parliamentary bloc, Abadi was nominated after the State of Law Coalition insisted that the nomination process reflect the fact that it won the April 30 legislative elections.
In his first statement, Abadi called on Iraqis to “unite against the barbaric campaign waged by the (Islamic State) militants.”

“Unite against the barbaric campaign waged by the (Islamic State) militants.” – Haidar al-Abadi

In a Facebook post, a few hours before his nomination, Abadi said “the security situation in Baghdad is very stable. Armed sectors are moving around to provide additional protection to the capital since the nomination of a new prime minister is approaching.”
“The deadline for appointing a new prime minister was extended to 3 pm on Monday, and the National Coalition is about to choose an acceptable nominee,” he added.
Born and raised in Baghdad’s eastern Karada district in 1952, Abadi studied electrical engineering at the University of Technology in the Iraqi capital, and earned a bachelor’s degree in 1975. In 1980 he completed a doctorate in electronic and electric engineering at the University of Manchester in the UK.
Abadi was a prominent member of the opposition against the Baath regime outside Iraq. He participated in the opposition’s activities and took part in the opposition’s national conferences that were attended by the Islamic Dawa party.
In 1983 his passport was revoked following an order by the regime’s intelligence leadership accusing him of participating in anti-regime activities, as revealed in documents that were later discovered.
He was spokesman for the Islamic Dawa party in Britain and other countries, and addressed international media to denounce the Baath regime while defending the Iraqi people and rejecting the siege.
Abadi is an old comrade of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the Islamic Dawa party, currently headed by Maliki himself. In 2003 he surfaced among the party’s most prominent leaders.
Abadi is tipped as a moderate, maintaining good relations with all political parties in Iraq, especially the leaders of the Higher Islamic Council, headed by Ammar al-Hakim and the Sadrist Movement, led by Muqtada al-Sadr. The latter contacted him straight after his nomination and invited him to “coordinate” together.
Regarding dialogue and mutual understanding, Abadi is seen as a suitable figure by the National Coalition, due to his positive relations with all parties.
However, for political parties outside the coalition, and especially Kurdish parties, his intentions and the way he deals with thorny issues are being “tested,” particularly as he is politically affiliated to the State of Law Coalition which includes forces insistent that Maliki reassume power for a third term.
Meanwhile, the nomination of Abadi is set to pave the way to repair the relations of the State of Law Coalition with political parties inside and outside the National Coalition, which were shaken by the disputes over Maliki’s third term.
Although appointing Abadi as prime minister is depicted as a moral victory for parties who opposed a third term for Maliki, the prime minister’s position is in fact still held by the State of Law, which believes that it has earned this right constitutionally after winning the elections.
Furthermore, politicians who knew Abadi describe him as a Dawa Party fanatic who shares Maliki’s positions on many of the country’s political problems. For them, Abadi’s nomination came only as a response to the many calls for change, especially those launched by leading religious figures who called on politicians not to cling onto their posts.
Concerning foreign policy, an Iraqi politician who preferred to remain anonymous explained that even though Iran favors Maliki as prime minister under the current security and political circumstances, it has not objected to the nomination of Abadi, whose statements are interpreted as being close to Tehran’s positions on Iraq. He has also consistently called for closer ties between both countries.
Sources close to Abadi say that he hates “stardom,” but knows how to engage in long and elaborate political discussions. They admitted that he lacks Maliki’s firmness, but explained that he will seek a policy of consensus.
While some in Iraq believe that the country hit by disputes and instability needs a prime minister of Abadi’s nature, others warn that this will make him a weak prime minister who would yield to the wishes of political forces, threatening to slow down the pace of the fight against terrorism.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Iran Backs Legal Process to Elect New Iraqi PM: Official

Local Editor

Iran said on Tuesday it backs the legal process to elect a new Iraqi premier, a day after the nomination of Haidar al-Abadi for the post.

Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani made the remarks, noting that the new Iraqi prime minister should be named by the majority fraction at the parliament as envisaged in the constitution.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran supports the legal procedure paved for choosing the new Iraqi prime minister,” Shamkhani said, addressing the annual forum of the Iranian ambassadors to different world states in Tehran on Tuesday.


“The legal frameworks envisaged in Iraq’s Constitution, which is the country’s national convention, present the basis for the election of the prime minister by the majority fraction at Iraq’s national assembly,” he added, according to Fars news agency.

The Iranian official also called on all Iraqi groups and coalitions to keep united and respect the frameworks of national unity to protect the country’s national interests and the rule of the law, and demanded them to show much care and attention to the sensitive situation in Iraq which is faced with foreign threats.

Earlier on Monday, Iraq’s President Fuad Masum has asked al-Abadi to form a new government.

Abadi has been nominated as prime minister, while Shiite parties, including the State of the Law which has the majority fraction at the parliament, have named incumbent Nouri Maliki as their choice for premiership.

According to Iraq’s constitution, the majority fraction at the parliament should name the prime minister. Also according to the constitution, the country’s president should be a Kurd, while the parliament speaker should be chosen from the Sunnis and the Prime Minister should be appointed from the Shiites.

Maliki has made it clear he wants to stand for a third term, and earlier said he intends to take the president to court.

Source: Agencies

12-08-2014 – 15:12 Last updated 12-08-2014 – 15:12


US Military Boasts: Pathetic Airstrikes ‘Won’t Stop Our ISIS’


Islamist militants in Iraq will continue to seize territory and attack security forces despite airstrikes, the US warns.

Islamic militants fighting in northern Iraq are unlikely to be stopped by targeted airstrikes, a US general has warned.

Joint staff operations director Lieutenant General William Mayville told a news conference that 15 airstrikes on Islamic State (IS) positions were focused initially on protecting US facilities and citizens, as well as aiding the humanitarian mission.

He said: “These airstrikes have helped check the advance of missile forces around Mount Sinjar and in the area west of Irbil.

F/A-18F Super Hornet flying from the USS Geroge H. W. Bush
US airstrikes have taken place from the USS George H. W. Bush

“US airstrikes are also providing the Kurdish security forces with time to fortify their defensive positions with the supplies they are receiving from the central government of Baghdad.

“We assess that US airstrikes in northern Iraq have slowed IS operational tempo and temporarily disrupted their advances toward the province of Irbil.

The rough outline of ISIS's "caliphate".
Islamic State wants to set up a Caliphate across Iraq and Syria
File photo of Haider Abadi at a news conference in Baghdad

Mr al Abadi has been asked to form a government

“However, these strikes are unlikely to affect IS’s overall capabilities or its operations in other areas of Iraq and Syria.

“IS remains focused on securing and gaining additional territory through Iraq and will sustain its attacks against Iraqi and Kurdish security forces and their positions as well as targeting Yazidis, Christians and other minorities.”

It comes after Iraq’s new prime minister called on the country to unite against the “barbaric” Islamist insurgency.

The National Alliance chose Haider al Abadi as the man to unite the country after Nouri al Maliki was criticised for deepening sectarian divisions and steering the country towards all-out civil war.

Speaking on state television, the new PM said: “We all have to co-operate to stand against this terrorist campaign launched on Iraq and to stop all terrorist groups.”

But Mr al Maliki – ousted after eight years as PM – has indicated he will not just stand aside, with a member of his political block warning “we will not stay silent” over the nomination of his rival.

