|
U.S. Again Gunning For “Regime Change” In Iraq
Three days ago we said:
The U.S. has conditioned any involvement on the Iraqi government side on a change in its structure towards some "unity government" that would include representatives of the rebellious Sunni strains. Prime Minister Maliki, who received good results in the recent elections, will see no reason to go for that.
As expected Maliki declined to follow orders out of Washington DC and he is right to do so. Isn't Iraq supposed to be a sovereign state?
No says Washington. It is us who are choosing a new Iraqi prime minister:
Over the past two days the American ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, along with Brett McGurk, the senior State Department official on Iraq and Iran, have met with Usama Nujaifi, the leader of the largest Sunni contingent, United For Reform, and with Ahmad Chalabi, one of the several potential Shiite candidates for prime minister, according to people close to each of those factions, as well as other political figures.
“Brett and the ambassador met with Mr. Nujaifi yesterday and they were open about this, they do not want Maliki to stay,” Nabil al-Khashab, the senior political adviser to Mr. Nujaifi, said Thursday.
This move lets arouse suspicions that the recent insurgency against the Iraqi state, with ISIS takfiris in the front line, did not just by chance started after Maliki's party, the State of Law Coalition, won in the parliamentary elections a few weeks ago. It had been decided that he had to go. When the elections confirmed him, other methods had to be introduced. Thus the insurgency started and is now used as a pretext for "regime change".
The U.S. media and policies again fall for the "big bad man" cliche portraying Nouri al-Maliki (Arabic for Ngo Dinh Diem) as the only person that stands in the way of Iraq as a "liberal democracy". That is of course nonsense. Maliki is not the problem in Iraq:
The most significant factor behind Iraq’s problems has been the inability of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and its Sunni neighbors to come to terms with a government in which the Shias, by virtue of their considerable majority in Iraq’s population, hold the leading role. This inability was displayed early on, when Iraq’s Sunnis refused to take part in Iraq’s first parliamentary elections, and resorted to insurgency almost immediately after the US invasion and fall of Saddam Hussein. All along, the goal of Iraqi Sunnis has been to prove that the Shias are not capable of governing Iraq. Indeed, Iraq’s Sunni deputy prime minister, Osama al Najafi, recently verbalized this view. The Sunnis see political leadership and governance to be their birthright and resent the Shia interlopers.
The U.S., with strong support from its GCC allies who finance the insurgency, now seems to again lean towards the Sunni minority side in Iraq and wants to subvert the ruling of a Shia majority and its candidate. Maliki doesn't follow Washington orders, is somewhat friendly with Iran and even wins elections. Such man can not be let standing.
So the program is again "regime change" in Iraq, now with the help of Jihadists proxies, even after the recent catastrophic "successes" in similar endeavors in Libya, Egypt and Ukraine and the failure in Syria.
Phil Greaves seems thereby right when he characterizes the insurgency and ISIS as a expression of Washington's imperialism:
The ISIS-led insurgency currently gripping the western and northern regions of Iraq is but a continuation of the imperialist-sponsored insurgency in neighboring Syria. The state actors responsible for arming and funding said insurgency hold the same principal objectives in Iraq as those pursued in Syria for the last three years, namely: the destruction of state sovereignty; weakening the allies of an independent Iran; the permanent division of Iraq and Syria along sectarian lines establishing antagonistic “mini-states” incapable of forming a unified front against US/Israeli imperial domination.
The best thing Maliki could now do is to shut down the U.S. embassy and request support from Russia, China and Iran. South Iraq is producing lots of oil and neither money nor the number of potential recruits for a big long fight are his problem. His problem is the insurgency and the states, including the United States, behind it. The fight would be long and Iraq would still likely be parted but the likely outcome would at least guarantee that the will of the majority constituency can not be ignored by outside actors.
Will the US MSM EVER stop fellating the Zionist donkey and do 5 fucking seconds of research on that little thing called the Interwebs?
Nope.
Here, I’ll show you fucking Zionist whores and retards just how easy it is.
