You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see the Saudi connection to Mosul.

Posted by: chip nikh | Jun 12, 2014 5:52:34 AM | 92

Yep

But you left out "and/or deliberately deceptive" too

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 11:05 utc | 101

93

You're confusing a Kurdistani battle between street corner dealers with global oil wars in the $Bs of $s per day. Who cares about a couple of tanker trucks sneaking over the border? Six months of shrinkage and all Kurds accumulated was ONE DAY of Iraqi oil production. This is all about oil futures. That's why when Russia got shut in by the Kerry-Kohn-Nuland-Biden
coup, Iraqi's announced they were back in full production, and set to double in two years.

They want the oils futures contracts for next fall! That's why KSA got on the horn next day to say they're at 12MGD (which is probably a lie) and 'can go to 15' (is definitely a lie). Canada is shut in. Russia is shut in. Iran is shut in. This is an oil bidding war, and just the bad evening news about Mosul and Tikrit is enough to send oil futures traders to Riyadh.

The Saudis blew up WTC, then George Bush shut down the US air system for them to escape.

That's how powerful KSA is. You have no idea who you are dealing with.

Posted by: chip nikh | Jun 12 2014 11:08 utc | 102

http://www.thenational.ae/world/iraq/iraq-cant-finance-budget-deficit-without-kurdish-oil-revenues-says-legislator
http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/energy/global-demand-for-oil-to-rise-higher-than-expected-in-2014
http://www.unpo.org/article/16962
http://www.bis-kurdistan.co.uk/
http://www.mop.krg.org/resources/MoP%20Files/PDF%20Files/DCC/Reports/BES%20in%20KRG-%20UNDP%20ProDoc%20only%2025-3-09.pdf
http://peak-oil.org/news/category/middle-east/iraq/kurdistan/
http://auis.edu.iq/
http://www.alternet.org/story/148443/i_was_a_professor_at_the_horribly_corrupt_american_university_of_iraq..._until_the_neocons_fired_me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan#Foreign_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan#Petroleum_and_mineral_resources
http://arabstates.undp.org/content/rbas/en/home/presscenter/articles/2009/05/06/-undp-to-aid-kurdistan-region-government/

I cannot find a document, but pre-2001, Iraqi Kurdistan was the place where the UN was pouring more money in the whole world.
In 1991-1994 two-thirds of the UN budget for Iraq went to the 3 nothern states (i. e. Kurdistan): http://www.kurdipedia.org/documents/88675/0001.PDF

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2014 11:09 utc | 103

Also intresting to mention: "isis, the statue of liberty"

http://www.whale.to/c/statue_of_liberty.html

and

http://www.evawaseerst.be/hera.jpeg

Posted by: Paty Kerry | Jun 12 2014 11:09 utc | 104

money for jam, guns for oil
black water on the boil
in vain do angels toil
magog stirs,beneath the soil

Posted by: wes | Jun 12 2014 11:14 utc | 105

The US has one thing going for it, the weapons manufacturing industry. Even when the direct strategic objective eludes you, there is always money to be made by stirring the pot.

Every US president has had at least one war, to secure the income of its war-profeteers.

Posted by: Alexander | Jun 12 2014 11:19 utc | 106

Posted by: chip nikh | Jun 12, 2014 6:55:59 AM | 98

I am no expert, but everybody seems to agree that ISIL is no real threat to either Syrian nor Iraqi armies, especially when Iran should come to Iraq's help officially.

Maliki just called the US and Iran for help :-)) Syria has just sounded the alarm that ISIL is about to take over Deir Ezzor.

Everything is ok from a colonialist point of view if locals keep each other in check. Colonialists begin to worry if someone is taking over as they hate to be confronted by a united block.

Iran, Syria and Iraq getting united against ISIL, Kurds included, giving Maliki absolute central powers, is not what the US had planned by extreme federalization.
If Turkey planned ISIL to act as counterweight to Kurds they will find it difficult to impossible to support them now.

No matter what the US does now, Russia's (and Iran's) state coffers will be filled with the profits of a very high oil price - just like Saudi Arabia's. Iran does sell oil to Turkey, remember.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 11:53 utc | 107

Saudi Arabia is all over the attacks in Iraq

- Iran sealing a deal on the nuclear issue has made Saudis worried about Iran's reintegrating the oil market and Shiism becoming succesful in the region
- The election of Bashar al Assad in Syria tolerated and secretly condoned by the West is a humiliating blow to Saudi Arabia
- The failure of the Sunni Islamists they support in Syria is another humiliation
- The growth of Turkey as a competing Regional Sunni leadership is making the Saudis fidgety. Its recent official association with Iran to fight terrorism is another source of concern
- The election a Shia, Al Maliki in Iraq has been the last blow.

