AL-QAEDA AND ISIL TERRORISTS SERVE ZIONISTS AND IMPERIALISTS LAY THEIR HANDS ON IRAQI OIL RESOURCES
by Syarif Hidayat
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) Takfiri militants and Al-Qaeda linked terrorists are seeking to destabilize Iraq at the service of imperialist powers and Zionists to help them lay hand on oil resources. The United States, NATO and Israel along with Saudi Arabia have been creating and propping up extremist militant groups like the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to “massively destabilize” countries in the Middle East.
Facts speak for themselves correctly and objectively that some of the Arab leaders (kings, Sheiks, presidents and prime ministers) including Egyptian military (coup) leaders, Libyan rebel leaders, Syrian rebel leaders, Al-Qaeda and ISIL militants leaders are political baboons who could be easily fooled, drugged and dragged and finally deceived by the Imperialist and Zionist ploys into supporting their interests to sow discord among Muslim countries and intervening in the other Arab countries as well as make them fight each other at the expense of their own fellow countrymen … and the winners are the Zionists and Imperialists Corporate world!
I am very sorry for my Arab brothers and sisters who have become victims of their western-fooled and corruptible leaders!
Zionists and imperialists seek divided Iraq for oil
Takfiri militants are seeking to destabilize Iraq at the service of imperialist powers and Zionists to help them lay hand on oil resources in the Arab country, a political analyst tells Press TV. In an interview with Press TV on Saturday (June 21, 2014), Kevin Barrett said the current tension in Iraq, just like Syria crisis, is part of a bigger plan aimed at breaking up the Middle East through destabilization.
He said the United States, NATO and Israel along with Saudi Arabia have been creating and propping up extremist militant groups like the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to “massively destabilize” countries in the Middle East. “They are not necessarily trying to take over these countries anymore, they are just trying to massively destabilize them and even split them up, balkanize them along ethnic and sectarian lines. And groups like ISIL are perfect for this,” Barrett said.
The analyst said ISIL militants are “essentially dupes and mercenaries” who receive huge sums of money to weaken Iraq in the interest of imperialists and Zionists. “By stirring up sectarianism, attacking Shia people, [and] attacking Christians, they are making it impossible for Iraq to exist as a coherent unified nation. That’s exactly what certain interests including Zionists and extreme imperialists want. They would like to break up Iraq into three pieces so that the Israelis could grab the oil in Kurdistan,” he said.
Iraqi forces are continuing their battle against the ISIL Takfiri terrorists. Tens of thousands of volunteers have joined the Iraqi troops in the fight against militants who have threatened to take their raid towards the capital, Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has vowed that the country’s security forces will fully confront the terrorists.
US, Israel and Saudi Arabia KSA back ISIL
Gordon Duff in his article titled “ISIL backed by US, Israel, KSA”, writes President Obama has announced that 300 American “advisors” would be deployed to Iraq to answer the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group, the American trained and supplied Al Qaeda/Takfiri militant group unleashed on the people of Syria some years ago. Obama announced that the US would begin Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) activities in the Middle East in order to learn more about the threats the US trained ISIL forces pose.
Obama, however, may well have been unaware that every 60 minutes an American spy satellite passes over Syria and Iraq with high resolution optical and synthetic aperture radar capable of identifying a single individual. He also seems unaware that the US maintains a massive signals intelligence base in Al Quds (Jerusalem) that monitors all traffic in the Middle East, a sea of not only antennas but a giant aerostat larger than a football field, thousands of feet in the air that sees and hears everything well into Iran and beyond.
While militants fight Iraqi forces over that nation’s largest oil refinery, a column of American armor heads toward Damascus, captured from the Iraqi military. While the media tries to present this as the work of a backward “Al Qaeda” franchise operation, quite something else is afoot.
We haven’t seen a complex military operation of this scope since 9/11. The planning and logistics required are not just nearly inconceivable, they betray the full complicity of more than one operational command with access to satellite intelligence, shipping and rail capabilities and full air supremacy.