Tech. Sgt. Lynn Morelly, 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron, C-17 Globemaster III loadmaster, watches bundles of halal meals parachute to the ground during a humanitarian airdrop mission over Iraq
US soldiers watch as halal meals are parachuted to the ground in Iraq

US President Barack Obama urged Mr al Abadi to form a new government as quickly as possible and said the only lasting solution for Iraq involved an inclusive government.


US Central Command video footage shows Yazidis approaching bundles after the U.S. military airdrop of food and water for thousands of Iraqi citizens threatened by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) near Sinjar Iraq
Yazidi refugees approach the food bundles on the ground

Islamist extremists have been forced out of Makhmour and al Gweir by Kurdish forces, while thousands of Yazidis stranded on Mount Sinjar after fleeing the militants have been streaming into Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region.

Kurdish forces have been bolstered further after the State Department confirmed the Obama administration has begun directly providing them with weapons to defend themselves against attacks by Islamic State, previously known as ISIS.

Displaced people from the minority Yazidi sect, fleeing the violence in the Iraqi town of Sinjar, re-enter Iraq from Syria at the Iraqi-Syrian border crossing in Fishkhabour, Dohuk Province
Refugees flee the extremists carving a bloody path through northern Iraq

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has chaired a meeting of the Government’s Cobra emergency committee, after a No 10 source told Sky News there were no plans to recall Parliament to discuss the crisis despite mounting pressure.

A Number 10 spokeswoman later confirmed after the meeting that “a small number” of RAF Tornado fast jets would be “pre-positioned” in the area in case their surveillance capabilities are needed to help organise humanitarian efforts.

Mr Hammond welcomed Mr al Abadi’s nomination and added it was “now vital that a new and fully inclusive government be formed quickly in order to respond to the crisis in Iraq”.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

More blatant lies from the USA, Denies Role in Plot to Oust Maliki

US officials are rejecting allegations that the United States is playing a direct role in a plot to oust Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, though they continue to reiterate their support for PM-designate Hayder Abadi, and their desire to see Maliki go.

Maliki has rejected calls to step down, and insists that the Iraqi National Alliance (INA) had no authority in appointing Abadi as the designate over him. He has insisted the move is a “coup plot” against his continued rule.

The US has loudly been insisting that Maliki must go for weeks, and responded to Maliki’s condemnation of President Masum yesterday with a statement praising him and reiterating their opposition to Maliki.

The notion that the US isn’t playing a role in Maliki’s ouster is absurd, and underscoring that Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement today pledging support for Masum and warning Maliki “not to cause trouble” with his impending replacement.

The State Department’s statement today conceded that Maliki is still “legally” the prime minister, but also saying they want Abadi to replace him as soon as possible.

Maliki has deployed troops loyal to him across the capital, threatening to militarily ensure his continued rule. The State Department insisted they wouldn’t consider the move a coup if it took place, because Maliki’s premiership is legal.



Iraq largest bloc names alternative to Maliki as PM candidate


Updated at 4:45 (GMT +3) Iraq’s National Alliance parliamentary bloc has chosen Haidar al-Abadi as its nominee for prime minister in place of incumbent Maliki, sources in parliament told AFP Monday.

“The National Alliance has named Haidar al-Abadi as its candidate for prime minister,” a lawmaker said. Several other sources in parliament confirmed the decision.

The man who could become Iraq’s next prime minister is the current first deputy speaker of parliament. He was born in Baghdad in 1952 and holds a PhD from the University of Manchester.

Iraq’s president then formally asked Haider al-Abadi, the coalition’s nominee for prime minister, to form a government, a spokesman said.

A senior US diplomat with responsibility for Iraq congratulated Haidar al-Abadi on being tasked by President Fuad Masum to form a new government as prime minister.

“The United States stands ready to fully support a new and inclusive Iraqi government,” added Brett McGurk, who is US deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

Maliki has threatened to take Masum to court for failing to nominate him to continue as prime minister. McGurk made it clear that Washington supports a change.

“We welcome the decision by Iraq’s President to charge the PM nominee of the largest parliamentary bloc to form a new cabinet,” McGurk said, in a tweet.

“We congratulate Dr Haidar al-Abadi on the nomination and urge him to form a new cabinet and national program as swiftly as possible.”

There has been a long-standing dispute as to which of Maliki’s own State of Law coalition and the broader National Alliance could constitutionally be considered the largest bloc.

Unity government

US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday the formation of an Iraqi government was critical for stability.

US President Barack Obama has urged Iraqi political leaders to bury their sectarian differences and form a more inclusive government that can unite Iraqis against ISIS militants.

The United States has carried out three consecutive days of air strikes over Iraq, stepping up assistance to Kurdish forces to counter the advance of Islamic militants in the north of the country.

Amid the violence, political pressure is mounting as special forces loyal to Maliki deployed in strategic areas of Baghdad on Sunday night after he delivered a tough speech indicating he would not cave in to pressure to drop a bid for a third term.

“The government formation process is critical in terms of sustaining stability and calm in Iraq, and our hope is that Mr Maliki will not stir those waters,” Kerry told reporters in Sydney ahead of annual Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).

“One thing all Iraqis need to know, that there will be little international support of any kind whatsoever for anything that deviates from the legitimate constitution process that is in place and being worked on now.”

At a separate briefing in Sydney, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the air strikes “have been very effective from all of the reports we’ve received on the ground.”

“We’re constantly assessing where we can continue to assist the Iraqi security forces and where as we build partnerships  we will work with the Iraqi government,” Hagel said.

Kerry said it was up to Iraqis to decide who their prime minister was going to be, but added it was clear civilians were looking for change.

Maliki, who has been premier since 2006, has alienated some allies, including the United States, who blame him for failing to forge consensus and fuelling sectarian violence that is breaking Iraq apart.

A bloc comprising Iraq’s bigges parties is close to nominating a prime minister, the deputy speaker of parliament Haider al-Abadi said in a tweet on Monday, directly challenging Maliki.

“What we urge the people of Iraq to do is to be calm, there should be no use of force, no introduction of troops or militias in this moment of democracy for Iraq,” Kerry said.

The Yazidi refugees

Australia, along with France and Britain, has offered assistance to provide aid to thousands of Iraqi citizens trapped by Islamic militants in the northern Sinjar mountains. US officials said on Sunday they were exploring options to evacuate the group, made up of the Yazidi minority, following airdrops of food and water.

“We are coordinating a group of partners to assist in this effort,” Hagel told reporters, noting that Obama had spoken with French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had both offered assistance.

“This is a humanitarian issue of great consequence for all of the world and I think great powers understand they have responsibility in these areas,” Hagel said. “It’s well underway, those last details of planning and we’ll have more to announce.”

Asked whether the United States was prepared to allow the self-styled ISIS to remain in places it has already occupied or make an effort to push them out, Hagel said:

“President Obama has made it very clear, ISIS is a threat to the civilised world, certainly to the United States, to our interests, it is to Europe, it is to Australia,” Hagel said.

“As to how the United States is responding to that threat in Iraq, the president has also made it clear, we’re going to continue to support the Iraqi forces in every way we can.”