It is not coincidence that the attack in Mosul came days after these events

Saudi Arabia has a useless army so they use Sunni terrorists and mercenaries to affirm their strength,
By attacking Mosul and threatening the Kurd supply of oil to Turkey, they achieve several goals:
- humiliate Al Maliki
- provoke Iran
- Hurt Turkey
- Confuse the USA
- Make their oil needed
- Hit back at Qatar's increased importance in the region

If these attacks are repelled and the Islamists loose control of the areas they won, with the help of Iran, Turkey, Qatar maybe the USA, it would provoke a tremor in Saudi Arabia

Qatar has an ambiguous role. They hate the Saudis and are ally with Turkey and Iran. They resent having been kicked out of Egypt and Syria.
They will probably finance fighters to fight on Iraq side just to humiliate even more Saudi Arabia.

Syria may benefit from that as the fighters may need to converge to Iraq thus weakening their presence in North Syria. Yet if they fail in Iraq they may come back in force in Syria.

Saudi is playing a very dangerous game that may break them for good.

Posted by: virgile | Jun 12 2014 12:22 utc | 108

Saudi Arabia is all over the attacks in Iraq

- Iran sealing a deal on the nuclear issue has made Saudis worried about Iran's reintegrating the oil market and Shiism becoming succesful in the region
- The election of Bashar al Assad in Syria tolerated and secretly condoned by the West is a humiliating blow to Saudi Arabia
- The failure of the Sunni Islamists they support in Syria is another humiliation
- The growth of Turkey as a competing Regional Sunni leadership is making the Saudis fidgety. Its recent official association with Iran to fight terrorism is another source of concern
- The election a Shia, Al Maliki in Iraq has been the last blow.

It is not coincidence that the attack in Mosul came days after these events

Saudi Arabia has a useless army so they use Sunni terrorists and mercenaries to affirm their strength,
By attacking Mosul and threatening the Kurd supply of oil to Turkey, they achieve several goals:
- humiliate Al Maliki
- provoke Iran
- Hurt Turkey
- Confuse the USA
- Make their oil needed
- Hit back at Qatar's increased importance in the region

If these attacks are repelled and the Islamists loose control of the areas they won, with the help of Iran, Turkey, Qatar maybe the USA, it would provoke a tremor in Saudi Arabia

Qatar has an ambiguous role. They hate the Saudis and are ally with Turkey and Iran. They resent having been kicked out of Egypt and Syria.
They will probably finance fighters to fight on Iraq side just to humiliate even more Saudi Arabia.

Syria may benefit from that as the fighters may need to converge to Iraq thus weakening their presence in North Syria. Yet if they fail in Iraq they may come back in force in Syria.

Saudi is playing a very dangerous game that may break them for good.

Posted by: virgile | Jun 12 2014 12:25 utc | 109

somebody

Iran is not going to send anything to Iraq, thats nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12 2014 12:52 utc | 110

somebody

Iran is not going to send anything to Iraq, thats nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12 2014 12:53 utc | 111

somebody

Iran is not going to send anything, thats nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12 2014 12:56 utc | 112

Interesting tidbits only
ISIS leader treated in Antakya Hospital
#ISIS commander Mazen Ebu Muhammed! has been treated in a hospital in Antakya,Turkey!16 Apr 2014 pic.twitter.com/ytYvfJqIHr @RT_Erdogan

HRW head doesn't think ISIS so bad
http://twitter.com/KekHamo/status/476917859885780992/photo/1

Posted by: bassalt | Jun 12 2014 13:01 utc | 113

virgile@106 "Saudi is playing a very dangerous game that may break them for good". I hope so, the sooner that fat bunch of perverted scum are hanging from lamp posts the better.

Posted by: harry law | Jun 12 2014 13:12 utc | 114

Saudi is playing a very dangerous game that may break them for good.

Posted by: virgile | Jun 12, 2014 8:22:48 AM | 106

Agree. In twenty years, The House of Saud will be no more, maybe sooner. May their enemies track them down in their Western haunts to where they've fled and behead them in front of their fellow Oligarchs for all the world to see on Pay Per View. If they're lucky, maybe The Hague can protect them like it did Milosevic. As if.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jun 12 2014 13:23 utc | 115

somebody

Iran is not going to send anything to Iraq, thats nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12, 2014 8:53:55 AM | 109

Why would it? It'd be redundant. Everything's by proxy these days, haven't you heard? Iran's in the mix by proxy but the problem is, as an analyst from the outside looking in with incomplete information, these proxies are taking on a life of their own to the point it's difficult to tell where their allegiances reside. It's as though they're joint ventures and all interested parties own a piece.

No need to send official armies — they're archaic and merely for show. Everyone's gone Potemkin.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jun 12 2014 13:29 utc | 116

From Turkey, Hürriyet, who should know

The organization was overlooked because it fought with al-Maliki on one side and the Syrian regime on the other side, as well as with the Kurds in Rojava [northern Syria]. ISIL even established an emirate in Syria’s Rakka city, thus becoming Turkey’s neighbor. Now, two border posts are under ISIL’s control. Those who ask, “How did Mosul fall?” should draw the logistic line starting from Turkey.