MEET THE PLAYERS
For eight years, Dick Cheney and his Israeli/Saudi friends wielded the world’s largest military force, America’s two million men, $1.5 trillion dollar per year juggernaut. Intelligence sources now tell us that this same trio, hiding behind the ISIL, is waging a corporate war across the Middle East, a surrogate war backed by corporate billions. Military and intelligence analysts conclude that ISIL operations continue to enjoy full intelligence and logistical support, port and rail facilities through Aqaba, Jordan, safe transit for militants through Israel. All other claimed sources of supply, particularly those through Turkey are a fabrication, deception and cover.
Moving military hardware through Turkey, multiple layers of military and police oversight, harbors under full naval control, is an absolute impossibility. Nothing moves in Turkey without full complicity of both civil and military authority, something that, at this time, simply doesn’t exist. All of this is meant to hide the complicity, not only of Saudi Arabia and Israel in support of Al Qaeda but that the entire “Arab winter” operation we are seeing, the unraveling of any movement remotely resembling “popular government,” is simply a rerun of the post 9/11 Bush/Blair “heist” sold to the public as the “war on terror.”
The US-built armor and transportation handed over to the ISIL in Mosul is far from the first help they have received “Made in USA.” From Veterans Today correspondent, Jeffrey Silverman reporting from the Republic of Georgia:
“The supposedly captured US Humvees his troops have taken to Syria are purported to be the inanimate equivalents of the US hostages held for so long in Iran in the late seventies. However, the track record of al-Shishani himself, and the various players in the region, indicates that something else is going on. The US-backed rebels are losing ground in Syria. ISIL, though presented as the enemy in northern Iraq, has been installed there to finish the job the original rebels have proved unable to. The capture of the equipment is in fact a strategic handover. It serves two purposes: to equip the anti-Assad forces and to provide cover for equipment being brought out of Afghanistan and handed over to ISIL. It will be said, if anyone notices, that this equipment must have been stolen from northern Iraq, because we have seen this happen on TV, and CNN says so!”
PAVING THE WAY
Unseen by constellations of surveillance satellites and dozens of American drones, the ISIL, the Chechen led “militant” army simply walked into and across Iraq. Though Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia monitor all communications in the region, though armies of “assets” line every road and infest every village, it was all unseen, unheard, and to anyone who understand military operations, unbelievable. The operational scope seen in the current two front war waged by what we are told is a Takfiri-led movement steeped in religious and tribal extremism. Though this is true to an extent and certainly a factor in recruiting fighters, the “taskings” the ISIL has followed are global, clearly economically driven and tied to an agenda more closely aligned with Wall Street than their secret Saudi paymasters.
With a majority Shiite population and a newly established tradition of voting along religious lines, the idea of a Sunni minority taking control of Iraq is a pipe dream. This is what makes the current attacks something very different than they seem. With Kurdistan aligned, for the time at least, with Baghdad, the real target, Kirkuk and its vast oil fields, should well be outside the ability of the ISIL, no matter how much help they receive from disaffected Sunnis in Iraq, to move against. Yet the Kirkuk fields and the end hub of the Kirkuk, Baku, Ceyhan Pipeline is the obvious target. As long as these assets along with the oil fields to the South, Basra, are producing, Iraq can and will weather this current storm, providing realistic political reforms are put on the table.
What is yet to be seen is how far those who seek to destroy Iraq are willing to go, what they have promised and to whom. Iraq has known war, a decade of war with Iran and another against the United States. No nation in recent history has known comparable suffering, not even Vietnam. There will be no winners if Iraq comes apart, Gordon Duff concludes his article.
(Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest).
‘ISIL: Devil-dolls of the CIA’
Dr. Kevin Barrett in his article titled ‘ISIL: Devil-dolls of the CIA’, asked: Did you know that the CIA manufactures terrorist devil-dolls? He writes, according to the Washington Post, CIA operatives have admitted that they fabricated Osama Bin Laden devil-dolls as part of a psychological warfare operation against Pakistan. The dolls looked like Bin Laden – at first. But Bin Laden’s face was painted with heat-dissolving material designed to peel off and reveal the face of the devil. Terrorizing Pakistani children with Osama Bin Laden devil dolls – it’s all in a day’s work for the CIA.
