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. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html
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).
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.