The new strategy of ISIL is developing on a bow starting from Mosul, where it has settled for years, going on to Anbar, then on to Syria and then along the Euphrates to reach Turkey. ISIL’s financial source comes from donations from the global al-Qaeda network, taxes it collects in Mosul and the oil it has seized in Syria. The oil that ISIL is refining is being sold in Turkey. The number of plastic pipelines that the Turkish Armed Forces has found on the border is countless. For this reason, making ISIL fail depends first on reviewing our Syrian policies.

Other derivatives of al-Qaeda - al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham - only recently, while they were capturing Kessab, used Turkey’s borders. If such supports continue, no new discourse or no updated terror organization lists would work.

Those who think that this threat only concerns al-Maliki are wrong. This threat is forcing those hostile sides to involuntarily cooperate with each other. The Kurdish administration, which is aware that the next target will be itself; Turkey, which is currently in disputes with Baghdad, the Iraq army of which already has been defeated; and the U.S. administration, all have to meet at a joint strategy. Moreover, for these efforts to be successful, the policies toward Rojava, which has been left to the mercy of ISIL for a long time, need to be altered.

The place where ISIL will strike while withdrawing from Mosul is Rojava, with its recently acquired weapons from Mosul. Naturally, a strategy that is focused only on Iraq may not yield results. Indeed, when and if they support the Iraqi army, the Kurds will expect concessions, such as the holding of the postponed referendum, a solution to the crisis about oil revenues, the approval of oil exportation directly through Turkey, and the annexation of disputed regions such as Mosul and Selahaddin. The Sunni tribes who have permitted ISIL to grow also want to regain their former status. It is difficult for the Iraqi army to win this war without the support of Kurdish Peshmarga forces and the Sunni tribes.

When based on a positive scenario, it is possible to turn the crisis into an opportunity to solve a dozen issues between Ankara and Baghdad, Arbil and Baghdad, west and south Kurdistan, Sunni tribes and Baghdad. A pessimistic scenario, on the other hand, offers endless chaos. If a joint strategy is not developed against ISIL, then Iraq may be separated between Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle triangle and Shiites in the south.

A sectarian split of Iraq would invite a sectarian split of Saudi Arabia.

At that point, at the latest, the US would have to intervene.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 13:33 utc | 117

Not sure whats going on here, 4'500 iraqi soldiers kept hostage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms6LCHmQ2jU&feature=youtu.be

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12 2014 13:37 utc | 118

Saudi Arabia has a useless army so they use Sunni terrorists and mercenaries to affirm their strength,
By attacking Mosul and threatening the Kurd supply of oil to Turkey, they achieve several goals:
- humiliate Al Maliki
- provoke Iran
- Hurt Turkey
- Confuse the USA
- Make their oil needed
- Hit back at Qatar's increased importance in the region

Posted by: virgile | Jun 12, 2014 8:25:33 AM | 107

All this laying of all the blame at Saudi feet is all fine and dandy until one pauses and remembers that Saudi Arabia still exists today simply because it has the full weight of the US-Empire backing it.

Once that little not-so-inconsequential tidbit is taken into account, then the notion that the Saudi's are operating as some sort of free-agents is exposed as, frankly, embarrassingly naïve (and that is about the nicest thing I can think of to say about it ;)

So lets look again at the alleged reasons for ISIS actions, quoted above:

By attacking Mosul and threatening the Kurd supply of oil to Turkey, they [the Saudis] achieve several goals:
• - humiliate Al Maliki - possible, but also definitely a US-Imperial objective, given that Maliki dared insist that the US live up to it's promises to remove itself from Iraq.

• - provoke Iran - possible, but also definitely a US-Imperial objective

• - Hurt Turkey - possible, but also probably a US-Imperial objective, as Empires like to play their satraps off against each other - keeps em busy so they don't get too many silly notions regarding their own strength/abilities to operate on their own, and don't start ganging up together to defend themselves against the Empire

• - Confuse the USA - for reasons stated above this one is just silly, hardly even worthy of comment, tbh. Saudi isn't doing anything that the US Empire doesn't want them to do - if they did they wouldn't last long. So far, despite all the blather to the contrary, I have yet to see so much as one little scrap of actual reliable evidence that the Saudis have ever done anything that the US-empire truly did not want them to do

• - Make their oil needed - their oil already IS needed - admittedly China, one of their biggest customers is currently playing footsie with Russia, their biggest rival, but Saudi Crude is decent quality and it's not like they are gonna run out of customers anytime soon.

• - Hit back at Qatar's increased importance in the region - again: possible, but again also possibly a US-Imperial objective, as Empires like to play their satraps off against each other - keeps em busy so they don't get too many silly notions regarding their own strength/abilities to operate on their own, and don't start ganging up together to defend themselves against the Empire
  

SO personally I think that the notion that the Saudis are operating as free-agents is just ridiculous.