But wait a minute – wasn’t Osama Bin Laden himself a sort of CIA devil-doll? Bin Laden’s career as a self-professed jihadi began when he was recruited by the CIA and its Saudi proxies to fight against the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan. Under the code name “Tim Osman” he toured US military bases and received insurgency training from the CIA.
Later, during the 1990s, Osama Bin Laden was manipulated by the CIA (or its Zionist faction) into becoming a plausible patsy for the coming wave of false-flag terrorism designed to ignite a clash of civilizations. As the Muslim world listened to Bin Laden’s eloquent litany of grievances against the West, it was shown a handsome, bearded face with large, soulful eyes. The Western world, however, was shown a demonic caricature – a devil doll created for propaganda purposes.
On September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center skyscrapers were blown up in explosive controlled demolitions, many observers claimed to see a bearded, demonic face in the pyroclastic smoke and dust clouds billowing from the exploding buildings. According to the ensuing wave of propaganda from the Zionist-dominated corporate media, the face of the devil behind the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11 was Osama Bin Laden.
The real Bin Laden repeatedly denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks – just as he swore on a Qur’an that he had nothing to do with the African embassy bombings that preceded 9/11, according to Pakistani General Hamid Gul. (Gul argues that the Israeli government perpetrated both crimes.) But in the Western corporate media, the Bin Laden devil doll – the new icon of Islamophobia – would always be blamed, even though the FBI still insists that Bin Laden was never wanted for 9/11 because there was never any evidence of his involvement.
Today, it appears that the Zionist wing of the CIA is still in the business of manufacturing terrorist devil dolls. The latest set of devil dolls is ISIL, the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. These devil dolls come nattily dressed in brand new identical black uniforms and ski masks, sort of like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles only much darker. They appear to have been manufactured by Central Casting in Hollywood, which specializes in the fabrication of villains who are as perfectly-attired as they are utterly despicable.
The stunningly photogenic devil-doll villains of ISIL are perfect for their parts. They play the role of “evil radical Muslim extremists” with aplomb: They indiscriminately lop off heads, rip internal organs out of corpses and devour them for the cameras, enthusiastically engage in mass executions and other war crimes, and impose a harsh misinterpretation of “Islamic law” on the miserable people who are unlucky enough to fall under their jurisdiction.
The ISIL devil dolls are a walking, talking psychological warfare operation against Islam in general, and the Islamic duty of jihad in particular. Most Westerners do not realize that the term “jihad” simply means struggle or striving – both the struggle to be a better person, and the struggle to defend the community against aggression. The military dimension of jihad comes with a long list of conditions, restrictions, and requirements for good behavior. The Islamic rules of jihad are very similar to the “just war” doctrines of Christianity: Noncombatants must not be harmed, property must not be damaged or destroyed, the war must clearly have a just cause (such as defense against an aggressor) and so on.
Thanks to the CIA’s “jihadi” devil dolls, most of the Western public now believes that “jihad” means raping nuns, crucifying priests, devouring the livers of corpses, mass-executing people whose only crime is to profess a different religion or school of thought, and generally engaging in criminal aggression and wildly un-Islamic battlefield behavior. No wonder much of the West thinks Muslims are crazy. No wonder much of the West supports an endless war on Islam whose only beneficiary is global Zionism.
By manufacturing “jihadi” devil dolls, the Western masters of psychological warfare hope to delegitimize jihad. They want to disarm the world’s Muslims. They want to convince the world that “defending oneself while Muslim” is a crime, just like “driving while black” is a crime in some racist US jurisdictions. They want to create a world in which any Muslim who even thinks about defending Islam or the Muslim community or any Islamic country against aggression will be a legitimate target for a drone strike.
The CIA’s terrorist devil dolls will never succeed in defending Islam. They will never succeed in creating a viable Islamic state. They will never succeed in winning the hearts and minds of either the Muslim or the non-Muslim global population. Their role is to create fitna (bloody chaos) in Islamic lands, which actually reduces the ability of those countries to defend themselves against aggression.
