The Fiction of “Fighting the
Islamic State”, An Entity Created and Financed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia
"The Virtual Inventor
of the “IS” is none other than Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice"
Global Research, November
10, 2016
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Theme: US NATO War Agenda
In-depth Report: IRAQ REPORT, SYRIA: NATO'S NEXT WAR?
First published in September
2, 2014
The most severe crisis in
the Middle East to date, the coming to power of the “Islamic State” in Iraq and
Syria has entered an extremely absurd phase. The European states are about to
follow the lead of the U.S. by exporting arms to the Kurdistan Regional
Government under the command of Mustafa Barzani. This is being justified as
“humanitarian aid”. They allegedly want to help preventing the genocide against
the Yazidis. Accompanied by strong media presence, the German foreign minister
Frank-Walter Steinmeier visited a family of Yazidi victims. He intended to
illustrate the suffering of the Yazidis and the impending genocide in order to
manipulate public opinion towards accepting the supposedly exceptional
situation of the necessity of German arms exports into a crisis region.
The German government and
other governments in the West in conjunction with their mass media are giving
the strong impression that arms transfers to the Iraqi Kurds is the only
possibility to prevent the impending catastrophe. All the other short- and
long-term alternatives have not even been taken into consideration. All
indications put forward by experts regarding the dramatic consequences of
military support of the Iraqi Kurds are being systematically ignored.
Therefore, Western governments raise the suspicion that humanitarian motives to
protect the Yazidis merely constitute a fabricated pretext to enforce their own
interests.
The U.S. is taking advantage
of the incontestable threat posed by the brutal “IS” combatants in order to
polish their damaged image in the Middle East and simultaneously try to
underline that their further military presence in the region is indispensable.
At the same time, the virtual inventor of the “IS” is none other than
former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In 2006, during the peak
of the U.S.–Iran conflict, she prompted all Sunni states to set up a “Sunni
belt” in response to the alleged “Shia belt” that Iran had supposedly created
against Arab Sunnis. Henceforth, the Lebanese government received military aid
with the explicit purpose of containing Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon. Then the
Secretary-General of the Saudi National Security Council, the infamous
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, set to work. The results were the birth of brutal
groups such as Al-Nusra Front and “ISIS”, which sprang up like mushrooms to
fight the Assad regime in Syria. In the final analysis, the outcome of the 2006
Condoleezza Rice plan was also the creation of the barbaric “IS” group, which
is unprecedented in the entire history of Islam.
Especially since the
beginning of this year, the German political élite are agitating for “more
responsibility” in world politics. For this purpose, they want to soften
restrictions with regard to arms transfers to crisis-hidden regions as well as
remove parliamentary barriers to so-called humanitarian interventions. Since
then, there have been massive attempts to eradicate moral objections from the
collective memory of Germans to be able to participate in future global
military conflicts without any restraints. As a result, the impending genocide
against the Yazidi minority in northern Iraq was skillfully built up to be the
number one issue by influential media outlets. The credibility of the
humanitarian motives of the German government can be measured by the fact that
the same government did not say a word about the atrocities of the Israeli
government in Gaza which was taking place at the same time. There is silence
about the suffering of the Palestinians but the suffering of the Yazidis is
being exploited for their own policies. This is a terrifying hypocrisy.
The four regional states
affected would be well advised to not allow further intervention by the U.S.