Someone mentioned that Saudis were the main country from which the [alleged] 911 attackers came from - well I also remember that many of those alleged 911 attackers had actually at some point partaken in training by the US Military

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 13:40 utc | 119

No matter what the US does now, Russia's (and Iran's) state coffers will be filled with the profits of a very high oil price - just like Saudi Arabia's. Iran does sell oil to Turkey, remember.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12, 2014 7:53:34 AM | 105

nice when people take ones ideas and pretend that they are their own, ain't it?

You're the 3rd or 4th person to do that in the last few days - "imitation: the sincerest form of flattery"

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 13:44 utc | 120

HRW thinks ISIS is not too bad and Maliki is worse? That is so typical of that NO Good Organization

btw: I have up at my place a NYT's article reporting that Iraq had asked the US for 'war on terror' assistance on several occasions regarding ISIS and guess what?

Bet most of you won't be surprised? except for those who talk blowback and unintended consequences ... the US declined every time to assist Iraq in quelling ISIS
Global war on terror led by the US? LOL
Only makes sense if ISIS is doing the dirty work of the NATO tyranny as headed by the US
and btw: NATO is missing billions of dollars can't imagine where that's all gone????

Posted by: Penny | Jun 12 2014 13:57 utc | 121

You're the 3rd or 4th person to do that in the last few days - "imitation: the sincerest form of flattery"

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12, 2014 9:44:22 AM | 118

Since you brought attribution up, you can attribute your ideas to me, because I'm the one who broke the ice with this question long before you did. You've asked the question, but you've yet to provide an adequate answer. I think I know why you haven't provided the answer. You're still setting it up. Sooner or later you'll break THE JEWS out under the guise of ZIONAZIS. I'm patiently waiting. I know it's coming.

Also, you do not take into account how oil is priced as I've done in my analysis. Currently, it has nothing to do with supply and demand, or in the least very little to do with it. The price setting comes first, then the profit-making justifications for the high price come next. And The Cutters at forums like this and elsewhere help provide cover for the scam by saying shit like "watch the price of oil shoot up because of supply disruptions." Yeah, right. They ignore the data. Since the start of the faux Ukraine Crisis, the price of oil has actually declined. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, if the pricing of oil were truly set based on supply and demand, oil would be $300/gal right now considering a potential war between America and Russia over Ukraine. Instead, The Setters lowered it. What an in-your-face.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Jun 12 2014 13:59 utc | 122

you can believe that if you want but I actually first mentioned it here - to great disbelief, ridicule, apoplexy etc etc - several years ago - now fuck off you silly little turd

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 14:05 utc | 123

Not in the MSM
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/103509/World/Region/Iraq-parliament-fails-to-reach-quorum-for-emergenc.aspx
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/103472/World/International/Saudi-destroys-Buddha-statues-in-Japan-and-gets-ar.aspx

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2014 14:07 utc | 124

Oh boy.....foff and Col N arguing about the price of oil. Popcorn please.

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2014 14:08 utc | 125

It is sounding like a putsch now.

Al Akhbar

There is no army and no security forces except in the green zone, and their loyalty is now questionable after information was confirmed that senior officers turned against the government and handed their military areas to the newcomers.

Bye, bye, Iraqi army.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 14:23 utc | 126

Forgot the mindblowing information of above link

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki addressed his military officers on TV in light of security reports stating that the attackers are Baathists affiliated with Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri - who was vice president under Saddam - as well as officers from the former Iraqi army and Fedayeen Saddam. According to the reports, more than 40 officers who had served in Saddam Hussein’s army conspired with the attackers. There are tales of betrayal involving senior military leaders including General Abboud Qanbar, Lieutenant General Ali Ghaidan and General Mahdi al-Ghazzawi, all members of the former army.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 14:25 utc | 127

@125 That might explain the taking of Tikrit.

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2014 14:40 utc | 128

More Baathist comeback

But even though the black flag of Sunni ISIL could be seen in the city, Mr Younis said he was unsure that all the militants belonged to the group.

“I don’t think all of them are ISIL,” he said. “They don’t [all] have beards.”

Mr Younis said his brother was approached by the gunmen, who told him they were members of Saddam Hussein’s former army.

Rumours circulated in Mosul on Wednesday that Izzat Ibrahim Al Douri, the most senior member of Hussein’s inner circle who was not captured or killed, was leading the group that spoke with Mr Younis’ brother.

“They say we are here to free you from Maliki’s army, because Mosul suffered a lot of cruelness and hostility,” Mr Younis said.

Tikrit, home to Al Douri and Saddam Hussein, also fell to the militants.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 14:57 utc | 129

This gets more retarded by the second.

