Over more than three-and-a-half decades, six U.S. presidents, under nine terms of presidency, one after another have been the bystanders to the crimes of the Mullahs’ regime against its own people, its active sponsorship of terrorism abroad, and its regional hegemonic role, and in turn have done nothing to confront and stop the evil act of such rogue state, Nothing! Zilch! Zero! On the contrary, they have cowardly sided with this evil. At some point one may think that the lack of bothered leaders by their conscience has sapped the will of governments in responding to these unprecedented acts of atrocity against humanity, but that cannot be the case, six presidents and all were inept leaders? No, that is not it.
The fact of the matter is that U.S. have been pursuing the long-standing policy of using the terrorist state (IRI) and non-state (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc) as wrecking balls to demolish the Middle East infrastructure by creating the sectarian war among Sunnis and Shia faction. United States along with its European allies not only do not confront the terrorism but directly and indirectly provide it with all the necessary vital economic and strategic instruments to keep it alive and active in its role of destroying the regional civility.
Such bulldozing will force the migration of local intellectual and patriotic societies to outside the regional borders; make the territory ready for non-resistant and easy plundering of its natural wealth by the greedy World Powers. By the same token, the fearful demolishing war is also used as a scarecrow for the neighboring states to benefit the World Powers by ordering humongous number of arms sales under the pretext of defense, thus providing a vehicle to promote their economy. The destruction of the region will continue until at some point the world community (i.e., UN) is forced to step in and present a plan to divide the territory into smaller states by imposing new borderlines. The new landscape of the Middle East map will of course preserve the geopolitical interests of the World Powers. The funny thing is that at the end of this chaos, which probably take a decade or two, these Great Powers will come back for reconstruction of the ruins of war, another way of economical scam.
Imperialism changes its version of presence but never fades away as long as there is no sincere resolute to end it. It becomes maleficent when combined with unfettered capitalism, turns a blind eye on humanity and ruins everything on its way to develop into an inhumane machine. [DID]
The barbaric terrorist attacks in Brussels were a clear reminder of the growing threat of Islamic extremism. This vicious ideology continues to take new forms – once al-Qaeda, now ISIS, both with the shared goal of creating an “Islamic state” capable of enforcing Sharia law and undermining the achievements of the civilized world.
While the Sunni version of fundamentalism desperately seeks to achieve this objective, the Shiite version in Tehran has been in place for nearly four decades. It should be confronted, not appeased.
Syria, Iraq, and Yemen have become breeding grounds for ISIS, a blessing in disguise for Tehran because it conveniently justifies the mullahs’ extraterritorial maleficence.
Some in the West continue to pin their hopes on elusive “reforms” within the clerical establishment, despite the fact that the Iranian regime’s regional agenda is, in the words of its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, “diametrically opposed” to that of the international community. Their optimism is fueled by the misguided expectation of political reform in the aftermath of the nuclear deal. Neither the facts nor the evidence support this contention. Read more…
Obama’s speech during his second-term presidential election “We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are” was nothing more than rhetoric to the US voters. By adopting “no ground-force policy in Iraq and Syria” he unambiguously signaled to the Islamic terrorists that they would have a clear field of operation. He has also suspended the $500-million US program to train and equip Syrian opposition forces known as the New Syrian Forces, or NSF. By abandoning the program, Washington risks losing its ability to influence events on the ground in Syria. More importantly Obama has actually warned to veto the defense policy bill that Senate has recently passed, keeping the restraints on the US military during a critical time that the nation and the world are in utmost need for safety and security. It comes as no surprise to expect from such useless president the mere carelessness in response to the pledges of millions of innocent people whose lives were threatened by those terrorists when we de facto witness that he is not even concerned about the shattered lives of US soldiers by the same evil enemies. His pathetic support measures in Middle East to fight a proxy war is doomed to failure. Securing global peace requires strong and dedicated leadership and a resolute will in responding to the unprecedented crimes against humanity that the world is witnessing today. [DID]
Four years of failed US policy toward Syria have produced alarming results that transcend the Levant. Having carefully gauged the gap between Obama administration rhetoric and action, Russian President Vladimir Putin has elected to intervene militarily to help the Assad regime defeat its non-Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) enemies. He is doing so in the belief that the US response will essentially be one of bemoaning the supposedly big mistake he is making. Like his predecessor over fifty years ago, he senses weakness on the part of a US president. Like his predecessor he risks discovering that trifling with the United States is not a healthy pursuit. But such a risk entails dangers for all concerned.