Oh, so Ahmed “Zionist Fucking Whore ” Chalabi’s name is being bandied about to replace Maliki, huh?
As it is becoming clearer and fucking clearer every GD day that the ENTIRE rollout – both military and propagandistic – of ISIS is nothing but the furtherance of the Yinon Plan, Clean Break, PNAC and other sundry Zionist strategies – dating back 3 decades – to balkanize the ME all for the benefit of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel MAYBE we should review Chalabi’s past once again seeing as he’s ALSO a retread of the uber-Zionist neocons.
Hey, fuckers, there’s this shit-ass site called Wikipedia that calls itself an online encyclopedia but as OMFG showed a day or two go even THAT crap site can provide interesting information from time to time. It might be a nice launching pad if any of you fucking dbags wanted to do some research once in your pitiful fucking lives. Here’s how to use it.
Type in “wikipedia” in your browser – you know what THAT is I’m assuming, you fucks – and then when you get there, type in “Ahmed Chalabi”.
Now you can read through the article and remind yourself of salient facts such as:
Initially, Chalabi enjoyed close political and business relationships with some members of the U.S. government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter, and Richard Perle. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq.
Wow, so what this fuckshit site is telling me is that Chalabi was great friends and business partners with some of the MAJOR PLAYERS/AUTHORS of the Zionist strategies – i.e., Clean Break, PNAC – to split up the ME of which we are now seeing made manifest in real time, huh? The same exact people that the MSM are now trying to tell me are responsible for the “mistake” of the Iraq War, huh?
That’s fucking weird, huh? So, they’re blaming the neocons once again but they might put one of their neocon buddies back into power in Iraq? Nah, that sounds TOTALLY legit or at LEAST coincidental, right?
But wait, didn’t Chalabi feel like the neocons sold him out after the war?
Hmmm, that’s what the official story SEEMED to be but doing 3 seconds more of research – that means putting down the Zionist donkey dong for a minute – it seems in this NYT expose on Chalabi from 2006 – when he also attended the Bilderberg circle jerk, btw – he’s still “friends” with BOTH Wolfie AND Perle. Sure, they may have their difference but donkey dong seems to heal all wounds, right guys?
Isn’t that just fucking amazing, though? That the SAME EXACT people who AUTHORED the plans to break up the ME for the benefit of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel – and their friends like Chalabi – are back to witness and/or take active part in the breaking up of Iraq – and Syria? – by a mysterious group of jihadist accountant bank-robbers who just appeared out of Juan Cole’s knife-hole?
Yup, this is all just ANOTHER big incompetent “fuck up” on the part of the neocons and their buddies ONCE AGAIN!!!
Just remember, kids, if the neocons and their allies are put back into power in Iraq and it ends up being partitioned it ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY has NOTHING to do with ANY of the plans and strategies that these same people cooked up previously.
Nope, it’s all just a complex mish-mash of incompetence and lack of foresight on their part. Stupid fucking neocon idiots.
Holy fuck.
Posted by: JSorrentine | Jun 19 2014 19:12 utc | 19
Well the relationship has been very good – this here is the New York Times – if you prefer that source
The break came on May 20, 2004, when the Americans, accusing Chalabi of telling the Iranian government that the Americans were eavesdropping on their secret communications, swooped in on his Baghdad compound. American troops sealed off Mansour, the neighborhood where Chalabi lived, while scores of Iraqi and American agents kicked in the compound doors. One of the Iraqis, Chalabi said, put a gun to his head.
“Look, I think they tried to kill him,” Richard Perle, the former Pentagon adviser and longtime Chalabi friend, said of the American and Iraqi agents. “I think the raid on his house was intended to result in violence. They had sent 20 or 40 Humvees over there. Chalabi was being protected by a force of about 100 guys with machine guns. It is a miracle that it didn’t result in a massive shootout.”
…
I interviewed Larijani the next morning. “Our relationship with Mr. Chalabi does not have anything to do with his relationship with the neocons,” he said. His red-rimmed eyes, when I met him at 7 a.m., betrayed a sleepless night. “He is a very constructive and influential figure. He is a very wise man and a very useful person for the future of Iraq.”