(AFP, Reuters)


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Debacle of a “Great Game”: The Islamic State (IS) and America’s War on Iraq and Syria

Global Research, August 10, 2014
ISIS controlled regions of Syria and Iraq
Introductory Note
This essay puts the present focus on the crisis in Iraq caused by the ISIS insurgency in the context of the historical and contemporary forces that have shaped and are still shaping the conflict in Iraq and the MENA (Middle East and North Africa).
It falls in line with a policy overseen by the United States which is predicated on the re-drawing of the Middle Eastern map i.e. balkanization and of ‘managing’ a series of manufactured conflicts which are ultimately designed to protect America’s access to the natural resources of the region.
This overarching policy accommodates a confluence of interests that cater to the hegemonic aspirations of the state of Israel, Saudi Arabia & the Sunni Gulf States and Turkey. It pits the United States and these allies against the Shia Crescent led by Iran whose allies are Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Two key points contended here are:
1.The present crisis derives from the decision to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein on a false premise and that the overriding motivation of the influential neo-conservative group within the Bush administration was to destroy Iraq to benefit the state of Israel.
2.The present crisis is an extension of the war against the Syrian government of Bashar Assad which was manufactured by outside powers for the following ends:
  • To destroy a government with an anti-Israel stance.
  • To replace the minority Alawite government of Assad with a Sunni one which would comply with Saudi, Qatari and Turkish plans to build a natural gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey which would supply Europe with natural gas.
  • Destroying Alawite power in Syria would weaken Iran (and break its link with Hezbollah in Lebanon); the Iranians being the current existential threat to the Israeli state that Saddam and Nasser once were. The Shi’ite Iranians are the chief competitors of the Sunni Saudis for influence in the Middle East and of course the Iranians do not follow the dictates of Washington.
Evidence is provided of Israel’s historical and continuing motivation to break up Arab states and to stimulate turmoil via the policies of David Ben-Gurion and successive Israeli leaders as well as by reference to policy papers such as the ‘Yinon Plan’(1982) and the ‘Clean Break Document (1996).
Evidence is provided of the United States motive in fomenting sectarian conflicts and supporting extreme Islamic group as has occurred in Libya, Syria and Iraq. It is based on maintaining American economic and military hegemony and is outlined in a policy paper funded by the US Army and produced by the RAND Corporation entitled ‘Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects and Implications for the U.S. Army’ (2008).
*    *    *
The declaration on 29thJune, the first day of the holy month of Ramadan, of an Islamic Caliphate by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Dawlah Al-Islamiyah fi al-Iraq wa-al-Sham –the jihadist organisation known also as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – marks a watershed of sorts since the commencement of what used to be commonly termed as the ‘Clash of Civilizations’.
For in the post-Cold War era, even before the ‘catalyzing event’ that was September the 11th of 2001, the avowed goal of the Osama Bin Laden-led al-Qaeda movement was to create a Sunni-led Caliphate.
It has been the dream not only of the Islamic zealot but also, perhaps, the latent hope of many ordinary Muslims to have a unity of Mohammedans in a political state on a scale at least equalling those which existed in succeeding epochs during what may be referred to as the golden age of Islamic civilization.
At the helm of such an entity would be a caliph who would command a global empire of the Ummahor believers stretching from the western part of North Africa and even the Iberian Peninsula through the Middle East and south Asia and on to the Indonesian archipelago.
To many Jihadists, the re-creation of the borders of previous Caliphates such as those presided over by the Rashiduns, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids and Ottomans would be an unambitious delimitation of what they feel should ideally cover all areas of the globe.
The ever changing name of the organisation first known the Islamic State in Iraq then as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or the Levant and as of August 2014 simply the Islamic State has seemingly reflected its geographic aspirations and its latest perhaps reflective of its resolve to escape the limitation to identifiable, colonially national imposed borders.
Certainly, the historical record of the Caliphate is redolent of an irresistible need to expand as far as possible by means of conquest. It was, for instance, the goal of the Sokoto Caliphate located in modern Nigeria and extending to a vast range of West Africa to expand the frontiers of Islam further south in order, the euphemism went, for its warriors to ‘dip’ the Holy Koran into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
The June rampage of ISIS in a murderous Blitzkrieg starting from the eastern borders of strife-ridden Syria through the northern part of Iraq caught the attention of the world. Amid stories of Iraqi army commanders apparently deserting their posts, cities such as Tikrit, Fallujah and Mosul fell.
These startling events along with evidence of wanton violence perpetrated against civilian populations saw media outlets reflect the American government’s projection of the insurgents as an extreme species of Islamic fanaticism surpassing even that of al-Qaeda which had to be stopped at all costs.
Such ‘cost’, it was claimed, would even countenance an alliance of sorts with the Iranian state, the arch-enemy consigned to the infamous status of an ‘Axis of Evil’ nation and presently subjected to the most punitive measures of economic sanctions mounted against any nation-state in recent years.
The crisis of ISIS is, of course, not an isolated, self-incubated phenomenon but rather is the latest installment in a chain of events that goes back to the decision of the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 in order to effect the removal of the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.
It is also an episode which on closer examination may bear the hallmarks of precise direction and manipulation by foreign powers. It appeared deeply suspicious to some who noted the speed by which the Iraqi army’s resistance to ISIS penetration crumbled.
How could an army with vastly superior numbers and equipment be overrun so quickly? Why did the commanders in Mosul and Tikrit reportedly desert their posts and instruct soldiers to leave?
The implication is that they may have been bribed to do so. Of this proposition, no concrete evidence has materialised, although the alternative proposition, that a lack of professionalism and cohesion within a dysfunctional army that is the product of a dysfunctional state suddenly confronted by hordes of battle-hardened and ideologically motivated fanatics is a compelling one.
Many Shia soldiers are reportedly unwilling to fight for the Iraqi state.
Still, there are some analysts who believe that it is a situation which has been manufactured with the specific aim of applying pressure on the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and that it has a medium-term endeavour of reversing the fast dissipating fortunes of the intervention which deliberately fomented a war within the borders of Syria which itself is part of a longer-term objective of redrawing the borders of the Middle East.
The instability that has in recent times befallen Iraq and Syria and which at any time could conceivably combust into a full-blown regional war represents a confluence of interests; a merger in fact of the imperial designs of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel.
It is a state of affairs underpinned by the active collaboration of the United States but finds resistance from counter-measures employed by the Islamic Republic of Iran which seeks to preserve the ‘Shia Crescent’ which extends from the Persian Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which serves as the custodian of the sacred relics of Islam is concerned with asserting Sunni hegemony throughout the region while the Zionist state of Israel has consistently fostered an agenda of balkanisation as a guarantee of its survival.
The motivations of Turkey under the ‘soft-Islamist’ government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, ostensibly, are less clear-cut given Turkey’s longstanding ‘Zero Problems with Neighbours’ policy. Not least are the implications of what a large-scale amendment to the borders of the region could have on Kurdish nationalist aspirations.
Nonetheless, if the frequently bandied descriptions of Turkish neo-Ottoman pretensions sound banal and analytically lazy, the projection of Turkish influence in the region is clearly at the heart of Erdogan’s recalibrations in his relations with both Syria and Iraq.
The United States for its part has largely been concerned with overthrowing regimes which do not toe the line; those of Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muamar Gaddafi being the prime examples along with the attempt to unseat Bashar Assad in Syria.
While a general impression of disengagement from the region is being given by the policies of the Obama administration which has overseen the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall direction and underpinning rationale of United States policy is to continue the decades-long intrigues which have been geared towards weakening the power of Iran; and if possible, to effect the overthrow of the Islamic system of government which has been in place since the abdication of the US-backed Shah in 1979.
Notwithstanding the rapprochement of sorts which has followed the change of leadership and that is primarily evidenced by the continuing talks over its nuclear developing capacity, the sanctions against that country remain as draconian as ever.
Further, the recent announcement by the Obama administration of plans to go to Congress to raise monies for the anti-Assad opposition, confirm the on-going stratagem of attempting to permanently cut off the supply routes from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The demarcation between ‘friendly’ and ‘hostile’ nations in the Middle Eastern and North African world is long established regardless of administration, although the most overt expression given to a long term plan remains the document formulated by the neo-Conservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the 1990s.
