|
The Islamic State Proudly Presents …
The Caliphate of Caliph Ibrahim (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) and the Islamic State's Ministry of Culture is delighted to reveal its five year plan for global domination.
 bigger
The Caliphate and the Islamic State's Ministry of Culture also proudly present their centerfold model for Ramadan 1435 AH.
 bigger
J.Sorrentine @28
“…So, am I to understand that the apartheid genocidal state of Israel does NOT still control many of the corridors of power in the United States?…”
No. Israel does not still control many of the corridors of power in the United States. Nor did it, ever. They are all controlled by the ruling class which has been running the country since the 1780s.
The burden of your rant would seem to be that Israel controls the United States, at least in so far as its Mid East policies are concerned, but you weasel in the vague modification “many of the corridors of power”, presumably in the belief that nobody will see the difference between influence and control.
Israel has plenty of influence over the US, though not anything like as much as the US has over Israel, but it certainly doesn’t control it.
To assert that it does, incidentally, is to do what you accuse others of doing, and let the war criminals in Washington off the hook.
Let’s spell it out: the US invaded Iraq on its own account, with its own aims and within its long practised foreign policies. It did not do so because Tel Aviv ordered it to.
“Is the US NOT a major player in this whole ME shit storm going back decades?…”
Yes it is. Is anyone suggesting otherwise? Anyone, that is, other than those who cast the US in the role of a zombie power totally under the control of Israeli agents.
The nature of the relationship between Israel and the US is related to the fact that Israel is a colony, still expanding, in a country with which its people have only a vague mythological connection. It is a US colony, entirely dependent on US military, financial and diplomatic support, without which it would not last a month.
As to ISIS: the notion that Israel controls it is simply nonsensical.
No doubt Israel benefits or hopes to benefit from its current operations, in much the same way that it benefited, during the Iran Iraq war, from Saddam’s actions. But Israel no more controlled Saddam than Saddam had any connection with Bin Laden, despite the fact that Bin Laden included US sanctions against Iraq in his indictments of the US.
Such is the nature of international relations: often states are quite mistaken.
For example no state, it might be argued, has more clearly benefited from the crisis in Iraq than Russia. Suddenly it is being wooed by the Iraqi government, it seems to ask for nothing for assistance (in contrast with the overbearing and dangerous US), it pins down thousands of Chechen fighters who might otherwise challenge it, the pressure of NATO expansion in Ukraine is obviously relieved, the possibility of including Iraq’s oil reserves, plus Iran’s, in a Sino-Russian trading bloc and undermining the dollar’s reserve status, increases. And so on…
But only a certifiable lunatic would suggest that ISIS is a Russian creation, or a Syrian regime front (as some have claimed, outlandishly).
I don’t have the time or space to deal with the Yinon plan, which Sorrentine waves about like a talisman, suffice it to say Yinon’s followers ought to be careful about what they wish for.
The large (Sykes-Picot) states, carved out by imperialists, were designed to be easily dominated. Merely keeping them together-see Syria- takes enormous energy.
Such states, historically, have only threatened Israel during the period in which Nasser’s populist socio-economic policies underpinned an Arab nationalist strategy which threatened the imperialists (at the time largely British) and Israel. Since Nasser’s demise, following defeat by the imperialists in Yemen and the 1967 war, the large states have posed no danger whatever to Israel, nor did Egypt even when the Muslim Brotherhood was in office.
In other words Israel loves these large states full of minorities capable of being played off against each other, ruled by militaries whose overwhelming interest is to hold down the populace while it is being raped.
It is not a coincidence that the one movement Israel fears in the region is the representative of a largely rural impoverished minority in the one state which is pre-divided, along Yinon’s lines, namely Hezbollah in Lebanon, which causes Israel more grief than all the air forces and armies of the Arab League.
And will always do so, because it alone mobilises the masses and is rooted not in weird theologies, or aping of the white man’s ways (and garb) but in communal self defense and solidarity.
Yinon’s plan may seem to be coming to fruition but there is little in the current crisis for Israel to take comfort in.
Posted by: bevin | Jul 1 2014 0:51 utc | 51
from Indian Punchline:
ISIS plants a thought in Iraqi Sunni mind
In a panel discussion on Iraq developments last night on a Malayalam television channel, a Muslim intellectual from Malabar pointed out that during the so-called Moplah Rebellion in 1921 (an armed uprising against the British colonial rulers and Hindus) a Caliphate was declared in the town of Manjeri (in present-day Muslim majority district of Malappuram in Kerala). The Manjeri Caliphate of course proved short-lived, as indeed many such misadventures in Muslim history. To be sure, the fate of the Caliphate announced by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] in Iraq cannot be any different from the Manjeri Caliphate.
In fact, the Caliphate proclaimed by the ISIS is already being ridiculed across the Muslim Middle East. But its real significance lies elsewhere in two directions.