Missiles in Cuba are not the same thing as Russian fighter-bombers assaulting non-ISIL enemies of the Assad regime. The Russian air assaults, however, signal Moscow’s deep contempt for Washington and a careful calculation that the Obama administration will do nothing substantial to counter them. To the extent that the Obama administration still believes that what happens in Syria stays in Syria, it is seriously mistaken. Read more…
This is not a new issue on ambiguity of Obama’s programs and policies. In 2012 under a secret military program a group of allegedly moderate rebels were given soldierly training by Pentagon. The group was then sent to the battleground in Syria, soon after which it became evident that the cluster has joined the radical Islamic terrorists. Now again Obama administration has assured the public that they are working with vetted moderates in Syria, while in fact those moderates has ended up to be part of the Al Qaeda militia. Either the administration lies to people about their genuine training programs for Syrian rebels, like everything else, or their military preparation plans are inept. Common sense goes for the former, which is an indication of a larger US strategy embedded within its long-term geopolitics interests and its new world order concept in the region. As preparatory part of this strategy however it is required to inflict the Middle East to be plowed by its local actors, and that’s exactly what is happening now. [DID]
Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria are reported to have betrayed their American backers and handed their weapons over to al-Qaeda in Syria immediately after re-entering the country.
Fighters with Division 30, the “moderate” rebel division favoured by the United States, surrendered to the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, a raft of sources claimed on Monday night.
Division 30 was the first faction whose fighters graduated from a US-led training programme in Turkey which aims to forge a force on the ground in Syria to fight against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).
A statement on Twitter by a man calling himself Abu Fahd al-Tunisi, a member of al-Qaeda’s local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, read: “A strong slap for America… the new group from Division 30 that entered yesterday hands over all of its weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra after being granted safe passage. Read more…
The bloodbath in Syria initially began with peaceful protests at the end of January 2011. U.S. could have acted to shape the Syrian opposition into an effective force to prevail. Direct intervention then was neither necessary nor desirable. The cost of assisting Assad’s opponents with logistic and strategic support at the beginning would have been minimal compare to the accumulating cost of American inaction. Obama’s foreign policy of leading from behind meant nothing more than leaving behind the desperate Syrian people in the middle of an unequal fight, making them to turn elsewhere for help and wind up beholden to and manipulated by many adversary groups and States to U.S.
As a result today we witness the ISIS terrorist group in Syria is spilling over into Iraq, turning the country into a civil war. That has been the result of Obama’s “Watch and Wait” policy. The scenario is repeating again but this time in Iraq, once more we hear the same old stuff from White House and the administration that US will not interfere in Iraq but provide humanitarian assistance for the refugees and displaced people and perhaps delivering some material support. What would be the result? Iranian mullahs will send their terrorist IRGC militias into Iraq to get into the fight against the ISIS group and safeguard the security of the Shiite Shrines. Soon the war in Iraq will escalate and spill over into the neighboring countries that can easily develop into a regional war.
One way to see how all this has happened is to blame the inaction policy of the West led by US, but I personally don’t see it that way. I don’t think that the West is that naive to shoot itself in the foot; I believe this has been the result of a carefully plotted master plan by the West to make the regional adversary groups and States to unknowingly do their dirty job of plowing the region by manipulating and engineering sectarian conflicts among them, Sunni blocs against the Shiite factions. The prerequisite for implementing the blueprint for redrawing the new borderlines in Middle East requires chaos and anarchy in the territory, collapsed civilizations, and fallen States, and that is exactly where the region is heading to. [DID]
AVOIDING aggressive questions is a hallmark of the White House press corps. So it should be no surprise that reporters watching President Barack Obama make an emergency statement on Iraq on June 13th failed to pelt him with the queries that lurk at the center of the debate over America’s role in the Middle East. Namely: Mr President, did you help to bring these horrors about when you rushed to pull American combat troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible? And, Mr President, does any part of you regret ignoring pleas to arm and train non-extreme opposition forces across the border in Syria over the past two years?