This called for the systematic overthrow of a select number of regimes adjudged to be hostile to the “interests and values” of the United States.
The removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq formed the initial phase and this was to be followed by countries including Sudan, Libya and Syria, with Iran serving as the finale.
While the neo-Conservative influence on the administration of George W. Bush favoured intervention using the direct resources of the United States military, the present administration favours the path of effecting destabilisation through a technique of supporting a cast of dissidents involved in the prosecution of asymmetric warfare.
These belligerents ironically have tended to consist of Sunni extremists cut out of the same cloth as al-Qaeda; of which ISIS is.
Is ISIS the latest actor on a stage involving militarized Islamist groups who have done the bidding of the United States; effectively functioning as what has been cynically termed a foreign legion of America?
There is evidence pointing to the answer being firmly in the affirmative.
As is well documented, the United States through its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supported the Mujahedin during its guerrilla campaign against the forces of the Soviet Union when they occupied Afghanistan.
Prior to this, the United States had developed a complex but enduring relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood which dated back to the 1950s during the Eisenhower-era. The aim was largely to influence the brotherhood in the context of containing the spread of communism.
Among the band of kindred Islamists waging the anti-Soviet insurgency with huge inputs of United States funding and training was Osama Bin Laden who of course later formed al-Qaeda.
The protestations by official CIA historians that aid was only directed at indigenous Afghan insurgents is reminiscent of the disingenuous distinction postulated in the present Syrian crisis between so-called ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ elements of the militias opposing Bashar Assad.
In any case, both native Afghan and foreign fighters shared the same Islamist sentiments. While they were fighting for nationalistic reasons as well as for Islamic aims which were to remove the foreign and ‘atheist’ invader from Afghan soil, they were also unknowingly fighting to fulfil an American foreign policy agenda; namely that of weakening the Cold War-era Soviet foe.
The attack of September 11th 2001 to which responsibility was affixed on Bin Laden’s group has not precluded a resumption of similar mutually beneficial relationships.
A “re-configuration” of American foreign policy priorities according to the Pulitzer award winning writer Seymour Hirsch occurred about five years later during the second tenure of the administration of President George W. Bush. This involved aiding pro-Saudi Sunni militants in the Lebanon against the Iranian supported Shia militia group, Hezbollah.
With the dawning of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, protests against the regime of Muamar Gaddafi transmogrified into a full blown insurrection in the city of Benghazi from where militant Islamists including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group emerged to fight pitched battles against Gaddafi’s forces until he was overthrown.
This would not have been possible but for the use of NATO’s airpower as well as the logistical and instructional help such as that provided by the special forces of the United Kingdom.
The United States aided by its NATO allies were again involved in fomenting a military opposition against Bashar Assad’s government in Syria. And as confirmed in June of 2013 by the former foreign minister of France, Roland Dumas, this intervention was conceived and prepared for at least two years in advance of the commencement of the insurgency which developed a few months after what appeared to be genuine protests occurred in cities such as Damascus and Aleppo.
The rebels were given staging posts in the US-allied surrounding nations of Turkey and Jordan to serve as training quarters and to mount raids.
And as reported by both the UK Daily Telegraph and the New York Times in March of last year, a large cache of arms and equipment was airlifted to the rebels in a transaction co-ordinated by the CIA and paid for by the Saudis.
But who are the Syrian rebels and what ideological underpinnings do they have?
During the early period of the uprising, much reference was made to an organisation with the designation of ‘Free Syrian Army’. The background to this ‘body’ suggested that it had a unified command structure with a solid amount of numbers which would continue to grow as it would absorb an envisaged amount of defections from the army of Assad.
The germ of the FSA was created by a Syrian army colonel defector who, along with a number of commanders and foot soldiers, was based at Apaydin Camp in Turkey.
Despite headlined press reports of assassinations and defections of several high-level military officers, this scenario failed to materialise. Indeed, a compelling argument was made with little or no disputation that the Free Syrian Army did not exist and has never come into existence.
Instead, the name was used in reference to a range of anti-government militias fighting in different regions of Syria. Most appear to have a Salafist agenda and cannot be objectively described as being ‘secular’ or ‘moderate’. Prominent among them are the Islamic movement of Ahara Al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Suqour al-Sham Brigade, Liwa al-Twhid and Liwa al-Yarmouk.
Indeed, a report by the Times of Israel in June of 2014 quotes the Israeli Defence Force’s head of Military Intelligence Research and Analysis Division as estimating that over eighty percent of the opposition fighters “have a clear Islamist agenda”.
After the initial barrage of reports on the FSA, the genuinely powerhouse opponents to Assad’s regime began to be acknowledged in the Western press. These militias composed largely of foreigners included the Jabhat al-Nusra Front and ISIS; both well-funded and more effective than the local ones.
It is hard not to conclude that weapons earmarked for rebels under the auspices of the CIA and Saudis would get into the hands of the Islamist groups, along with the benefits of the training they have received.
It is a scenario which was painted by Michael J. Morell, a former deputy CIA director who in a CBS interview stated that the battlefield effectiveness of the Islamist factions drew the so-called moderates to their camps. In his words:
Because they’re so good at fighting the Syrians, some of the moderate members of the opposition joined forces with them.
A proxy war of the sort fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union has been apparent for some time, and the United States is at the heart of it. It would appear that the United States is pliant to the goal of a fragmentation of the Middle East, although, of course, such a policy has never been publicly averred to.
Nonetheless, some have referred to a map prepared by a retired army colonel of the United States War Academy and which was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June of 2006 as evidence of a US-NATO objective of reconstituting the map of the Middle East.
Among the significant alterations to the Sykes-Picot agreement which created the modern nation states of the Middle East as we know them today are an Arab Shia state, a Sunni state and a Free Kurdistan being carved out of Iraq with the Kurdish state acquiring territory from Syria, Turkey and Iran.
Balkanisation has clearly been at the heart of the policy of assuring the survival of Israel. Indeed, it was a pre-condition of the emergence of the Zionist state that the Ottoman Empire be broken up and that the succeeding power in the region of Palestine, the British, would then take the steps which would lead to the establishment of what was initially termed a Jewish homeland.
Early Israeli policy under its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, was geared towards bolstering the power of the Christian community in the Lebanon. It involved employing cynical strategies aimed at fomenting inter-communal strife among the Christian and Muslim groups in that country and even a plan to acquire territory up to the Litani River.
Indeed, the diaries of Moshe Sharett, an Israeli premier during the 1950s record Moshe Dayan declaring that Israel needed a Christian military officer to promulgate a Christian state which would then cede Lebanon south of the Litani River to Israel.
Both Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann, the early Zionist leader, had proposed this northern boundary in an early map depicting a state of Israel which was presented to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference after the First World War.
The strategy of balkanisation in the Arab and Muslim world has a simple rationale. Israel has always been wary of the emergence of any nation from these lands which is nationalist in outlook, that possess a high degree of social cohesion along with an economic and military capacity which could be directed against it.
While Gamal Nasser’s Egypt and his Pan-Arabist philosophy presented the earliest visible form of what Israel perceived to be an existential threat before destroying it in the war of 1967; Ben-Gurion’s vehement opposition to Charles de Gaulle’s decision to grant Algeria independence provided ample proof of this permanent quality of sensitivity.
After Nasser, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq emerged as the threat, and following the 2003 invasion, Iran is viewed as the pre-eminent Muslim nation which poses the greatest menace.
When in the early part of 2003 the Bush administration was preparing for the invasion of Iraq, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon called on the Americans to also “disarm Iran, Libya and Syria”.
This long time strategy is encapsulated within a policy document produced in 1982 by Oded Yinon, a journalist who had once been attached to Israel’s foreign ministry.
Formally titled A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties’ the ‘Yinon Plan’ is predicated on Israel achieving regional military and economic hegemony while working towards the division of its neighbours into ethnic and sectarian based mini-states.
