No New War On Iraq
IRAQ: THE REAL STRATEGY IS ABOUT TO
SUCCEED
By Tom Mysiewicz
€œThe events that are
taking place in Iraq are an illustration of a complete failure of the venture
started by the US and the UK that allowed it to spiral out of control
completely€ Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov recently
told journalists.
Mr. Lavrov, I€™m sure, knows better and is merely
speaking for the press regarding the stated goals of the Iraq war. For the Anglo-Americans and their Israeli
cohorts knew full well even before the 2003 invasion what they were doing and
what the outcome would be. Very
possibly, Mr. Lavrov never read my Oct. 2nd, 2005 predictions of
Iraq€™s fate in a Media Monitors article entitled
€œThe End€ (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/The-End):
€œWhat has been the end of the Neocon's Iraq strategy
from the start?...For some two years prior to the Iraq war, in Council of
Foreign Relations and other elite circles, stories were circulated about the
benefits of partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions for the
benefit of the "Greater Mid East" (read instead: "Eretz Israel")...This could
lead to a bloody civil war--easily anticipated prior to the U.S. invasion--and
probably leave the Israelis in control of the majority of Iraq's oil through
proxies in a future Kurdistan€¦A
depopulated, destroyed Iraq will be in no position to prevent the diversion of
its oil supplies and water from the Tigris and Euphrates to Eretz Israel.
Further, the conflict could spill over into Syria and Iran and other regional
states, possibly drawing them into a conflict reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq
war.€
This is coming to pass as you read this. With the Kurdish seizure of
Kirkuk€”effectively asserting control of much of the country€™s oil wealth (much
oil already being sold outside the aegis of the Iraqi central government anyway)
for their Israeli patrons€”and conquest of Sunni areas by ISIL/ISIS/Takfiri
elements (enriched by a curious $450-million bank heist and much €œcaptured€
American-supplied military equipment) I contend that the real goal of the Iraq
invasion and Israeli/Anglo-American policy is about to be realized€”the
partition of Iraq.
The entry of the Iranian elite
Revolutionary Guard into the fray at this late date is a good indication of
this€”the pretext of keeping Iraq in one piece under Shiia control kept Iran on
the sidelines during the Purim 2003 invasion of Iraq (which would have turned it
into a regional conflict not wanted by U.S. allies at the time€”the so-called
€œCoalition of the Willing.€) In 2003,
Iran could probably not believe their good fortune as the U.S. destruction of
Saddam virtually handed control of Iraq to the Shiia€”turning Iraq from a
dangerous foe into an ally!
From Israel€™s standpoint, the
latest Iranian move comes at a good time.
They really want to control the oil and the Iranians and Anglo-Americans
can slug it out with each other and with ISIS/ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Syria) and the
Takfiris to prevent them trying to retake the oil fields. Cut off from oil revenues, the Sunni and, to
a lesser extent, the Shiia areas will become depopulated and €œwither on the
vine.€ The Iranian involvement can also
serve Israel€™s interests by giving it a pretext to strike Iranian military and
nuclear targets.
The Israeli public stance, then, is predictable. Rov Tov, in his latest piece, quotes a lengthy analysis in the Israeli publication Yediot Ahronot, by its €œconnected€ military analyst Ron ben Yishai, a former IDF lieutenant colonel. Tov comments that ben Yishai is saying, in effect, that "If America does nothing, Israel will fall, and afterwards Europe."
We are seeing the false dominoes of the Vietnam War laid out for the U.S. once again€”this time by their Israeli €œally€. If the U.S. fails to intervene to protect Israel€™s interests at this juncture, we are to believe, the states of Europe could fall, one by one, becoming part of the greater Takfriri €œCaliphate.€
CFR, OTHERS LONG PUSHED FOR
SEPARATION
Echoing a long-held position of the
influential Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) prior to
the Iraq war, Leslie Gelb, PhD, President Emeritus of the CFR, stated in a Nov.
25, 2003 New York Times article titled "The Three-State Solution":
"President Bush's new strategy of transferring power quickly to
Iraqis, and his critics' alternatives, share a fundamental flaw: all commit the
United States to a unified Iraq, artificially and fatefully made whole from
three distinct ethnic and sectarian communities. That has been possible in the
past only by the application of overwhelming and brutal force...
The only viable strategy, then, may be to correct the historical
defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north,
Sunnis in the center and Shiite in the South€¦Allowing all three communities
within that false state to emerge at least as self-governing regions would be
both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very hard-headed, and
hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup. But such a course is manageable, even
necessary, because it would allow us to find Iraq's future in its denied but
natural past."
As
a U.S. Senator, Joe Biden carried the CFR€™s (and Israel€™s) water on this
issue. According to a CFR backgrounder
authored by Greg Bruno on Oct. 27th,
2007:
€œA non-binding resolution that sailed through the U.S.
Senate in September 2007 reignited debate over Iraq€™s political future.
Introduced by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) and Sam Brownback, (R-KS), the
measure calls for a decentralized Iraqi government €œbased upon the principles
of federalism€ and advocates for a relatively weak central government with
strong Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regional administrations. The bill, based on a
proposal first introduced by Biden and CFR President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb,
passed the Senate by a 75 to 23 margin. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Chris
Dodd (D-CT), rivals in a crowded presidential field that includes Sen. Biden,
both supported the amendment.€
No comments:
Post a Comment