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…
I think we all know what Barack Obama’s foreign-policy strategy coming into office was.
Step 1: Be Barack Obama (and not George W. Bush).
Step 2: ????
Step 3: World peace!
(With apologies to “South Park.”)
As a candidate, Obama held a huge campaign rally in, of all places, Berlin, touting his bona fides as a citizen of the world. The crowds went wild, as he talked at length about a world without walls (you had to be there). As president, in his first major speech abroad, Obama suggested to a Cairo audience that the fact America elected him was all the proof anyone should need that America had turned the page. 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…
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…