The “far reaching opportunities” referred to in the document alluded to the range of weaknesses and stress points in the various countries on its borders and further afield which could be exploited by Israel so as to ensure their weakening and eventual fracture. These included religious, ethnic and sectarian rivalries as well as economic grievances among the population.
Iraq was a priority with the desired outcome being a three-state division into Kurdish, Sunni and Shite states. Egypt would in the best scenario be split into “geographically distinct regions” encompassing a Coptic Christian state and a range of other Muslim states while Syria was identified as been essentially vulnerable because it “is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it”.
For Yinon, Lebanon formed the template for the fracture of Arab states and as the paper continued:
Syria will fall apart in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbour and the Druzes will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan.
Such a state of affairs Yinon was convinced would serve as “the guarantee for peace and stability in the area in the long run”.
While Yinon’s work has often been quoted in recent years in relation to the contemporary wars in the region, it is not the only document of record offering an authentic account of such a strategy being at the heart of Israeli strategic policy.
For instance, Livia Rokach’s Israel’s Sacred Terrorism published in 1980 relates Moshe Sharett’s diary recollections of the machinations of both David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan during the 1950s in regard to a range of tactics and policies designed to acquire territory as well as to sow the seeds of discord within Arab nations.
An updated version of this formula forms the explicit rationale underlying what is known as the ‘Clean Break Document’.
In 1996, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm was produced during the first premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli political think tank.
Led by Richard Perle, a key contributor to the aforementioned Project for the New American Century, the document put forward the argument that Israel should renounce all intentions towards achieving a comprehensive peace settlement with Arab nations and instead should work together with Turkey and Jordan to “contain, destabilize and roll-back” those states which pose as threats to all three.
And as with the PNAC document, Syria features as a state in regard to which Israeli policy should be geared towards “weakening, controlling and even rolling back”.
The means by which such destabilisation and containment would occur were not always explicitly addressed in the paper, but in practical terms it is clear that these goals are effected through a panoply of methods including Israel’s use of direct military action, its support for actors in proxy wars, and its use of the military resources of the United States through the huge influence wielded in that country by the Israel-Jewish lobby.
There is of course sensitivity attached to the terminology used in this regard and a debate in regards to the true scope of power American Jewish groups possess in terms of influencing United States foreign policy.
Yet the war declared on Saddam’s Iraq, the effects of which have led to the present crisis involving ISIS and the threat of a permanent dismemberment, was influenced by the likes of the aforementioned Richard Perle, as well as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.
All are designated as neo-conservative in political outlook and were signatories to a letter written by members of PNAC to the incumbent President Bill Clinton calling for the military overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein.
The Israeli state lies at the heart of any serious analysis of the reasons why America declared war on Saddam’s Iraq as well as the later war manufactured by external powers in Syria.
In the year before the US attack on Iraq, the Guardian newspaper quoted the retired US Four-Star General Wesley Clark as saying that the so-called ‘hawks’ within the Bush administration who were lobbying for the war had been doing so well before the events of September 11th 2001 and privately acknowledged that the regime of Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to America.
“But”, said Clark, “they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”
Carl Bernstein, the veteran journalist and himself Jewish when referring to what he termed the “insane war” in Iraq, asserted in 2013 that it had been started by what he described as “Jewish neo-cons who wanted to remake the world (for Israel)”.
The ‘reconfiguration’ of American policy as alluded to by Seymour Hersh has at its heart the state of Israel. According to Hersh:
The Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashar Assad of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.
In a continuation of his revelation of the preconception of the anti-Assad revolt, Roland Dumas provided the following:
In the region (i.e. the Middle East) it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance…and I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me “we’ll try to get on with our neighbours, but those who don’t agree with us will be destroyed”.
The pretence of Israeli non-involvement in the present war in Syria or even its purported interest in maintaining the status quo with Assad remaining in power is belied by actions and pronouncements.
A report last year in Debka, a website staffed by Israeli journalists providing news on intelligence and security issues, revealed that senior IDF officers had criticised Moshe Ya’alon, the defence minister for misleading the Knesset when he gave an estimate that President Assad’s forces controlled far less territory than it actually did and as a consequence, the Israeli armed forces were acting on the basis of inaccurate intelligence.
“Erroneous assessments…must lead to faulty decision-making” the report concluded.
An explicit statement from a government insider concerning Israel’s attitude toward the Assad government came from Michael Oren last September. He said the following to the Jerusalem Postwhen leaving his post as Israeli ambassador to the United States:
The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.
Publicly disclosed operations such as those involving the bombing of pro-Assad storage depots and convoys claimed to be part of a logistical trail leading to Hezbollah in Lebanon, while portrayed as surgical in nature were likely made with the overall desire of weakening Assad’s forces in his campaign against the insurgents.
For instance, in June of 2014, when a missile fired from Syrian territory killed an Israeli citizen on the Golan Heights, the Israeli Air Force responded by mounting sorties on nine positions belonging to the Syrian Army including a regional command centre.
This mission was undertaken, a Times of Israel report noted, despite the fact that “some Israeli (intelligence) experts said the area from which the anti-tank rocket was fired is under the control of Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime”.
The present crisis generated by the gains of ISIS in Iraq and speculation as to whether the United States should intervene on the side of the Maliki government revealed the age long thinking and strategy of Israel’s leaders and policymakers.
Speaking on NBC TV’s Meet the Press in June, Benjamin Netanyahu’s stated that “We must weaken both”. “Both” of course was referring to the Sunni and Shia divide.
When your enemies are fighting each other, don’t strengthen either of them, weaken both.
Furthermore, Netanyahu has recently called for the establishment of a Kurdish state.
But the conceptualisation of a reformatted Middle East is not solely the concern of the Americans and the Israelis. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has for long harboured ambitions to be the undisputed leader of the Arab and Muslim world, and to this end battled with the secular, pan-Arab philosophy as espoused by Gamal Abdel Nasser for the soul of the Arabs, and, in more recent times, it is contending with the Shi’ite bastion of Iran for regional influence.
Saudi Arabia along with its Gulf emirate neighbours, most notably Qatar, have been involved in the financing and organising of the revolts against the secular regimes of Colonel Gaddafi and President Assad, and the stripe of the beneficiaries such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Jabhat al-Nusra Brigade and ISIS is clearly Islamist.
It is a history which goes back some time and includes providing funds to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980s which many historians would argue provided the germ for the development of al Qaeda and now ISIS which is a more extreme offshoot of the former.
But quite apart from pinpointing the instances of the documented funding of groups such as al-Nusra and ISIS is the responsibility arguably borne by the Saudi state for the rise of Islamic extremism in modern times.
The pivotal moment in history, according to the case compellingly put by the Middle East affairs journalist Yaroslav Trofimov, was the siege of Mecca in 1979. On November the 20th, which was the first day of a new Muslim century, a large group of gunmen numbering in the hundreds seized control of Mecca’s Grand Mosque, the holiest shrine in Islam.
Led by a preacher named Juhayman al Uteybi, the insurgents declared that the Mahdi or “redeemer of Islam” had arrived in the form of one Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani.
The insurgents also had the objective of overthrowing the House of Saud on the grounds that they had compromised the strict tenets of the Wahhabi creed originally imposed on the country after it had been formed by Muhammad Ibn Saud.
The grievance stemmed largely from the policy of Westernization and amongst several demands, Uteybi’s insurgents called for the expulsion of Westerners, the abolition of television and the ending of education for women.
The two-week siege was ended after the Saudis obtained the blessing of Wahhabi clerics to storm the Mosque with the aid of French Special Forces and flush out the rebels.
But this came at a price. The Saudis clamped down in areas where ‘liberalisation’ had strayed such as the media and the school curriculum.
The decision was also made at the behest of the powerful fundamentalist clerics for the Saudis to pump money into the coffers of Sunni missionary organisations to spread of the ideas of the Wahhabi strain in Islamic universities and madrassas around the Muslim world. This purist brand of Islam lays particular focus on Jihadist sentiment.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided the opportunity for both the United States and Saudi Arabia to tap into the Saudis rededication to Wahhabism.
