In het hieronder opgenomen artikel,
geschreven door voormalig VN-wapeninspecteur Scott Ritter en eerder
gepubliceerd op The American Conservative, stelt hij dat niet de VS, maar
vooral Iran de eer toekomt van het verslaan van IS in zowel Irak als Syrië.....
Ritter verhaalt over het ontstaan van
IS en alle daarbij behorende gore spelletjes van de VS, waarbij hij
de VS in feite beschuldigt van het beschermen van en samenwerken met IS,
al was het alleen om Assad af te kunnen zetten en nu als stok
tegen Iran te gebruiken........ Intussen heeft IS al een paar aanslagen gepleegd in Iran (met de hulp van de CIA). Over de CIA gesproken: de VS heeft toegegeven dat het al jaren bezig is om de oppositie in Iran te steunen en op te zetten tegen de regering....... Zo zijn ook de zogenaamde opstanden die de laatste jaren in Iran plaatsvonden (uiterst gewelddadige 'opstanden'), georganiseerd door de CIA.....
Scott Ritter was VN-wapeninspecteur voorafgaand aan de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak in 2003. Keer
op keer liet hij de VN, de reguliere (massa-) media en politici weten
dat Irak niet langer de beschikking had over 'massavernietigingswapens
en dat dit uit en te na was onderzocht door hem en z'n team, waarbij
Ritter uiteindelijk zijn gelijk haalde..... Lullig genoeg haalde hij z'n gelijk, pas lang nadat de VS Irak aanviel....* Deze illegale oorlog van de VS betekende de dood van meer dan nu al 1,5 miljoen
mensen (in feite is de oorlog in Irak nog steeds gaande....)..... Ach ja, de VS: de grootste terreurentiteit op onze kleine aarde.......
Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Scott Ritter en oordeel zelf:
Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Scott Ritter en oordeel zelf:
Iran Deserves Credit for the Ruin of ISIS
But is the U.S. now allowing its last remnants to survive in Syria to spite Tehran?
Until
recently the United States viewed the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria, or ISIS, as a major threat to regional stability in the Middle
East. Barack Obama made it a mission to roll
back ISIS’s territorial and propagandistic gain,
and Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to “kick
ISIS’s ass.”
The United States expended considerable effort, both military and
political, in a campaign to defeat the terror group in Iraq and, to a
lesser extent, in Syria.
But
there is also no doubt that the bulk of the effort came from Iran,
not the United States. Without Iranian involvement, ISIS would still
have a formidable presence in both Iraq and Syria.
ISIS
was born out of the ashes of the American invasion of Iraq. Their
rise was the logical extension of a process that saw the fabric
of secular Sunni society torn asunder by an American occupier
unwilling to further empower a Sunni ruling elite that had been loyal
to Saddam Hussein. Washington failed to understand the resentment
engendered within the Sunni community when Iraq’s Shia, some of
whom were beholden to Iran, came to power.
Traditional
Sunni tribal power structures were eviscerated as a result, only to
be replaced with radicalized Sunni youths beholden to only
themselves. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was al-Qaeda in name only—its
mission wasn’t to export jihad to the West, but to free Iraq from
the grips of an American and Iranian occupation.
America’s
campaign against AQI never resulted in that movement’s destruction.
Instead, the United States, in an effort to free itself of the burden
of war created when it invaded Iraq in the first place, withdrew
from Iraq in 2012,
leaving the final phase of AQI’s destruction in the hands of the
Iraqi government. This period coincided with the start of the civil
unrest in Syria and the creation of a radicalized Islamist opposition
to Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. The willingness to cede
large swaths of Syrian territory to Islamist forces as a means of
destabilizing Assad created the conditions for the birth of ISIS in
the deserts of both central Syria and western Iraq.
When
ISIS advanced on the Iraqi cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, the
American-trained and -equipped Iraqi army was unable to halt its
advance. Soon the
major city of Mosul fell to ISIS,
and its forces pushed down the Tigris River valley to the outskirts
of Baghdad.
The
story of Iraq’s struggle to form a viable resistance to ISIS in the
aftermath of the fall of Mosul is little known, and even less
appreciated, by the United States. The formation of so-called
“Popular
Mobilization Forces,”
or PMF—organized at the behest of Iraq’s senior Shia leadership,
and trained, equipped, and led by Iran—was the single most
important factor behind the halting of ISIS’s drive on Baghdad and
its eventual eviction from Iraqi territory.
Western
media have paid a disproportionate amount of attention to the actions
of a select few American-trained Iraqi security forces, which, with
ample support from U.S. airpower and advisors, helped end fighting in
and around Mosul. All the while, they’ve ignored that the lion’s
share of the fighting was done by the Iranian-directed PMF. This fact
was not lost on the Iraqi people, many of whom (though not many of
the Sunnis) hold the PMF in the highest regard. This sentiment has
propelled many of the senior leadership of the PMF into political
prominence in Baghdad.
For
Iran, the ISIS phenomenon is not limited to Iraq. It is seen as part
and parcel of a concerted effort undertaken by the United States,
Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Arab nations to overthrow Assad in Syria,
diminish the power and influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and roll
back Iranian influence in both Syria and Iraq. ISIS’s geographic
presence in Syria, concentrated as it was in the central and
northeastern deserts, made it a secondary target compared to the
al-Qaeda affiliates operating in and around Aleppo and Damascus.
