Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Unpublished Interview with Fars - 8/9/2014

As you know well, the crisis in Iraq escalated after the ISIL militants took control of Mosul in a lightning advance on June 10, which was followed by the fall of Tikrit, located 140 kilometers (87 miles) Northwest of the capital, Baghdad.
The terrorist group is making great advances in Iraq’s north. The whole is worried at the situation particularly people of Middle-East. You are kindly requested to contribute to this interview so that we can raise world’s awareness regarding this issue and those funding and supporting them. The interview will be published at Iran’s leading news agency Fars News:

1)       What do you think are the ultimate objectives of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Why have they embarked on a project of rabblerousing and igniting sectarian conflict in the region?

To try and determine what the objectives of ISIL are, it is important to understand how they came to being.  It has been widely reported and established, correctly, that had it not been for the actions of the United States, be it the illegal war against Iraq or the arming of the militants to overthrow the Assad government, there would be no ISIL threat today. America’s contribution to these terrorists included arms and training. Britain also participated in arming and training anti-Assad rebels.   

In June, Obama sought hundreds of millions for dollars for “moderate rebels” in Syria!  Losing arms Iraq, Afghanistan.

But the aforementioned is the most obvious fact, which even US officials openly admit to. This degree of rare honesty serves to conceal and distract from the hidden agendas of which there are many.

The initial occupation of Iraq and the support of anti-Assad elements had a two-fold strategy.  One was to re-establish American hegemony over the region, in particular the Persian Gulf – the lynchpin of U.S. strategy and its ambitions of global domination. 

In addition to its presence and control of the region, America also wanted control of the resources – oil and water.

While the US’ import of oil from the region is negligible, the control of the system and the oil would give it the upper hand, especially with regards to Europe and Japan. In other words, US control of the oil flow from the Persian Gulf directly or through proxies, would give it leverage over its allies. 

In 2012, the majority of Israel's crude oil imports came from Russia and Azerbaijan via tanker vessels.

In addition, the US would be able to safeguard Israel’s energy demand and reduce costs given that at the time, Israel relied on Russian oil.  According to a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Israel,  America guaranteed Israel’s energy demands.

A far more vital resource in that part of the world is water of course.  In essence, another reason for the intervention in Iraq and Syria is water to create hydraulic security for Israel.   The Tigris and Euphrates rivers provide Iraq and Syria with their water and depend essentially on agreements with Turkey where both rivers originate.  Plans have been in the making to divert this water to Israel (and in some measure, to Southern Persian Gulf states).    

These resources, water and oil, demanded compliant governments in Iraq and Syria.  In 2013, Netanyahu publicly hinted at arming Syrian “rebels” .  (

ISIL serves these agendas in many ways.  Foremost, it serves to weaken the central governments.  For as long as they are busy fighting an enemy within, their capacity would be too diminished to fight the greater enemy without.   

Second, ISIL falsely promotes the Western narrative of a Sunni-Shia divide in order to weaken the internal resistance.  In fact, ISIL is killing all Moslems, Christians, and others.

The gruesome killings that are taking place and tweeted around the world, serve to direct hatred and anger at Moslems, regardless of the fact that the roots and origins of these terrorists.  Curiously, this group does not target Israel.  

The brutality of ISIL has painted a false image of Moslems and underscored – inaccurately – the Israeli narrative that it must fend itself against “Islamic terrorists”.

Perhaps the most important aspect of ISIL, in my view, is that it is waging a total war against Islam.   Not long ago, the world learnt in horror that future leaders of America were being taught to wage a “total war” against 1.4 billion Moselms in order to “protect America against Islamic terrorists”. 

The total war included transformation of Islam to “cult status”, bombing and starvation while reinforcing the notion that mainstream” Muslims are dangerous, because they’re “violent” by nature.   U.S. military did concede that some of the tactics would be considered “politically incorrect”.   It seems to me that ISIL has solved the problem for them.

So at the end of the day, you have to ask who created, armed and trained the terrorists?   And who stands to gain from their butchery.  

2)       Can we consider the threat of the disintegration and balkanization of Iraq serious? Is the ISIL capable of realizing its plans for dominating Iraq and Syria and destroying their sovereign governments?
The threat of disintegration and balkanization of Iraq is very real and very serious.  The US has long sought to balkanize the entire region, not just Iraq.  There is a plethora of literature on these plans introduced by neocon Bernard Lewis  who proposed a plan for redrawing the borders of the larger Middle East into a mosaic of competing mini-states, thereby weakening the power of the existing republics and kingdoms.  In 2006, Joe Biden openly called for Iraq to be divided into 3 parts.   Everything that is happening today has been long in the making.
We cannot lose track of  the fact that none of this would have been possible without the Iraq invasion.  ISIL would not be a threat had the United States (Britain and regional allies) had not armed and trained them.