Then came the meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president. I was with a handful of Iranian reporters who were led into a finely appointed room just outside the president’s office. First came Chalabi, dressed in a tailored suit, beaming. Then Ahmadinejad, wearing a face of childlike bewilderment. He was dressed in imitation leather shoes and bulky white athletic socks, and a suit that looked as if it had come from a Soviet department store. Only a few days before, Ahmadinejad publicly called for the destruction of Israel. He and Chalabi, who is several inches taller, stood together for photos, then retired to a private room.
At the time of Chalabi’s visit, Iran and the United States were engaged in a complicated diplomatic dance; the American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been authorized to open negotiations with the Iranians over their involvement in Iraq. Still, Chalabi insists he carried no note from the Iranians when he flew to Washington the next week. Officially, at least, Iran and the United States never got together.
As ever, Chalabi had multiple agendas. One was to learn whether the Iranians would support his candidacy for the prime ministership (the same reason he traveled to the United States). It makes you wonder, in light of the Baer and Lang thesis: was Chalabi telling the Iranians, or asking them for permission? Or making a deal, based on his presumed leverage in the United States? The possibilities seemed endless.
Chalabi played it cool.
“The fact that Iraq’s neighbor is also a country that is majority Shia is no reason for us to accept any interference in our affairs or to compromise the integrity of Iraq,” he said after his meeting with Ahmadinejad.
Richard Perle, Chalabi’s friend, discounted the idea that Chalabi might be a double agent. “Of course Chalabi has a relationship with the Iranians – you have to have a relationship with the Iranians in order to operate there,” Perle said. “The question is what kind of relationship. Is he fooling the Iranians or are the Iranians using him? I think Chalabi has been very shrewd in getting the things he has needed over the years out of the Iranians without giving anything in return.”
For all of the skullduggery surrounding the trip to Iran, though, the greatest revelation came later in the day. When the meeting with Ahmadinejad ended, he asked Chalabi if there was anything he could to do to make his stay more comfortable. Chalabi said yes, in fact, there was: would he mind if he, Chalabi, took a tour of the Museum of Contemporary Art?
So there we were, in the middle of the Axis of Evil, strolling past one of the finest collections of Western Modern art outside Europe and the United States: Matisse, Kandinsky, Rothko, Gauguin, Pollock, Klee, Van Gogh, five Warhols, seven Picassos and a sprawling garden of sculpture outside. The collection was assembled by Queen Farah, the shah’s wife, with the monarchy’s vast oil wealth. And now, with the mullahs in charge, the museum is largely forgotten. The day we were there, the gallery was all but empty. We had the museum’s enthusiastic English-speaking tour guide all to ourselves.
“Thank you, thank you, for coming!” Noreen Motamed exclaimed, clapping her hands.
We walked the empty halls. Chalabi moved through the place deliberately, nodding his head, pausing at the Degas and the Pissarro.
“Wow,” Chalabi said before Jesus Rafael Soto’s painting “Canada.” “Look at that.”
A retinue of Iranian officials walked with us, unmoved by the splendor. Ahmadinejad had stayed behind.
For all of the furies that emanate from the halls of the Iranian government, it has taken fine care of Queen Farah’s collection. Indeed, about the only way you would know you were not in a museum in New York or London was the absence of the middle panel from Francis Bacon’s triptych “Two Figures Lying on a Bed With Attendant,” which depicts two naked men.
“It is in the basement, covered,” Motamed said with disappointed eyes.
Finally, we came across a pair of paintings by Marc Chagall, the 20th-century Modernist and painter of Jewish life. The display contained no mention of this fact.
Chalabi gazed at the Chagalls for a time. Then, with a rueful smile, turned, to no one in particular, and said loudly: “Imagine that. They have two paintings by Marc Chagall in the middle of a museum in Tehran.” The Iranian officials seemed not to hear.
It is a multidimensional world.
Posted by: somebody | Jun 20 2014 8:40 utc | 98
|