President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, saw in the Soviet move a chance to exploit outrage in the Muslim world, and the Saudis, following a fatwa declared by Abdelaziz Bin Baz, later the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, provided funding for the local Mujahidin as well as the bands of non-Afghan Jihadis who became the template for the contemporary multi-national Jihadis operating in both Syria and Iraq.
The aforementioned airlift of arms from the Balkans at the direction of the CIA which was paid for by the Saudis follows a mutually agreeable pattern for both nations.
A key player in Saudi strategy in its power play with Iran and the manipulation of Islamist militias in both Iraq and Syria has been Prince Bander Bin Saud, until recently the chief of Saudi intelligence as well as the head of the Saudi National Security Council.
So far as funding ISIS is concerned, there are reports that Prince Abdul Rahman Faisal, a son of the late King Faisal and a graduate of Sandhurst Royal Military College, serves as the conduit through which Saudi policy is driven and that he even influences the tactics of the group.
The prince is the brother of Prince Saud al Faisal, long-time foreign minister and Prince Turki al Faisal, ambassador to the UK and the US. However, this specific allegation has yet to be officially corroborated.
One clue as to the inclinations of the Saudi state towards this marauding army of homicidal Jihadists may have been their issuing of a statement calling on the United States not to begin a bombing campaign in ISIS.
The Iraqi government has publically accused the Saudis of supporting ISIS and Prime Minister Maliki has saddled them with the responsibility for what he describes as the “crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of the Iraqi state institutions and historic religious sites”.
Aside from the sectarian-ideological motivations which lie behind the decision to attempt to unseat the Assad regime in Syria is one with a specifically economic dimension.
This relates to the decision of the Assad government to reject a proposed pipeline project through which natural gas would be pumped from Qatar to Turkey via Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.
The reason Assad is said to have turned down the plan is that such a pipeline, which by extension would be able to supply European markets, would undermine the interests of Syria’s ally Russia which is the premier supplier of natural gas to Europe.
Instead, he pursued an alternative pipeline project which would emanate from Iran and run to Syria via Iraq.
This would explain the volte force on the part of the purportedly neutral Turk’s after initially cultivating cordial relations with Assad. Turkey cherishes the idea of serving as what has been described as the “ultimate energy bridge between east and west.”
It also explains Turkey’s use of a crucial natural resource as a weapon of specific retaliation and one that it will continue to use as a source of leverage in his dealings with Assad in Syria and the Iraqi government of Maliki: water.
This increasingly globally scarce resource in regard to which the Turks sit on one of the world’s largest reserves has of course formed a very underplayed yet significant backdrop to a number of conflicts including the seizure of the West Bank by Israel in 1967 and the overthrown of Gaddafi in 2011.
In May of 2014, the Turkish government cut off the water supply to the River Euphrates having started a process of a gradual reduction in the pumping of the river. It has led to a drastic shrinkage in the water levels of the man-made Lake Assad and is causing hardship to communities.
The rationale for the United States overseeing a sectarian based war in Syria and Iraq also has a basis in terms of accessing the natural resources of the Middle East on which the West remains reliant for its energy needs.
The need to foment such conflict; what in fact was described as a “long war” was bluntly put in a United States Army funded report by the RAND Corporation in 2008.
Entitled, Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects and Implications for the U.S. Army, the paper crucially identifies the geographic area of proven oil reserves as coinciding with what it terms as “the powerbase of the Salafi-Jihadist network”.
“This”, it continues, “creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized”.
The following more detailed excerpt explains how sectarian fault lines can be exploited in order to serve the interests of the West:
Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare and support to indigenous security forces…the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace…US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shi’ite empowerment movements in against the Muslim world…possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.
The report is clear about the need for the United States to simultaneously shore up the regimes which it classifies as ‘friendly’ to its interests such as Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia while working to weaken the influence of Iran; a strategy which it admits could serve to strengthen Jihadi groups, but which at the same time would bog them down in sectarian conflicts that would divert their energies from targeting the West:
One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations.
The document is certainly prescient so far as developments in terms of the Syrian uprising and the tumult in Iraq are concerned.
At the same time, it is worth noting that the fomenting of sectarian antagonism in order to fulfil an objective for the United States is not new to the region; a specific example being the use made of Shi’ite death squads made up of personnel recruited from militias such as the Badhr Organisation and the Mahdi Army to nullify a Sunni-led insurgency which had been claiming the lives of a great many American soldiers.
Thus the bolstering of Islamist groups such as the al-Nusra Brigade and later ISIS in a series of pre-conceived US military intelligence operations that are pursuant to America’s long-term geo-strategic interests is not merely plausible but is actual reality.
It fits into reports during the early stages of the Syrian conflict of claims that British and French military advisers were stationed at the borders of Syria and offering Syrian rebels as well as prospective insurgents including those arriving from abroad military training.
The existence of training camps run by NATO officials and well as by former US Special Forces mercenaries who operate private security consultancies in the Gulf has been alluded to in reports via the mainstream press including the German Der Spiegel.
In March of 2013, it reported that around 200 men had received training over the previous three months in Jordan and that the Americans planned to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps; one in the south and the other in the eastern part of the country.
While unsure as to whether the American trainers were serving US Army personnel or were working under the auspices of private firms, the magazine did note that some organisers wore service uniforms.
A report by the British Guardian newspaper, also in March 2013, confirmed the presence of US, British and French military advisers who were giving Syrian rebels what was termed “logistical and other advice in some form”.
While the article claimed that such training was been given to elements described as being “secular” so that an effective military militia would serve as a bulwark against Islamic extremist brigades, such a claim cannot be taken at face value.
The report alluded to the presence of CIA-led training camps in deeper locations within Jordan, and just how the Western operatives can distinguish between those who on the one hand are “secular” and those who on the other are “Islamist” remains unclear.
Given what is known about US policy via the RAND report and the actions of NATO in aiding Salafists in the Libyan uprising against Colonel Gaddafi, such professed distinctions are likely disingenuous especially when the accepted view is that the overwhelming majority of Syrian and foreign insurgents view the fight against the ‘apostate’ Alawite government of Assad as a Sunni crusade.
And so far as the training of ISIS is concerned, several news outlets are disseminating claims from Jordanian officials that members of ISIS were among those insurgents who received training from Western military advisers.
Even if it was accepted that prospective insurgents were not specifically coloured by an ideological allegiance to militias bearing an overtly Islamist agenda, and they were being readied to serve in the ranks of the putative Free Syrian Army, it is quite clear that as argued above, such an entity is non-existent.
After all its purported commander, General Salim Idris, whose organisation represented the supposed counter-weight to the Al Nusra Brigade and ISIS, relocated to Qatar in February 2014, his right hand man to Sweden and the number three figure is apparently residing in the Netherlands.
It is also more likely the case that a person nominally trained as a vetted FSA candidate guerrilla would leave for one of the better funded Islamist groups who offer their fighters more remuneration thanks to the largesse of wealthy donors from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.
All of this is done with the apparent acquiescence of the United States and is in line with the thinking behind the report conducted by the RAND Corporation.
What also falls into sync with the series of rationales behind that report is the role played by former American internees in conflicts involving Islamist insurgents.
Many of these figures, incarcerated in the context of the so-called ‘War on Terror’, did not turn to the business of perpetuating acts of terror against Western military or civilian targets but involved themselves in insurrections which happened to be mutually beneficial to the Islamist causes and the United States.
Consider for instance the case of Abu Sufian bin Qumu. Qumu was renditioned from Pakistan to Camp Guantanamo Bay sometime after the NATO conquest of Afghanistan.  He was released from US custody despite the conclusion of analysts that he represented a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and its allies”.
He was transferred to a Libyan jail in 2007 at the time when the US and its allies were cooperating with the Gaddafi regime in a policy aimed at containing Islamists but released in 2010 under an amnesty.
However, when the insurrection against the Gaddafi regime commenced in 2011, Qumu, in the words of the New York Times article in April of that year had somewhat perversely become “a U.S. ally of sorts”.
Another Libyan figure Abdelhakim Bel Hadj, like Qumu was renditioned by the United States government and under the auspices of the British MI6 was placed in the detention regime of the security services of the Gaddafi regime.
As with Qumu, he was released under the 2010 amnesty by the Libyan government but joined the militias which with the help of NATO overthrew Gaddafi.
The head of ISIS and proclaimed caliph of the declared Islamic State, Baghdadi, was himself held in US detention between 2004 and 2009 at Camp Bucca in Iraq.
He, like the others, represents the ‘re-direction of energies’ thesis postulated in the context of the “long war” predicted by the aforementioned paper.
It might be going too far without any incontrovertible evidence to suggest that men such as Qumu, Bel Hadj and Baghdadi are double agents ‘turned’ by US intelligence during their periods of detention.
But it is worth noting that that the dark arts as practised by intelligence agencies including that of NATO military intelligence in its Cold War-era manipulations of terrorist organisations of the extreme political Left and Right in Italy are capable of refinement and readjustment.
During that period, the techniques of infiltrating the leadership positions of political terror groups and steering them toward pursuing certain course of actions, as detailed in the infamous manual produced by Yves Guerin-Serac’s Aginter Press, were successfully practised.
These Islamist figures have effectively had ‘presented’ to them a series of conflicts which have been tailor-made to assure the active participation of men of their ideological disposition.
The emergence of ISIS, barbaric acts and medieval-like edicts including the announcing of the institution of the dhimmi system notwithstanding, plays towards the prescribed US agenda in promoting its short and long-term goals.
It is also not unconnected with the turning of the tide gains made in the Syrian conflict by the forces loyal to President Assad and their foreign allies, namely Russia, as well as their co-denominational brethren from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanese Hezbollah.
The war against Assad has defied the expectation that his minority-led government would be toppled in a short period of time as had happened with the Gaddafi regime.
The covert strategies devised by General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds Force which is often described as been analogous to a combined CIA and Special Forces, has succeeded in stabilising the a situation which for a time was looking very dire from the perspective of the Assad regime.
The shoring up of this ‘Axis of Resistance’ against America and its Middle East allies, most notably, the Sunni powers, has been critical given the high stakes suggested by these words in a speech delivered by an Iranian cleric:
If we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.
The stabilization of the Syrian front has been interpreted as a defeat by the Sunni powers and the surgent ISIS in Iraq presents an opportunity for the Americans in its continuing quest to weaken Iran.
After all, bombing ISIS targets in Iraq could conceivably lead to bombing parts of Syria under the pretext that such operations are being directed at ISIS. It could provide a back door opportunity to carry out the bombing of Assad’s forces which in the wake of the chemical attack at Ghouta last August had been the intended course of action.
The motivation behind the calls by made by ‘hawks such as senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the United States to bomb ISIS likely matches this.
These men after all must be aware of the overwhelmingly Islamist stripe of the vast majority of rebels fighting in Syria who were the eventual beneficiaries of the monies released by the US Congress in bills which both have strenuously championed.
This support, including their calls for President Obama to bomb and weaken the military capability of the Assad government last August, is designed to create the circumstances which would lead to his overthrow and the creation of a vacuum which, as happened in Libya, can only be filled by those who would be chosen by the likes of the al-Nusra Brigade and ISIS.
Yet, the policymakers and the engineers of the covert operations enabling the continuation of this ‘Long War’ must have in their calculations the possibility, even inevitability, of what is termed ‘blowback’.
This is the suspected backdrop to the murder by Islamists of American personnel at the Benghazi ‘consulate’ which allegedly served as a conduit for the shipment of weapons to anti-Assad jihadis via Turkey.
For some time now, security officials from the Western European nations whose radicalised Muslim citizens are participants in the wars in Syria and Iraq have warned that returning jihadis would pose significant threats to peace and order.
President Obama himself admitted in June that the spread of ISIS-led conflicts to neighbouring states could pose a “medium to long-term threat” to the United States.
The sponsors of the ISIS such as Saudi Arabia could also be imperilling their long-term survival.
Like a frankensteinian creation, an independent and emboldened Islamic State with pretensions to controlling a Caliphate which does not recognise national borders would not stop at Iraq and Syria but could attempt to overthrow the Saudi regime on the basis that the Caliph is by Islamic tradition the designated Custodian of the two holiest mosques in Islam: the Al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina.
Certainly the threat to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan appears to be the more immediate. A video posted on Youtube in April of 2014 described King Abdullah as “despotic” and a “worshipper of the English” and vowed to “slaughter” him.
While President Obama has in August of 2014 finally caved into pressure to order air strikes against ISIS positions, sight must not be lost of the greater picture; that of a ‘Great Game’ and a ‘Long War’ in which the United States is bound to continue its long-term strategy of protecting what it perceives as it national interests including maintaining its access to the natural resources of the region.
Its continuation was evident in Obama’s recent request for $500 dollars from the US Congress to train the so-called “Syrian Opposition”.  According to the Washington Post, “money for the assistance would expand a CIA covert operation’s training program”.
Developments within the context of this long-term foreign policy objective continue to present obstacles and also opportunities for the United States to exercise leverage.
So even if the recent gains of ISIS were not deliberately manufactured by Washington’s covert arm, it nonetheless provides an opportunity for the United States to put pressure on Prime Minister Maliki who the Americans view as being largely compliant to the dictates of Tehran and even to effect his removal in favour of someone who would follow the American line more willingly.
Some analysts suspect that the United States does exercise an undisclosed covert influence on ISIS; with even the suggestion that they are directed at field level by Western mercenaries or Special Forces embedded within their ranks much in the manner as members of Britain’s Special Forces were among the rebels who overthrew Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi.
And that because the Americans created the political structures presently governing Iraq including the supply of military weapons, that they are effectively controlling both actors in the crisis.
If this is the truth or at least close to the truth, it is fulfilling the template of the “long war” outlined in the RAND Corporation’s policy document. The United States will then seek to ‘manage’ this situation for as long as it can.
The ability of outsiders to effect instability of the Middle East owes much to the arbitrary border demarcations of imperial draughtsmen as represented by the Sykes-Picot agreement, the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia, the miscellaneous tribal affiliations of its peoples along with the relative economic and environmental fortunes of its sub-regions.
Oded Yinon was being far from off-handed when pointing out in his paper that the Arab Muslim world was “astonishingly self-destructive”.
The latent fault lines cutting across the swathe of lands from North Africa to the Persian Gulf have been exploited by non-Arabs who have enabled the Arab nations to be willing accomplices in the coups, insurrections and wars which have brought havoc.
Very few can fail to see that the present crisis as being causally linked to the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein by a war of aggression waged by the administration of George W. Bush which was based on a false premise.
And as General Sir Michael Rose, a retired British soldier put it earlier this year, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is self-deluded and “remains in complete denial over the disaster he inflicted not only on the people of Iraq, but also on many millions throughout the Middle East as a result of the 2003 invasion”.
Further, despite the protestations of Richard Perle made last month about the use of the term ‘neo-cons’ as what he emotively described as a “hateful” word directed at Jewish Americans, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the invasion had at the heart of the motivation of its principal proponents the destruction of an Arab state which presented a modicum of a military threat to the regional hegemony of the state of Israel.
It is also disingenuous to deny the fragmenting of Iraq as a state, whether by peaceful or strife-ridden circumstances as been the inevitable consequence of the invasion.
Few who understand the historical foundations of the policy of the Zionist state cannot fail to appreciate the requirement that its survival has always been predicated on the weakening and balkanization of its neighbours.
Also, few who are aware of the policy agenda of the United States in promoting and ‘managing’ sectarian conflict as a means of assuring its continued access to the natural resources of the Middle East will fall into a constricted analysis of ISIS as a stand-alone phenomenon unrelated to the cynical quality which underlies American strategy in the region.
It is but merely one troublesome episode within a wider saga; that of a twenty-first century version of the “Great Game”.
Adeyinka Makinde is a Lecturer in Law with a research interest in Intelligence and Security matters. He is based in London, England.