and other Western states into the Middle East. The West will not remove the
evil of “IS” which it has caused itself. It will rather intensify chaos in the
Middle East. The U.S. neoconservatives have long been talking about a policy of
“creative chaos” in the Middle East. The “creativity” of this chaos consists of
the consolidation of U.S. hegemony in the region by causing area-wide instability
and generating more “failed states”. Indeed, ethnic, religious, civil and
cross-national wars carry the Middle East in that direction. The reasons for
this retrogression should be clear:
By dint of Western arms
transfers, Iraqi Kurds will proclaim a Kurdish state in northern Iraq and
consequently split Iraq into several parts. The fact that some weeks ago Israel
announced that it would immediately accept a Kurdish state should give us cause
for concern. The claim to be the sole representatives of a Kurdish state made
by the Barzani leadership, who follows the concept of Kurdish nationalism,
would inevitably evoke reactions from Kurds in Turkey and Syria who are under
the influence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Not least because meanwhile
the PKK rejects a Kurdish national state and obviously pursues the aim to
create autonomous Kurdish regions within the existing states of Turkey, Syria,
Iraq, and Iran. A civil war between Kurds would be best suited to provoke a war
between the four states at hand and to bring nationalist currents into the
arena. It is obvious that under such circumstances, the brutal supporters of
the “Caliphate” would not be weakened. By contrast, they would find ideal
conditions for building their “Caliphate” and “Islamic State” (the Western
media carefully abstains from using quotation marks) in the heart of the Middle
East and would henceforth frighten all its states and peoples, including
numerous ethno-religious minorities. The German and European arms fetishists are
walking right into the trap of those U.S. neoconservatives who long ago set
this trap in conjunction with their transatlantic puppet masters, when they
sell arms to the Iraqi Kurds. To put it bluntly: I think that these arms
transfers would be the most imprudent thing that the Europeans could do in the
name of “humanitarian intervention”.
Nobody knows whether we can
prevent the German and other European governments from committing such
stupidity. Regardless of this, it is primarily the four affected states themselves
that have a common interest in fighting the cancer of the “Islamic Caliphate”.
This “Caliphate” is massively steered from abroad and it threatens all
religious and ethnic minorities – the Yazidis of Iraq and Turkey, Christians
across the Middle East, the Alawites of Syria, the Alevites of Turkey, Shias of
Iraq, Iran and other parts of the Middle East, as well as Kurds of all four
countries. Even the majority of Sunnis who resist the policies of the “Islamic
State” would be in danger. It is especially a disgrace for the Islamic states
in general – and it casts a gloomy cloud over the positive civilizing
achievements of tolerance, the protection of minorities and the peaceful
coexistence of different peoples and religions within the Islamic world. Most
importantly, it is only the four most affected states themselves – Iraq, Iran,
Syria and Turkey – which are in a position to end the “Caliphate” project
through common efforts.
The challenge that is
currently being posed by “IS” also proves how important it is for the four
affected states in the Middle East to act beyond short-term national interests,
to cooperate in security matters and to generate a common security framework.
Beyond putting an end to the “IS” challenge, only such a perspective allows them
to solve common cross-border problems in transnational dialog and negotiations.
Apart from “IS”, the Kurdish question poses the most significant common issue
of the four states. Within the scope of a joint regional security framework,
the Kurdish dream of more administrative autonomy could be realized by dint of
direct dialog and negotiations without violating the territorial integrity of
the four states’ Kurdish settlement areas. Since the beginning of the 20th century,
this unsolved problem has provoked numerous bloody wars and permanent domestic
conflicts. Therefore, the Kurdish population deserves a lasting peaceful
resolution.
This could be facilitated if
the four states negotiated with all Kurdish movements. Apart from the Kurdish
question, there are other broad transnational issues such as the extension of
energy and water supply, the development of transport infrastructure, the
liberalization of trade and many other projects that can be regulated via the cooperation
of the four states in order to increase the social security and welfare of the
region. No less important is the fact that the four states could succeed in
ending the damaging interventions of the U.S., Israel and other states and
create the conditions for a peaceful and economically prosperous Middle East
even beyond the frontiers of the four states, providing that they are willing
to act in concert.
Dr. Mohssen Massarrat (professor emeritus at
the University of Osnabrück, Germany, and expert on international relations and
the Middle East)
Translated from the
German original – entitled “Die Bekämpfung des sogenannten »Islamischen
Staates« liegt allein in der Hand der betroffenen Staaten” [Fighting against the
»Islamic State« solely lies in the hands of the affected states],
NachDenkSeiten: Die kritische Website (Germany), 29 August 2014 – by Kaveh
Yazdani, and edited by Ali Fathollah-Nejad.
The original source of this
article is Global Research
Copyright © Prof. Mohssen Massarrat, Global Research, 2016
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.