Perhaps the world’s Muslims should manufacture a new toy for mass distribution in the United States of America: A doll representing a Takfiri kharajite terrorist, like ISIL or the so-called Pakistani Taliban. The “jihadi” face would consist of heat-dissolving paint. It would peel off to reveal the face of a CIA agent like Raymond Davis, the false-flag terrorist captured in Pakistan; or better yet, the face of Benjamin Netanyahu, the man who launched the phony “war on terror” in 1979 at the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT).
Imagine the surprise of American children who, while playing with their new “jihadi” dolls, would suddenly witness the dolls’ faces peeling off to reveal the hideous visage of Netanyahu. But this plan would be cruel and unfair to American children. It is American adults who need to see who is really behind the wave of devil-doll “jihadi” terrorism that is laying waste to the Middle East, concludes Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.
(Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is http://www.truthjihad.com).
Terror in Iraq; roots and motivation
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich in her article titled “Terror in Iraq; roots and motivation”, writes Terrorism, directly or sponsored, has long been America’s weapon of mass destruction – its weapon of choice. As a strategy, it outdates “human rights” and “democracy promotion” and has proven itself to be far more effective by creating mayhem and fear, removing resistance to intervention. The events of 9/11 justified this age-old tactic. Although the tentacles of America’s terror tactic reach back far and spread wide, this article seeks to address the presence of ISIL (or ISIS).
As of writing this essay, it has become public knowledge that the group referred to as ISIS was trained by the United States to topple Syria’s President Assad. The purpose of this article is to give a comprehensive, chronological overview of events leading to the present-day crisis, which by necessity may repeat some of the points raised in various excellent articles on ISIS.
This essay will be in two parts.
Part I. Prologue: Terror in Iraq
Scholars have opined that America’s crisis began in the 1970s with the “Vietnam Syndrome” and America’s efforts to curb third world countries wishing to break away from the status quo system. None had the impact of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that ousted the American-backed Shah – the lynchpin of US strategy in the Persian Gulf. In the following decades, the United States sought to reestablish its hegemony, in particular in the Persian Gulf region.
It was due to America’s desire to establish sole control over the Persian Gulf region that it showed no interest in the Soviet Union-proposed neutralization of the Gulf, with no alliances, no bases, no intervention in the region in 1980 and at the onset of the Iran-Iraq war. To the contrary, the United States used the war as a lever to establish military bases in the Persian Gulf states.
The Saudi monarchy, threatened by the Iranian revolution, and reassured by President Reagan that “we will not permit” Saudi Arabia “to be an Iran,” made way for US bases on it is soil in 1985, making room for others to follow suit. America’s efforts with the Shah’s cooperation to alienate Iranians and Arabs to Israel’s benefit continued unabated. Thus, it is worthwhile recapping here that the cooperation among the Arab states against Iran was fear of communism and the potential of an uprising against the ruling monarchies.
The 1991 Persian Gulf War was an important and tragic war with heavy casualties on the Iraqi side. However, for the sake of brevity, it will not be discussed here other than to point out the most pertinent facts; the war was based on deception, Saudi Arabia paid $36 billion of US $60 billion costs, and US forces were deployed in Saudi Arabia. It is perhaps worthwhile pointing out that shortly before the end of the war, the American government allowed Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq for the coalition to destroy. Following the war, Iraq was subjected to deathly immoral sanctions with a death toll of over one million, half of them being children. The no-fly zone and its daily bombings left a vulnerable and devastated country in its trail, with no room for resistance to future incursions.
Not unrelated to current events is the fact that in the same year, The Jerusalem Report published that the idea of radical Islam replacing communism had taken seed among the Israeli right. The basis of the idea was founded on the neoconservatives fear that with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the splintering of the America’s right wing faction, there would no longer be an unconditional support for a US-Israel alliance. Islam replaced communism as ogre du jour and gave neocons in Washington a decade to expand and promote the newfound ‘threat.’