ISIS Becomes World's Richest Terror Organziation!!! SCREAMS the WaPo

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 12 2014 15:04 utc | 130

From the retardicle in the WaPo:

The Taliban, the New York Times reported, had a one-time annual operating budget of somewhere between $70 million and $400 million. Hezbollah was working with between $200 million and $500 million. FARC in Colombia had annual revenues of $80 to $350 million. Al-Shabab had between $70 and $100 million socked away. And Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, was working with a $30 million operating budget at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.The Taliban, the New York Times reported, had a one-time annual operating budget of somewhere between $70 million and $400 million. Hezbollah was working with between $200 million and $500 million. FARC in Colombia had annual revenues of $80 to $350 million. Al-Shabab had between $70 and $100 million socked away. And Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, was working with a $30 million operating budget at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

But wait a second. I thought Putin was worth like 65 QUADRILLION DOLLARS!! Isn't he a terra-ist now?

Also, no mention - OBVIOUSLY - of how or where all this money comes to those nasty terrorists - oh, sorry, beside the bank heists like the Mosul job they pull from time to time - and how it's all laundered back through the Western financial system cf. HSBC eventually to keep the TBTG banks seemingly afloat.

Set your hair on fire America and carry on. The nouveau riche crazy devout Muslim fanatics led by a ghost are coming to get you and your babies.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 12 2014 15:12 utc | 131

Again, as they're doing in Syria, the bbc is doing propaganda for ISIS as they do for fsa/al nusra/Islamic front.

This leads me to believe this ISIS group is definitely not operating in a vacuum. Their reporting is very sectarian and pro-Sunni. Pathetic!!!

Posted by: Zico | Jun 12 2014 15:18 utc | 132

Adding:

That should be the more well-known TBTF - Too Big Too Fail - and not TBTG which is obviously Terrorist Bank & Trust Guarantee. My bad.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 12 2014 15:19 utc | 133

Saudi Arabia is hitting both at Turkey and Iraq by sending its Islamist hordes in Iraq

"With most of them being contractors, there are more than 1,500 Turkish companies engaged in business with Iraq, which has ascended as one of the favorite markets for Turkish entrepreneurs, particularly in the process of Iraq rebuilding its economy after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Turkish goods and companies have shined out most of their competitors in the region by becoming the second import market for Iraq, while Iraq has become the second export market after Germany for Turkey.

Turkey’s foreign trade with Iraq surpassed $12 billion as of 2013 and the market remains an alluring target in the eyes of Turkish businesspersons. "

Posted by: virgile | Jun 12 2014 15:24 utc | 134

ISIS surrounds the Iraq's largest refinery in Bajii

ISIS takes Tikrit!! ISIS marches on Baghad!!!

Savoir-Faire, - and ISIS - is EVERYWHERE!!!!

Hey, maybe like Biden's kid, Chelsea, can get a job out of all of this!!There IS an "I" in Yinon!!!

The Northern Iraq Recovery Corporation is looking for forward-thinking and progressive individuals who possess an attention to detail and the willingness to work with others!!!

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 12 2014 15:33 utc | 135

First off,the blowback in Iraq started about two days after we got there,and has continued more or less since.
And Toivo,there is most definitely a Zionist conspiracy to command and control western democracies(hah)in their pursuit of regional hegemony and global trade riches,why else would they abscond with the MSM which pollutes our airwaves daily with nonsense and propaganda.The Rothschilds are just an arm of that malevolent and honorless entity,made up of irreligious criminals who use their made up stories of hatred and revenge as cudgels against righteous indignation at their trail of blood and tears.
Well,as I said then(03)and I say now;Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
Obviously,our whole political class are idiots.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 12 2014 15:35 utc | 136

139) Actually the BBC, Anthony Cordesman, sound like a Maliki obituary.

It also raises serious questions about whether Iraq can move forward as long as Mr Maliki remains its leader.

He may still be able to bribe some key Sunni tribal leaders, and ISIS may soon alienate many Sunnis in the areas it occupies, but Mr Maliki has emerged as something approaching the Shia equivalent of Saddam Hussein, and is as much a threat to Iraq as ISIS.

Iraq desperately needs a truly national leader and one who puts the nation above himself.

Without one, ISIS may become a lasting enclave and regional threat - dividing Iraq into Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish sections - or drag Iraq back to the worst days of its civil war and create another Syria in Iraq.

I wonder if they already know the "truly national leader".

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 15:41 utc | 137

Although Mike Whitney talks about the Biden Partition Plan for Iraq, I think he would be well-advised to read b's own post on the matter from 2006 where he correctly informs his reader's that the REAL beginnings of this plan are found in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies put forward by the apartheid genocidal state of Israel.

Here's the link to b's piece:

Iraq's Partition

From the piece:

The New Middle East expression goes back to the "Clean Break" document (pdf) prepared 1996 by U.S. neocons as a strategy for Israel's Netanyahu government. The first modern partition Iraq argument was made by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon in 1982. In A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties he recommends:

In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.