Global Research Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Salim Zahran: On the Ongoing Arab-Islamic era of decadence


حوار الاخبارية / سالم زهران 03 08 2014


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

July 19th Iraq SITREP by Mindfriedo: Daashing Christians in Iraq

The Saker

Quote of the Day (Courtesy of Robert Fisk), Jonathan Whittall of the Médecins Sans Frontières referring to his job of providing medical aid to Palestinians in Gaza being akin: “to patch(ing) up prisoners in between their torture sessions “

18th July: The Iraqi Government is coordinating with French authorities is trying to reclaim Iraqi assets of the previous regime in France.

19th July: The representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Nikolai Meladanov, visits Najaf and meets with Ali al-Sistani. He later tells reporters that Sistani stressed on the formation of a government that was acceptable to all Iraqis. Meladanov also visited three other Shia Marjas in Najaf: Mohammed Said al-Hakim, Bashir al-Najafi, and Muhammad Isehaq al-Fayyad.
19th July: Baha al-Araji, an MP with the Sadr al-Ahrar political bloc has asked the Kurdish authorities to expedite their nomination for the post of President.
19th July: The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of President Jalal Talibani has selected Fuad Massoum as its Presidential candidate. Massoum is believed to be close to Jalal Talibani.
19th July: Amnesty International is reporting of gross Human Right violations by Daash. Daash militants have been cited as carrying out sectarian kidnappings and murders of Shia civilians in areas that it captured.
Amnesty also singled out the Iraqi government for indiscriminate air strikes and shelling of Daash held areas and of the death of 100 detainees.
Amnesty has asked the region of Iraqi Kurdistan to open up its border crossings. The Kurdish autonomy government placed restrictions on non Kurdish Iraqis along its border.
19th July: Human Rights Watch has released a statement highlighting the kidnappings and murder of Daash rebels. The victims have been primarily Turkoman Shias, Yazidis, Christians, and Shabak Ethnic groups.
19th July: In response to Jordan hosting the yet to be named group of opposition parties to the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi government is considering the cessation of oil shipments to Jordan. Iraq has been supplying oil to Jordan at US$10/barrel. The opposition group called for the overthrow of Iraq’s government and consisted of former Ba’athist, current Islamists, former army men and Iraqi Sunni politicians.
19th July: Amer al- Kenani, an MP of the Ahrar block (Sadr’s party) has told Kurdish press that the State of the Law Coalition of Maliki may be contemplating some other candidate for Prime Minister. State of the Law Coalition is Prime Minister Maliki’s party and holds the largest number of seats in the house. Maliki won the election with 700,000 votes.
19th July: Daash has released guidelines for the type of “Abaya” or cloak that can be sold by shopkeepers and worn by women. Manufacturers have been asked to approach the “Centre of Calculations” to determine these specifications. All non Daash specified apparels will be confiscated in 5 days time.
19th July: The DI of Daash had issued a decree asking Christians in Mosul to either:
Become Muslims
Pay Religious Tax
The Christians of Mosul chose “d) None of the above” and have left Mosul in mass.
Daash had earlier removed all Christian Doctors and Nurses from their jobs and prevented them from working.
19th July: Iraqi armed forces have taken back control of Nofal and al-Sodor villages in Diyala. Ten Dassh/rebel fighters were killed in the assault on these villages. Some of the rebel dead are non Iraqi Arabs.
19th July: A Suicide bombing at a police checkpoint in the south of Baghdad has left 7 dead and wounded 19. Baghdad was hit by five car bombs in mostly Shia neigbourhoods killing 26.
19th July: A mortar attack on a security post of the Peshmergas in Jalawlaa, Diyala leaves 5 Peshmergas injured/dead
19th July: Daash terrorists are preventing Christians leaving Nineveh from carrying their possessions and money. Their properties are being looted by Daash.
19th July: Atta’s/Government claims for the day:
Government air strikes have destroyed 3 vehicles and 7 Daash/rebel fighters near Baiji refinery


19th July: More “proof” that Daash is American: Daash is suing Al Qaida. Five Islamists in Jordan have taken Abu Mohammed Al Maqdissi (cleric sympathetic to Al Qaida) to Sharia court for claiming that the DI of Daash (Daulat Islamia) was un-Islamic.
19th July: Iran has said that it is willing to allow commercial/passenger flights over its airspace after the shooting down of the Malaysian Airliner in a possible false flag operation carried out by the pro US Ukrainian government.
19th July: Samir Zaitoun of the Tawheed Brigade (an anti regime militia) in Syria claims that half of the foreign fighters in Aleppo have got disillusioned and left in the last year. He states that most of them expected a “whirlwind” Jihad over the summer.
19th July: Iran has edited parts of the Oscar winning film “The Message” that it felt distorted historic facts. The edited version is more in keeping with the Shia Hadees narrative.
19th July: The Iranian nuclear negotiations have been extended till the 24th of November 2014. Meanwhile, the centrifuges keep spinning.

Further Reading:

Understanding Kurdistan: When the Kurds win, everybody else looses, except Israel:
An analysis of the current situation in Iraq

%d bloggers like this: