With an amalgam of participants, sectarian violence in Iraq is probably at its worst at the moment. It might have exceeded a similar situation between 2005-2007 when Sunni and Shiia death squads virtually ruled the streets of all major Iraqi cities and the morgues were packed with bodies.
The recent successes of ISIS in Iraq have somewhat overshadowed Al-Nusra in Syria. It has been reportedly carrying out executions in Tikrit. One of Iraq's biggest oil refineries in Baiji has been shut. Several foreign diplomatic missions in Basra have left. ISIS continues to threaten the capital, Baghdad. In Baqubah city, north of Baghdad, over 40 prisoners lost their lives as Iraqi forces battled to keep the militants away. According to some Iraqis, ISIS attempted a prison break in Baqubah and the Iraqi security forces killed the prisoners after driving away the militants. In Baghdad, a Sunni cleric, Imam Nihad al-Jibouri, and two of his friends were allegedly kidnapped and murdered by Shiia militants. Their bodies were found in a Baghdad morgue. A group of Sunni jurists have threatened revenge. The vicious cycle of sectarianism goes on and on.
Washington Post writes on US / Iran relations: "With Iraq’s Shiite neighbor rallying to support Maliki and the United States sending up to 275 troops to protect its embassy in Baghdad, the longtime adversaries have found themselves with mutual interests." But a careful study gives a different impression that the supposed US/Iran alignment over the recent developments in Iraq could be unsustainable and therefore irrelevant.
ISIS with it's goal to establish a caliphate in Iraq and Syria is the most trusted army of Saudi Arabia and NATO. They have spent billions of dollars to train and arm the mercenaries.
Just as the militants in Syria are demanding President Assad to step down unconditionally, ISIS and its affiliates are demanding the same of Al-Malki in Iraq.
Though lately differences have arisen between Al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria, both are reportedly being assisted by the CIA center in Libya (Benghazi) .. Libya itself being a gift to the Al Qaeda franchise, LIFG, by NATO.
When the United States officially announces its decision of aiding "rebels," the allusion is helping Al Qaeda. Do not get misled into accepting the old myth that the "rebels" are fighting for "democracy" in Syria to topple a "dictator." Neither was that true in Libya.
Info Wars sums up this story comprehensively in a few words. "Otherwise known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the caliphate and its partners in Riyadh and Doha have transplanted tens of thousands of murderous paramilitary jihadists from the battlefields of Syria to the killing fields of Iraq. For the fossilized monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar the objective is to spread a pernicious version of Sunni Islam and thus defeat their longtime Shiia Islam rivals, while in the West the financial and global elite are playing a long-running game of conquer and divide, a technique long used by the British Empire."
Another prime interest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar is to thwart Iran's influence in the Middle-East. Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Al-Quds Force is acknowledged by the US as the most powerful man in the region and one of the most influential in the Middle East. It was Suleimani who reportedly played the lead role kicking out the Americans from Iraq. The Americans are too embarrassed to talk about it, but the Iraqi politicians agree that Suleimani "outmaneuvered them in putting the government together." According to Suleimani's backroom deal, he favored Nouri Al-Maliki and was determined that Ayad Allawi, a pro-American secularist must not become the Prime Minister. Consequently the Americans told Alawi to quit in favor of Maliki, fearing trouble from Iran otherwise. Alawi stated that the Americans wanted to stay in Iraq as occupiers but were just as afraid of violence during their stay. As a result, Suleimani's favorite government came to power and according to Alawi, the Americans turned Iraq into an "Iranian colony."
It's undeniable that the United States and its EU partners have more often than not welcomed Al-Qaeda terror tactics, using them to achieve their own political objectives. The most vital aspect of every political goal of the West involving its foreign policy has been to destabilize and topple governments primarily in Muslim states that choose sovereignty over puppetism.
Various Al Qaeda groups on a rampage in Iraq for over a decade have been responsible for the death of many US and coalition soldiers. Yet these terrorists simplified the political objectives of the West. Al Qaeda's violence in Iraq became a sound pretext for the US and its allies to stay in Iraq indefinitely and establish their military bases. Secondly, the furious sectarian infighting weakened the Iraqi community at large, making it more vulnerable to 'divide and conquer' policies initiated and controlled by the imperialist block. Unfortunately the world has a very short and dismissive memory even when blatant mischief-mongering is caught red-handed. A blazing example of US/British collaboration with Al Qaeda was in Basra in 2005 when British soldiers disguised as "Arab terrorists" began shooting randomly at Iraqi civilians and were soon after nabbed by the Iraqi police.
What's conspicuous about the sudden eruption of sectarian violence in Iraq and the successes of Al Qaeda is the eerie silence of the West and America's apparent desire to stay aloof. It's ironic that eleven years ago battalions of US marines barged into Iraq when it was peaceful. But they refuse to make any commitments to help when Iraq is actually at the brink of a disaster. Though the news today was buzzing with President Obama sending "300 military advisers to Iraq" to protect the US embassy and other US interests in the country, it also carried a reprimand for Al-Malki that he better pull up his socks, do better and give the Sunni minority a greater role in the government or risk a bloody civil war in his country.
The US has still not approved airstrikes in Iraq. Some observers may presume the chaos in Iraq might be a distraction for the radicals in Syria and a relief for Bashar al-Asad. But the outcome could be the other way round. Using the insurgency in Iraq as an excuse for NATO intervention in Syria cannot be ruled out. US aircraft are flying over Iraq on intelligence collecting missions. US officials have admitted that if they were to carry out airstrikes in Iraq, it's highly probable that they will also need to hit targets in Syria from where militants are crossing over to Iraq. That was straight from the horse's mouth. If the US shows any interest in Iraq, the ulterior motive will be to end the stalemate in Syria and get rid of Bashar al-Asad with the supposed objective of attacking militant targets.
It's very unlikely that NATO will step into Iraq to genuinely fight Al Qaeda. The emergence of ISIS in Iraq was itself the brainchild of the infamous coalition - US, EU, Saudi Arabia and Qatar - toppling Saddam Hussein and reducing Iraq to a failed state like Mali, Somalia or Yemen. That is precisely the direction where Iraq is heading to the pleasure of that coalition.
But what if Iran, Syria and Iraq build up an alliance to fight the Salafist horde and purge Iraq of mercenaries? That could be the only situation when NATO might want to jump in and fight .... fight the rivals of Al Qaeda .... with some lame cover story.
Think of it now. Isn't it naive, nay wishful thinking, on the part of the Iranian president to contemplate confronting the Salafists in Iraq alongside the United States?