The now imminent, new policy of partitioning Iraq is indeed only the announcement of the result of a process that has been the plan and the policy all along.

This is a real "Mission Accomplished" moment.

If the policy is effective, which will be decided on streets of Iraq, this is a huge success for a clique of neocon U.S. supporters of Israels colonial strategy to divide and conquer.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 12 2014 15:44 utc | 138

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 12, 2014 11:33:37 AM | 133

Reuters morphed them into "Sunni militants" now.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 15:44 utc | 139

Adding:

Links to Clean Break and Yinon Plan - one from 2006 is gone - which were not carried over from copy.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 12 2014 15:50 utc | 140

135

Yeah soon we will hear mccain and obama urging the Isis to be armed with american weapons and support to get rid of the shia-power.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 12 2014 15:52 utc | 141

Financial Times/Al Hayat on a possible Iranian/Saudi power sharing deal vs. Syria

Iran’s diplomacy over Syria is reminiscent of the role that the Syrian regime played in Lebanon after the 15-year civil war ended in 1990. The Islamic republic wants to seduce Saudi Arabia and the west with a grand deal on Syria. This would entail a Saudi-Iranian understanding over Syria, similar to the one reached by late Syrian president Hafez al-Assad and Saudi Arabia over Lebanon in the 1990s. Like Lebanon, this solution would be based on power sharing between the Alawite minority and Sunni majority. Mr Assad would remain as president but he would have to rule with a strong Sunni prime minister, presumably drawn from the domestic opposition, who would hold executive powers, held by the presidency itself since 1970. The speaker of the parliament would be a Kurd. Christians and Druze would also be represented.

Let's assume there is a "power sharing deal" concerning Iraq, too.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2014 15:58 utc | 142

I have been predicting EXACTLY this scenario, unfolding in Iraq, for years now. I'm just a carpenter in Southern Cal.

So these pieces in shit in Washington weren't able to see it coming?

Bullshit.

What the endgame is, the payback for these maggots in DC, I have no idea. But make no mistake, the inevitability of events in Iraq, from the beginning of our invasion to this day, wasn't just obvious to some California carpenter watching from his living room.

Obama is such a fucking fraud. Unbelievable, even though I believe it.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jun 12 2014 17:33 utc | 143

Asad's interview in al Akhbar
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/20155

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2014 17:55 utc | 144

@143 - my Dad was a carpenter... like you, he could see clearly...

Mike Whitney sees clearly also - article linked below - ends with a familiar note (the Yinon Plan )

"... The report suggests that the ISIS is not a ragtag amalgam of rabid fanatics, but a highly-motivated and disciplined modern militia with clearly outlined political and territorial objectives. If this is the case, then it is likely that they will not march on Baghdad after all, but will tighten their grip on the predominantly Sunni areas establishing a state within a state. And this is precisely why the Obama administration may choose to stay out of the conflagration altogether, because the goals of the ISIS coincide with a similar US plan to create a “soft partition” that dates back to 2006.

The plan was first proposed by Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and then-senator Joe Biden. According to the New York Times the “so-called soft-partition plan ….calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions…There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella.”

And this is why the US will probably not deploy combat troops to engage the Sunni fighters in Mosul. It’s because the Obama administration’s strategic goals and those of the terrorists are nearly identical. Which should surprise no one."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/12/black-flags-over-mosul/

Posted by: crone | Jun 12 2014 18:19 utc | 145

Everybody can be thankful to KSA and Brasil for providing a smokescreen on what is going on in Libya and Ukraine
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/11/air-strikes-hit-benghazi.html

Le Monde's 'specialist' does not seem aware of the kidnapping of 80 Turks including the consul in Mosul. Or maybe it is just disturbing? She blames the West's lack of support of the Syrian rebels as the reason why ISIL became so big... Money is hard to find in France nowadays and Qatari checks are always welcome I guess.
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2014/06/12/la-prise-de-bagdad-par-l-eiil-n-est-pas-impossible_4437128_3218.html

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2014 19:15 utc | 146

from Whitney's piece:
"...Let’s face it: If the ISIS starts taking out pipelines and oil installations around Mosul, it’s Game-Over USA. Oil futures will spike, markets will crash, and the global economy will slump back into a severe recession. Obama has a very small window to reverse the current dynamic or there’s going to be hell to pay."
Which makes me think, just now hearing O's speech on Iraq, promising support to Maliki's govt to "defeat the jihadists threatening Iraq and Syria" that there may be US boots on the ground in Iraq, or at least major air power deployed to try to contain ISIS.

Before that Whitney said: "...Will Obama send US combat troops to Iraq to fight the jihadis and reverse events on the ground. If so, he will need Congress’s stamp of approval, which may not be forthcoming. Also, he should prepare his fellow Democratic candidates for a midterm walloping like they’ve never seen before. The American people have never supported the Iraqi quagmire. The prospect of refighting the war in order to beat the radicals which the administration-itself created through its own disastrous arm-the-terrorist policy is bound to be widely resisted as well as reviled. Americans have washed their hands of the “cakewalk” war. They won’t support a rerun."
So domestic politics are involved too.


Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 12 2014 20:23 utc | 147

btw: I have up at my place a NYT's article reporting that Iraq had asked the US for 'war on terror' assistance on several occasions regarding ISIS and guess what?

Posted by: Penny | Jun 12, 2014 9:57:17 AM | 121

I Guess Penny must have said something pretty interesting - getting a 503 error when I try to access her Google/Blogspot site

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 20:23 utc | 148

Curiouser and curiouser

Tried Penny's website through an Indian proxy and guess what?

Got it to load no problem at all

So is there something in it that the Germans don't want me to see? Have to conclude that there is, cos I just tried it through a US proxy and it loaded no problem as well.

tried a french proxy - no problem there either - so it looks so far like it's just the Germans (The BND?) that don't want people reading whatever it is that penny wrote or linked to there

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 20:29 utc | 149

@149 Keep trying foff. Penny and the BND make a great diversion.

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2014 20:56 utc | 150

diversion from what?

Go away and bore someone else to death, Mr dh, I've yet to hear so much as one interesting thing from you in all the years you have posted your silly pointless little one-liners here, you boring little man

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 21:20 utc | 151

Diversion from the topic foff. Same as you always do. Anyway I see you've got my number! Any more?

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2014 22:02 utc | 152

So Iran and Syria's ally calls for drone strikes on ISIS. I assume that you will people like up behind the drones as long as Iran and Syria do, right? That's what good little anti-imperialists do, don't they? Yes, it's true that the USA is evil but isn't ISIS eviler? I can just see smoke coming out of your ears trying to figure out what to make of this. I guess the fallback position is to blame the Jews.

Posted by: Louis Proyect | Jun 12 2014 22:11 utc | 153

Dh, you're still a boring little twat, but if its any consolation you're not quite as boring a little twat as Louis Proyect

Posted by: OMFG | Jun 12 2014 22:14 utc | 154

Darn it I thought I was the most boring poster after you. You are by far the best fake lefty/righty/fence-sitting/keyboard warrior we've got. All you do is pick arguments to no purpose except to massage your own lofty pretentious judgmental ego. Over to you.

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2014 22:19 utc | 155

Sorrentine/OMFG

Ron Paul -the strongest anti-imperialist in power in Congress during his long era, made the term blowback popular
and the fact most Americans rallied behind Israeli-owned Rudi Jewliani in the national presidential primary debate where Paul was honest with
them re 9-11-2001 and now the Iraq War, only reflects on why the Empire is slowly but surely collapsing. Has been since then but the damage
a wounded elephant can cause is a sad by product.

Other non-interventionists, Pat Buchanan and Andrew Bacevich use the term similarly.

http://rt.com/usa/164832-ron-paul-obama-west/

Posted by: truthbetold | Jun 12 2014 22:23 utc | 156

@153. 'So Iran and Syria's ally calls for drone strikes on ISIS'

It's a trick to draw the US in. Don't trust a word they say.

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2014 22:26 utc | 157

Posted by: Louis Proyect | Jun 12, 2014 6:11:36 PM | 153

You remind me of Charles Manson. Same total lack of moral grounding. You western establishment shills will promote any atrocities, and then coldly intellectualize away the horror you help create. Pure nazi/zionist mentality of the master race's relations with the untermenschen.

Posted by: scalawag | Jun 12 2014 22:48 utc | 158

@99 So you advocate giving 'blowback' a rest but you can't stop mentioning it. You really are shameless. Anyway I think the blowback meme has had a pretty good run. Can you find another shtick?

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2014 23:11 utc | 159

The US withdrawal from iraq was all an illusion

"State department figures show that some 17,000 personnel will be under the jurisdiction of the US ambassador. In addition, there are also consulates in Basra, *Mosul* and *Kirkuk*, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each"

The US controls Iraqi skies and more
Linked at my place, for those interested

"In 2008, much was made in of the fact that as part of the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) between the US and Iraq, contractors would lose their immunity. However, as a congressional research report noted: "The term defined in the agreement, 'US contractors and their employees', only applies to contractors that are operating under a contract/subcontract with or for the United States forces. Therefore, US contractors operating in Iraq under contract to other US departments/agencies are not subject to the terms of the Sofa."
Congressman Jason Chaffetz questioned the replacement of military forces with contractors, asking: "Are we just playing a little bit of a shell game here?" There is some irony in the fact that a decision by the Iraqi government to deny US soldiers immunity will result in an increase in the numbers of much hated and unaccountable security contractors"

In other words the US never left they just shifted the game...
Apalling!