Instead reporters allowed Mr Obama to explain why American involvement in Iraq would be limited, would take “several days” to be sent, would not involve any return of ground troops and was conditional on Iraq’s central government coming up with a “sincere” political plan to resolve sectarian divisions. “We can’t do it for them,” Mr Obama said severely.
“Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq and nobody is going to benefit from seeing Iraq descend into chaos. The United States will do our part,” he added. “But understand that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems.” Read more…
Every day you get up and hear about a new Islamic terrorist organization that takes responsibility for some act of terrorism in some part of the Middle East and/or North Africa. Who are these terrorist groups that grow on soil like mushrooms? They are heavily armed, wearing bulletproof vests, masked and dressed in black. The funny thing is that they are Sunni Muslims and kill other Muslims who are Shia. The funnier thing is that the world governments and the United Nations are watching all these chaos in the region and keep silent, they couldn’t care less. Why?
The least they could do is to interrupt the lines of arms and material supports to these terrorist groups. But no, not only they don’t do that; they allow these fanatic groups get all the kind of assistance they need, in other word they indirectly support them. But the irony is that their supports are used to boost both fronts of the Islamic terrorism who are in fight against each other, the Shia faction and the Sunni party. United States provides financial supports for the IRI regime in Tehran and subsequently Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Nouri Al-Maliki’s government in Iraq, whom both are Shia Muslims and use these funds to fight against the Sunni people. On the other hand U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, per U.S. administration recommendation, provide the material and training support to Islamic rebels in Syria and Jordan, who are Sunni groups such as Al-Qaeda and its affiliate ISIS that are in fight with Shia people and their allies in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
But what the world powers and mainly U.S. have in mind behind all this? We know that U.S., regardless of looming prospect of energy self-sufficiency, still for geopolitical purposes needs to keep its presence in the region. However U.S. due to lack of public support cannot make use of military force and prefers to take advantage of the ongoing chaos in the region and have these Islamic terrorists plow the whole region and create the fertile soil for radicals, to the point of regional governments wearying and breakdown. Iraq and Iran would be among the last states in the region that would collapse since from the world powers’ point of view their presence is necessary for the completion of the task on hand. It would be at that point of time for the U.S. and NATO to intervene, which will add a new momentum to the conflict and turn it into a beyond-regional war with new actors but no clear prospect for its ending. Will the U.S. succeed to implement its blueprint for the new Middle East map? It is a question that only future can tell us. [DID]
For all his power and new found notoriety, there are only two authenticated photos of a man now called the world’s “most powerful jihadi leader.”One shows a serious man with an olive complexion and rounded countenance. The other, released by the Iraqi government in January, depicts an unsmiling bearded figure in a black suit. The image is cracked and blurry, as though someone had taken a picture of a picture.
The murkiness of the photo of the man who calls himself Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is appropriate. Though he’s “the world’s most dangerous man” to Time magazine and the “the new bin Laden” to Le Monde, the man who orchestrated the sacking of northern Iraq’s largest city and today has control of a nation-size swath of land, is a relatively unknown and enigmatic figure. Read more…
“Obama is simply less personally engaged in foreign policy matters than any of his predecessors reaching as far back as Herbert Hoover.”
As he enters the Back Nine of his second term in office, President Barack Obama is clearly looking to establish his historical legacy. No doubt, his highest priority is the preservation of the Affordable Care Act, which his Administration views as no less important than Medicare and Social Security. Whether Obamacare will survive in its present form, or even survive at all, of course, remains an open question that will be determined both by the future composition of Congress and by the policy preferences of the next White House occupant.
In addition, it is clear that he wishes to be remembered as the president who defeated Al Qaeda by authorizing the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. This legacy, too, is uncertain. It is not merely the host of unanswered questions about the Benghazi fiasco. More to the point is the fact that Islamic extremists, who are at the center of both the Syrian and renewed Iraqi civil wars, are increasingly assertive and violent in Africa and are far from dormant in Southeast Asia as well.
Finally, and most critically, Read more…
Our allies and our enemies have seriously recalculated where the U.S. stands. It was not difficult to define American geopolitical strategy over the seven decades following World War II — at least until 2009. It was largely bipartisan advocacy, most ambitiously, for nations to have the freedom of adopting constitutional governments that respected human rights, favored free markets, and abided by the rule of law. And at the least, we sought a world in which states could have any odious ideology they wished as long as they kept it within their own borders. There were several general strategic goals as we calculated our specific aims, both utopian and realistic.
(1) The strategic cornerstone was the protection of a small group of allies that, as we did, embraced consensual government and free markets, and were more likely to avoid human-rights abuses. That eventually meant partnerships with Western and later parts of Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and much of its former Empire, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In Asia, the American focus was on Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. military essentially guaranteed the security of these Asian nations, and they developed safely, shielded from Soviet or Chinese Communist aggression, and more recently from Russian or Chinese provocations. Read more…
Dozens of seasoned militant fighters, including some mid-level planners, have traveled to Syria from Pakistan in recent months in what American intelligence and counterterrorism officials fear is an effort to lay the foundation for future strikes against Europe and the United States.
“We are concerned about the use of Syrian territory by the Al Qaeda organization to recruit individuals and develop the capability to be able not just to carry out attacks inside of Syria, but also to use Syria as a launching pad,” John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, told a House panel recently.
The extremists who concern Mr. Brennan are part of a group of Qaeda operatives in Pakistan that has been severely depleted in recent years by a decade of American drone strikes. But the fighters still bring a wide range of skills to the battlefield, such as bomb-building, small-arms tactics, logistics, religious indoctrination and planning, though they are not believed to have experience in launching attacks in the West.
On many levels, Israel’s interception of the Klos-C arms ship was an exceptional feat of which we should be proud. It entailed the successful coordination and integration of multi-sourced information from intelligence bodies inside and outside the IDF.
Covert operations by special forces working hundreds of kilometers from home over the course of months were necessary to follow the circuitous route the Islamic Republic charted for the Chinese-made and Syrian-upgraded M-302 rockets. From Damascus to Tehran to Bandar Abbas, near Oman, and then back up the Persian Gulf to the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, the shipment was carefully and clandestinely followed, until it was captured en route to Port Sudan where the plan, apparently, was to move the rockets by land from Sudan to Egypt and from Egypt to the Gaza Strip.
The navy commandos and other forces that took part in storming the cargo ship performed their jobs without a hitch. Klos-C’s crew was taken completely by surprise. Not a single person was injured. Read more…
Well, the contact actually goes well beyond 1993, in fact Al-Qaeda and also the IRI are the US-made babies. They both were introduced to the world by Jimmy Carter in 1979. They were in service to US to do its dirty job against communism during the cold war. US delivered military aids to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union invasion and provided logistic and strategic support to the IRI to take over the government in Iran to create a green belt under the USSR. …….. the full editor’s view is posted below this article. [DID]
In a revelation missing from the official investigations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance terrorist attacks in the United States, according to court testimony in a little-noticed employment dispute case.
“It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, told the court in support of a discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent Bassem Youssef. Read more…
Obama’s address on the State Of The Union showed the lack of seriousness about international affairs by which his Administration has been making the world ever more dangerous for Americans. The passages on war and peace, like the rest of the speech, consisted of patent untruths loosely related to Administration programs – the former meant to justify the latter.
Whatever one might think of Obama’s domestic agenda, these couplets reflected a serious intent to advance it. Thus, because ”climate change” is the cause of Western drought and Eastern floods, Obama will impose new restrictions on the use of fossil fuels; and because “reform” of unemployment insurance will get people back to work, Congress must extend the term of current insurance for 1.6 million people. People with an interest in such things know to disregard the nonsense and to take the agenda as seriously as it is meant. Read more…
WASHINGTON — A great deal of diplomatic attention over the next few months will be focused on whether the temporary nuclear deal with Iran can be transformed into a full-blown accord. President Obama has staked the success of his foreign policy on this bold gamble. But discussion about the nuclear deal has diverted attention from an even riskier bet that Obama has placed: the idea that Iran can become a cooperative partner in regional security.
Although they won’t say so publicly, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry surely dream of a “Nixon to China” masterstroke. They are quietly pursuing a strategic realignment that, they believe, will end decades of semi-open warfare between Iran and the United States and their respective allies. Read more…