IRAQ: Sectarianism / Salafiism / Shiiaism / Saudi Arabia / Qatar / Iran / and the West

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?