Posted by: Penny | Jun 12 2014 23:42 utc | 160

I could have tacked on, with Ron Paul, and should have, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. I see no hope for reining in the Empire without a right-left, anti-imperial coalition, which agrees to de-emphasize disagreements on sundry other issues until the US gets out of the Mideast
and preferably Europe also.

Posted by: truthbetold | Jun 12 2014 23:54 utc | 161

Iraq crisis: Sunni caliphate has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/iraq-crisis-sunni-caliphate-has-been-bankrolled-by-saudi-arabia-30351679.html

Posted by: Virgile | Jun 13 2014 2:15 utc | 162

Iran now , Turkey later will help the fights against the Islamist terrorists

Iran sends troops to aid Iraqi government Revolutionary Guards help Iraq’s army to take back Tikrit from Isis forces

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/iran-sends-troops-to-aid-iraqi-government-1.1830624

Posted by: Virgile | Jun 13 2014 2:27 utc | 163

@Penny #160:

The US withdrawal from iraq was all an illusion

Are all those Americans in Iraq of any use to anyone, including the Empire? The US doesn't have significant influence over the Iraq government, such as it is, as far as I can tell. The USG talks about airstrikes to help get ISIS out of Mosul, but otherwise seems to be completely out of the loop when it comes to recent developments in Iraq. (Needless to say, I don't share the view of some here that the CIA is controlling everything.)

My sense is that the reason that the US keeps so many people in Iraq is simply to help pretend that it did not lose the Iraq war. The Empire has a psychological complex about never leaving any country in which it has conducted significant military activities. This seems to be a way of reassuring itself that it still has full spectrum dominance. On some level, there appears to be a fear that if the US is forced to up and leave a few countries, the whole house of cards of the Empire will come down.

Posted by: Demian | Jun 13 2014 3:24 utc | 164

Well informed summary of Middle East "strategy"

Iraq today is on the brink of collapsing into civil war and partition, if not fragmentation. No one will come out victorious in the coming Iraq war - with the exception of Kurdistan perhaps.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 13 2014 4:28 utc | 165

Posted by: Demian | Jun 12, 2014 11:24:07 PM | 164

You are correct.

Ukraine, Nato Enlargement and the Geithner doctrine

Option 1: Total bailout = total fulfilment of NATO commitments. ... Option 2: Complete default = complete abandonment of all NATO commitments. ... Option 3: The Geithner doctrine.

This is what Geithner said

“To save an economy from a failing financial system, you have to do things that are going to be fundamentally impossible to explain to people,” he said. “You’re going to look like you’re giving money to people who were responsible for burning down the economy.”

The US is a democracy. They have to be able to explain to Americans what they are doing. They can't. Not with a sky high debt that cripples public spending.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 13 2014 4:59 utc | 166

@ somebody, that is nonsense. The US is in debt to itself for the most part and that debt could be nullified tomorrow with zero consequences.

Here's a bit more in-depth analysis for "dummies": http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/u-s-government-in-debt-to-itself/

And - please READ and understand it, before commenting on it.

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 13 2014 7:24 utc | 167

And: US never was a democracy nor is it today. US is a republic.

Posted by: T2015 | Jun 13 2014 7:24 utc | 168

CHP accuses Turkish government of protecting ISIL and Al Nusra militants.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 13 2014 10:44 utc | 169

I wouldn't be surprised if the "kidnapping" is a way to protect the consul and others from exactions by less-disciplined ranks of ISIL

MSM are oddly silent on Mosul's Christians
http://www.atlastours.net/iraq/mosul_churches.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_churches_and_monasteries_in_Nineveh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul

Same happened when it started in Syria. Emptying the Middle East from all the Christians is the continuous programme of the West and KSA.

Posted by: Mina | Jun 13 2014 11:04 utc | 170

Posted by: Mina | Jun 13, 2014 7:04:22 AM | 170

I am even more cynical. Hostages are a way they can officially keep contact and hand over money.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 13 2014 11:20 utc | 171

Demian @164

"The US doesn't have significant influence over the Iraq government, such as it is, as far as I can tell"

The US doesn't need to have significant influence of the Maliki government
It has influence with ISIS, with the Kurds, with Israel and controls vast swathes of area via it's numerous consulates and the behemoth embassy. It employs literally thousands of mercs

Maliki and his government are a non issue

I have this article and numerous others at my blog that provide much useful background

"State department figures show that some 17,000 personnel will be under the jurisdiction of the US ambassador. In addition, there are also consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each"

The arms that have gone to Iraq have gone straight to US affiliated personel

"There are an estimated 400 arms deals between Baghdad and Washington, worth $10bn, with an additional 110 deals, worth $900m, reportedly pending. Many of these, as part of the deal, require US trainers, who would be working through the Office of Security Co-operation in the embassy"

all those arms flowing straight into the hands of the US left behind army was likely the reason Maliki bought arms from Russia- he's surrounded
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/25/us-departure-iraq-illusion

Posted by: Penny | Jun 13 2014 13:46 utc | 172