The 90s would see the virtual completion of media take-over by neocons made possible with the 1980s regulation changes in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that allowed mergers and acquisitions. Washington think tanks became home to many more influential neoconservatives such as Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Richard Perle, who had made their way to the AEI from the Jerusalem-based think tank the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS). The IASPS has published numerous strategy papers, chief among them “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” in 1996 – viewed by scholars and activist as the blueprint to the 2003 Iraq attack and invasion.
September 11, 2001 triggered the events years in the making.
Two short days later, on September 13, 2001, while the nation was recovering from the shock of 9/11, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) already had a statement available as to how the US should proceed. Saddam’s fate, or rather Iraq’s fate, was already sealed. JINSA “recommended” that Iraq be invaded militarily. The policy also called for America to be involved in disputes far and wide for the unforeseen future not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria – and eventually, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. No doubt the Saudis were not copied on the policy recommendations for even though they were included in the list of target countries, the Saudi monarchy fully cooperated with advancing terrorism as a weapon of mass destruction and warfare.
PART II. Terror in Iraq: Invasion
It is common knowledge by now that Saudi Arabia partnered with the neocons and pushed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Taking on their usual role of gas station attendants, they pumped oil to fuel America’s war. “Bandar promised President Bush that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election – to ensure the US economy is strong on election day.” Their cooperation was not without its rewards. There is ample literature available on the revelations made about the Carlysle Group and war profiteering. Additionally, less than a month after the illegal attack on Iraq, American forces were moved from Saudi Arabia to Qatar.
Saudis were further rewarded when in 2004, pro-Saudi, anti-Iranian Ayad Allawi, the head of INA (Iraqi National Accord) backed by Saudi Arabia, the UK and the US was appointed as prime minister. His first order of the day was to re-establish diplomatic ties between Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Dubbed ‘Saddam without a moustache’ and accused of being a US puppet, he was voted out in 2005. (In 2009, “Alawi launched al-Iraqiya (Iraqi National Movement)). The Saudi/US/British backed Allawi is once again in vogue and a platform is made readily available to him to comment on Iraq and promote himself in opposition to the elected President Nouri al-Maliki.
In the “war on terror,” the first order of the day for the US-led occupation forces was to give ‘special status protection’ to the terrorist group, Mojahedeen-e Khalg (MEK). The US was grateful to the MEK for fighting alongside Saddam Hussein. Thus, the US and Israel made long-term plans for the terrorist group, which included fabricating information about Iran’s civilian nuclear program, according to Gareth Porter.
The US also started building elaborate bases in occupied Iraq. Contrary to their official narrative, the Washington elite had plans to stay. The Americans built several ‘enduring’ bases soon upon arrival – each base arrogantly bearing an English name in Arab land. These were mini-cities with their own country club-style amenities — swimming pools, theaters, golf, coffee shops, fast food chains, and so on. This was clearly an occupation mission.
According to Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who served in the office of the Secretary of Defense, “the neoconservative architects of the Iraq invasion definitely foresaw a permanent, large-scale presence and view the bases as vital both for protecting Israel and as launchpads for operations in Syria and Iran.” Kwiatkowski was right – this timeline coincided with Washington’s support of opposition groups in Syria and sending MEK terrorists to Iran.
But Iran and Syria were only part of the equation. America had global designs. As a former senior Defense Department official observed during the 8-year long Iran-Iraq war: ‘To all intents and purposes,[Persian] Gulf waters now extend from the Straits of Malacca to the South Atlantic.’
But the occupation of Iraq would not be the predicted ‘cake walk.’ The “Mother of all Bombs” dropped on Iraq, the indiscriminate killings, destruction of Iraq’s ancient sites, and abuses such as the Abu Ghraib scandal pushed Iraqis to fight against their “liberators.”
Narratives of crimes committed by US-led forces and their intentions had to be stopped. Journalism became a hazardous occupation as US forces bombed, killed, or shut down papers critical of their occupation and atrocities. Among the most vocal was Muqtada al-Sadr, who, giving voice to the Iraqi people, condemned the occupation and oppression in his newspaper al Hawza. The US forces shut down his paper. He did not surrender his will to fight.