One, a Himalayan metaphor has surged highlighting the failure of the US’ war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the man to take the flak for the sins of the past happens to be the incumbent president Barack Obama. From this point onward as the metaphor of the Caliphate gets played out on TV screens in the American homes, Obama’s hands are tied; he not only has to ‘act’ on Iraq but also has to be visibly seen ‘acting’.
Secondly, and more importantly, a terrible beauty is born on the Iraqi Sunni consciousness — the tantalizing idea of a political entity for themselves in an otherwise Shi’ite majority land. The ISIS has planted a thought that may refuse to fade away easily.
Put differently, Iraq’s fragmentation has taken one big step forward this weekend with the announcement by ISIS of the islamic Caliphate. Many trends are converging here — Iraqi as well as regional trends.
The Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani declared on Friday that there is no way the Peshmerga will vacate Kirkuk which they occupied in the wake of the ISIS’s appearance in Mosul on June 10. Interestingly, he said this in Erbil in the presence of the visiting British Foreign Secretary William Hague. The poignancy of the setting, in historical terms, cannot be lost on the region.
Even more significantly, when the visiting US secretary of state John Kerry was asked about the Kurds’ demand for independence last week in Erbil, he neatly parried the question and refused to be critical.
Again, on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has no reason to be shy like Hague or Kerry, took the bull by the horns and openly voiced support for Kurdish independence in Iraq.
Indeed, Kirkuk sits on a sea of oil and its possession radically transforms the future of Kurdistan from being a rugged, economically non-viable land into a second Kuwait on the planet. Barzani is losing no time to boost Kurdistan’s oil exports by including the fabulous oil fields of Kirkuk as his newfound assets. He may now even dispense with the revenue-sharing arrangement with Baghdad.
Enter Turkey. Kurdistan’s oil exports depend on the transit route via Turkey and Ankara sees a new paradigm shaping up in regional politics. Turkey is already a major presence in the economy of Kurdistan. Its exports to Kurdistan exceed all of its exports to Iraq.
The Turks get oil at subsidized price from Kurdistan, camouflaged as ‘transit fee’ while Barzani makes a quick buck on the quiet and it has been a ‘win-win’ situation for both sides.
Ankara has ignored the protests by Baghdad that Turkey is violating Iraqi sovereignty by having such a torrid affair with Kurdistan directly while bypassing the federal government, which the Iraqi constitution expressly forbids. Frankly, Turks couldn’t care less, because Barzani is now willing also to be a collaborator in finding a settlement for Turkey’s longstanding Kurdish problem.
Ironically, if Prime MInister Recep Erdogan, who is putting forth his candidacy on Tuesday for the upcoming presidential election in Turkey, is reasonably confident of winning in the first round without the need of a bruising runoff by winning 50% of the votes, it will be thanks to the Kurdish votes, which Barzani would organize for him in return for his pledge that as an elected president in Ankara, he will move forward on Kurdish autonomy.
All in all, Erdogan and Barzani have one hell of a Faustian deal. With Kirkuk oil thrown in, it is veritably a match made in heaven. Both are big-time operators in mixing politics with money — and are ruthless practitioners of power.
The upshot of all this is that Turkey is in the same camp as the US, Britain and Israel as a ‘friend’ of Kurdistan. There was a time when Turkey used to lose sleep over the spectre of an independent Kurdistan shaping up near its borders, but that has become a thing of the past.
On the contrary, Ankara harbors ambitions of taking an independent Kurdistan under its wings. Turkey estimates (rightly so) that for its sheer survival, an independent Kurdistan will heavily depend on its goodwill and support and therefore, the umbilical cord that ties Erbil to Ankara can never really be severed.
Suffice to say, the Sunnis of Iraq are witnessing with mixed feelings the phenomenal success of the Kurds in capitalizing on the windfall of the Arab Spring and the systematic decimation of Iraqi nationalism by Washington through the period of US occupation since 2003 by superimposing on Iraqi nationalism the new matrix of politics based on confessional affiliation. The Iraqi Sunnis are bound to draw the appropriate conclusions at some point — if they haven’t already: ‘Why not for us too, what the Kurds have achieved?’
Without doubt, the Caliphate on the fertile lands sandwiched between the Tigris and Euphrates will be short-lived. But a Sunni state that borders Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria would be an altogether different geopolitical proposition.
Make no mistake, Saudi Arabia is also a hugely ambitious regional power with a barely-disguised agenda of regional hegemony — like Turkey has — and it also has had a long history of territorial disputes with its neighboring countries, including Sunni countries such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
In sum, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, there are all the ingredients present of a highly problematic relationship full of ambiguities and seamless possibilities alike. Which is where right on its borders a subservient Sunni state emerging on the territory of present-day Iraq would suit Saudi Arabia exceedingly well — although the tendency among the Western analysts is to fathom the obscure Saudi mind exclusively in terms of its rivalry with Shi’ite Iran.
By M K Bhadrakumar – July 1, 2014
Posted by: okie farmer | Jul 1 2014 11:09 utc | 80
|