In January 2014,  ISIL (then referred to as al-Qaeda affiliate) seized Fallujah.  In February, the United States sent heavy weaponry, intelligence gathering drones, missiles, thousands of contractors to train the Iraqis and help with intelligence gathering.   In spite of American training and sophisticated weaponry, a few short months later, fewer than 1000 ISIL fighters sent some 30,000 soldiers into retreat.  Surely then, we must either accept that the United States with its sophisticated weaponry, its intelligence gathering and highly paid contractors is absolutely useless; in which case we must question the deployment of special forces and the aerial “humanitarian bombing” , or, concede that ISIL has been the beneficiary – deliberate or not.  Which only underscores America’s role in all this.   Curiously, the same month that 1000 ISIL members defeated 30,000 US trained soldiers, America asked for millions more in funds to arm rebels in Syria, even as (US) government officials have conceded that the US had armed ISIL in Syria.
In spite of promoting the false narrative of a Sunni-Shia divide, America was not able to balkanize the region.   ISIL provides the opportunity to accomplish these goals – and more.  If you look at everything that ISIL has accomplished to date, you will note that they have only served the United States and Israel at the expense of the region and Moslems as a whole. 
This is a serious threat that needs to be taken seriously.  I don’t believe that assistance from the US is the answer, as clearly indicated above, it would have he exact opposite effect.   Without any military knowledge or training, I cannot really address what would be the best course of action.    But it is important that every citizen, regardless of their ethnicity and religion see this group as a direct threat.  

3)      Do think that ISIL is the co-product of the US and Israel?  Can we say that the ISIL and the Al-Nusra Front are being funded and equipped in part by the Israeli regime?

 Please see above.    In 2013, in a BBC interview, Netanyahu hinted at the possibility of arming Syrian “rebels”.    In fact, former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin  told the audience at the  Israel Policy Forum in February 2013:  “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating.  We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an AlQaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army."   In essence, these rebel terrorists are weakening sovereign armies while killing the populations of both Syria and Iraq (not to mention others such as Palestinians).

4)       Do you consider the current crisis in Iraq and Syria the result of a division between the Shiites and the Sunnis?

Not at all.   This is how the Western media would like to project it.  

5)      It’s reported that around 3,000 of the ISIL fighters in Syria and Iraq are foreigners. Aren’t the United States and the European countries afraid of the returning of these terrorists to their countries? How do they justify the presence of their citizens in the ranks of terrorists fighting in a distant country thousands of miles away?
The West now has the perfect excuse not to let in refugees of wars they have created, to promote fear, and to crack down on liberties in their respective countries.   The threat of ISIL is a fine propaganda tool for US and allies.  At a minimum, the United States and Europe can take comfort in the fact that not once has ISIL threatened Israel.    Which makes ISIL all the more questionable!    This lack of hostility toward Israel and what is happening in Gaza mirrors bin Laden in 200-2009.  While the world was supposed to believe he was still alive and an enemy and threat to the West, he was completely silent as Israel massacred Gazans  in Operation Cast Lead.  Important facts not discussed in the media.

6)      Who is equipping ISIL and providing it with the state-of-the-art armament it currently possesses? Is it really possible for a fundamentalist cult to conquer and gain control over so many cities and provinces without the support and sponsorship of foreign powers  - please refer to question 2.   ISIL is serving the American/Israeli agenda – deliberate or coincidental, is for the intelligent reader to judge.

7)      You know that US government has changed its approach towards ISIL as its warplanes conducted two rounds of strikes on ISIL artilleries on Friday. What’s behind this sudden change of approach? Is this related to Erbil?  

Possibly several reasons.  There are many American forces in Erbil.   And of course there is an oil and gas conference scheduled in Erbil in December 2014.    There have been huge demonstrations around the world with regards to what Israel is doing in Gaza and Americans have not been immune from the news.  Now once again, US is attempting to show that it is concerned with and involved in humanitarian crisis.  Frankly, this is all propaganda.    And America’s standing in the world  relies on propaganda. 

But one must also not rule out the possibility of a full scale return to Iraq.   From the onset, US build enduring bases in Iraq, mini cities.  These were for permanent occupation.  US did not plan on leaving.  The Abu Gharib scandal and American actions untied Iraq against their occupiers.   Even with the false narrative of a Shia Sunni divide and the false flags, America was tossed out of the country by Maliki.    This could be an opening for the US to return to Iraq (occupy by other means) and to justify such actions to the American people.

No comments:

Post a Comment