The rising death toll, abuse, and carnage united Iraqis against the American occupiers. Reporting from Baghdad in May 2004, Dahr Jamail cites Imam Al- Adhamy who told him, “what is happening is happening to all of Iraq. There is no difference now between Sunni and Shia, Arab and Kurd. We have all been invaded.” Hence, it became pertinent to undermine their unity and have Iraqis turn on each other instead of fighting the occupiers. This strategy is once again at play with the emergence of ISIL. “[For] Many ordinary Sunni Baghdadis, the advance of Isis is cause for alarm mixed with a vague hope that somehow Isis and Shia Muslims may severely damage each other, to the general benefit of moderate Sunnis.”
In this regard, none proved more helpful than King Abdullah of Jordan in delivering a strategy for the division of Iraqis with his concept of a “Shia Crescent” in late 2004. This inflammatory notion would lay the groundwork for a Sunni-Shia (and Kurd) division. (To understand Jordan’s cooperation and interests, it is important to read the aforementioned IASPS strategy paper “A Clean Break…”) The mainstream media and collaborators in Iraq and the region spread the concept like wildfire, burning bridges among the various sects.
In 2005, as anti-war protests spread across America, under the direction of the Bush State Department, the press was busy creating “happy” news to garner support for the illegal occupation of Iraq. Meanwhile in Iraq, efforts were underway to keep the Iraqis united. In October 2005, then Iraqi President Jalal Talabani announced at a press conference a compromise plan that had been applauded by Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders alike. The threat of a united resistance to the occupation was reemerging. Extraordinary events would once again disrupt the fragile coalition.
Curiously (or not), in December 2005, it was announced that elite Israeli military were training the Kurds in Northern Iraq. In January 2006, Saudi Arabia planned on securing and upgrading a fence intended to seal the Iraq-Saudi border to stop the flow of ‘terrorists.’ In February 2006, one of Shia Islam’s holiest shrines, the Askariya Shrine in Samarra was bombed. Without questioning or heeding witnesses, the bombing was quickly blamed on Sunnis. Violence and revenge killing erupted.
In May 2006, Joe Biden suggested splitting Iraq into three parts. In August, Vali Nasr, an adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations released his book ‘The Shia Revival.’ The flames of a dangerous and irreversible divide were being fanned. On December 30, 2006, Saddam Hussein was hung on Eid ul-Adha inside the Green Zone. The timing of his execution further exasperated the divide as it was a holy day of celebration for the Sunnis, yet the timeline had not yet commenced for the Shiites – it would commence the following day.
In 2007, President Bush ordered a ‘surge’ and 30,000 additional troops would be housed in the bases in order to provide ‘security’ and to help create a “…unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror.” Askariya was bombed a second time. The troops managed to drag the Iraqi Christians into the sectarian division by pushing Christianity on Muslims. In 2008, incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opposed a permanent US presence and instead signed an Agreement (SOFA) that would see the removal of all US troops from Iraq by December 2011.
This timeline brings us to the arming of ISIL terrorists in Syria by the United States and allies who have been engaged in terror activities both inside Syria and Iraq. The motives are clear. To remove Assad, drag Iran (and Hezbollah) into this quagmire with the intention of bleeding all sides. It would also justify American presence to combat ‘terrorists’ and foreign fighters so that America can re-occupy its bases and dominate the Persian Gulf region as planned.
To sum up, neoconservatives had long sought to dominate the Persian Gulf and use it as a launch pad in their grand strategy of global dominance. When fear of communism and inter-state wars ceased to justify this agenda, 9/11 came to the rescue. Sectarian division eliminated resistance to the plan. As renowned strategist Michael Porter said, “Finally, strategy must have continuity. It can’t be constantly reinvented.” The ISIL is that continuation. Finally, the brutal activities of the ISIL will also serve as a warning to Afghanistan’s reluctance to sign a SOFA. It is imperative to point out here that 9/11 was a pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan, concludes Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, a Public Diplomacy scholar, independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy and the role of lobby groups. (HSH)