As
the Syrian government, with the assistance of Russia, Iran, and
Hezbollah, gained the upper hand in the fight against the American-
and Saudi-backed al-Qaeda groups, however, the importance of ISIS as
a source of anti-regime resistance grew. While ISIS never had the
power to challenge Damascus directly, the
efforts undertaken by the Syrian coalition to defeat ISIS diverted
resources needed in the larger fight.
As such, the continued existence of a viable ISIS presence on Syrian
soil was deemed an acceptable outcome by the United States as it
sought to contain Iran’s presence on Syrian soil.
ISIS
in Syria lingers on, despite the fact that U.S. military power could
ensure its almost immediate elimination. The reason for the stay of
execution is not entirely clear, but it could well be that the U.S.
sees ISIS as a useful foil against Iran. Efforts by the United States
to roll back Iran’s presence inside Syria have recently become more
volatile in the wake of fiery rhetoric from senior Trump
administration officials and actions undertaken by Iran to harden
their positions. The American policy of Iranian rollback includes the
re-imposition of economic sanctions and support for opposition groups
opposed to the Iranian theocracy.
The
latter point is very sensitive. This sensitivity has only been
heightened by remarks from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman suggesting that any struggle for influence between Riyadh and
Tehran ought to take place “inside
Iran, not in Saudi Arabia,”
and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s encouraging Iranian Arab
minorities to rise up in opposition to the Iranian government.
When gunmen
linked to ISIS attacked a military parade in the Iranian city of
Ahvaz,
killing and wounding dozens, the Iranian government was quick to
blame the United States and Saudi Arabia, among others, and promise
retaliation in kind. This prompted National Security Advisor John
Bolton to declare to Iran that “there
will indeed be hell to pay”
if Iran or its proxies attacked the U.S. or its allies.
A
few days later, Iranian
rockets were launched,
not against American targets in Basra, but locations in Syria linked
to ISIS. While the Iranian strike was in clear retaliation for the
Ahvaz attack, the rockets were emblazoned with slogans hostile to the
United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. This made it clear that the
strike was meant for a broader audience. Among those who took notice
were the American forces located a mere three miles away from the
targets struck by the Iranians.
Rising
tensions and strong rhetoric, if not carefully managed, could easily
lead to an unintended—and dangerous—escalation of hostilities.
This could test President Donald Trump’s uncertain appetite for
direct conflict. Moreover, the American effort to stir up an Iranian
opposition could do more to unite competing power factions within
Iran’s leadership, and unite Iranians behind that leadership, than
to divide and weaken the Iranian polity. The Trump administration
seems to operate under the delusion that Iran’s president, Hassan
Rouhani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Iran’s
supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, are operating in different spheres with
somewhat disparate interests. U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between
Rouhani and Khamenei will not only prove fruitless, but
backfire, closing the door to any potential negotiations and
cementing a hardline response that will have Rouhani, the IRGC, and
the supreme leader united in their opposition.
The
United States is engaged in a dangerous double game with ISIS that is
not only hypocritical in the extreme—given the 9/11 attacks on
American soil that precipitated this whole sorry affair—but
counterproductive to American national security interests. It has
both empowered and legitimized the very Iranian theocracy it seeks to
contain.
Rather
than relying on ISIS as a foil to blunt Iranian influence in Syria
and terrorize its citizenry at home, the Trump administration should
recognize the positive role that Iran has played in defeating ISIS.
It should build upon that recognition to craft a wider regional peace
process that both recognizes the realities inherent in Syria today
and reduces the tensions that prompt Iran to lean forward in such an
aggressive manner. Unfortunately, such thinking seems beyond the
capabilities of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. As such, America will
continue to pursue poorly thought out policies with no chance of
success without any thought to either cost or consequence.
Scott
Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in
the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the
Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing
the disarmament of WMD.
==================================* Onbegrijpelijk maar waar, ondanks dat deze oorlog meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden heeft gekost, zijn er nog steeds politici die stellen dat deze oorlog gerechtvaardigd was, zoals CDA onderknuppel de Hoop Scheffer, die voor zijn steun aan deze illegale oorlog door de VS als zetbaas van de NAVO werd aangesteld........ De reguliere westerse massamedia hoor je niet meer over de beginjaren van de oorlog tegen Irak, media die de leugens van de VS over de massavernietigingswapens hysterisch hebben uitgevent en de eerste jaren van de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, pal achter de VS bleven staan, waarbij ze een hele berg 'fake news' brachten, aangevuld met gezwets en leugens van opiniemakers....... Een smerig spel dat zoals gezegd was gebaseerd op leugens en bedrog, waarmee ze het grootste deel van het westerse volk achter deze schandalige illegale oorlog wisten te houden......... Vergeet niet dat ook wij Nederlanders via de belasting fiks hebben meebetaald aan deze oorlog, daar Nederland niet alleen in aanloop van deze illegale oorlog met een onderzeeboot inlichtingen verzamelde voor de VS, maar vervolgens gaf Nederland naast politieke steun, ook militaire steun aan deze oorlog, ofwel militairen op de grond..... Ook Nederlandse F16's hebben lang steun verleend aan deze vuile oorlog, wat zeg ik: Nederland verleent nog steeds steun aan die oorlog met F16's en met het trainen van het Iraakse leger......
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten