Wednesday, 9 May 2018

All Muslim terrorists in Europe are Sunnis, so why is Iran the great threat?

SHARE
This post from a year ago is topical still on the day the USA pulls out of the Iran deal. The Iran deal could have been better but was much better than letting the Iranians continue to develop the capacity to make a bomb. Critics of the deal say that it allowed Iran to continue to threaten America's allies and sponsor terrorism. I think those two arguments, which I just heard advanced on the BBC World Service news by a neo-con called Richard Goldberg, who is 'a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies', are misconceived. The allied tail has wagged the American dog too long.

Obviously, the USA and UK should never have invaded Iraq. They should have launched a short punitive expedition into Afghanistan in 2001, restored the monarchy and then allowed the Taliban to come back. Nation-building was always (a liberal) folly: Afghanistan and Iraq were not post-war Germany, as should have been clear.


But having broken it, as Colin Powell warned, the USA bought Iraq. Leaving Iraq alone led to ISIS. So what is the solution?


I don't know. Unfortunately, the USA may now back the Israeli-Saudi-Sunni alliance against the Shia crescent (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah). I hope Mr. Trump resists this temptation.

Almost all the terrorist atrocities against Western Europe and the USA are committed by Sunnis, yet we are constantly told that Iran, which is fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda, is the great threat. Why?


Because Iran is a great threat to Israel?


I have no animus against Israel but don't want the UK to fight wars for Israel. Israel is not our business. I don't see why it's the US's but I get it that the US must be loyal to allies like Israel and the monstrous Saudi monarchy.


The Saudis created IS to fight the Shias in Iraq and Syria. Al Qaeda, who fight with the Syrian "moderate" rebels whom the Anglo-American back, is a criminal organisation created and financed by Saudis.


We are told "Iran finances terrorism in the Gulf, Syria, and Lebanon" – though the same could be said of the Saudis. And Syria is a war zone where the Iranians are on the government side, so terrorism is not the mot juste there.


Iran considers herself at war with Israel and is the reason why the Assad regime did not collapse five years ago. A Syrian Christian friend says that 'Iran is the devil'. Still, Iranians do not plant bombs or mow people down in trucks in Europe. I know they bombed Buenos Aires, but that was 25 years ago.





I fear Trump will turn out to be a traditional Republican with a traditional American foreign policy. I hope I am wrong and bombing Syria was merely a deserved punishment for using chemical weapons.

I hope very much that the US does not start fighting the Assad-Iran axis. I certainly hope that Great Britain, or England as she used to be called, does not take part on the American side.

How paradoxical that, long before Obama's Iranian detente, George W. Bush overthrew Iran's two great enemies, Saddam and the Taliban, and gave Iraq to the Shias, while proclaiming that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil. Having done so much to aid the horrible Iranian regime it seems rather illogical not to try to rub along with the mullahs if possible.

Yet, in an article headlined How Trump Can Help Cripple the Iranian Regime in theWashington Post, neo-cons Reuel Gerecht and Ray Takeyh depressingly claim that 
a consensus has developed in Washington for some“push back” against the Islamic Republic of Iran
and argue for committing American ground troops to fight Iran in Iraq and Syria:
It is way past time for Washington to stoke the volcano under Tehran and to challenge the regime on the limes of its Shiite empire. This will be costly and will entail the use of more American troops in both Syria and Iraq. But if we don’t do this, we will not see an end to the sectarian warfare that nurtures jihadists. We will be counting down the clock on the nuclear accord, waiting for advanced centrifuges to come on line. As with the Soviet Union vs. Ronald Reagan, to confront American resolution, the mullahs will have to pour money into their foreign ventures or suffer humiliating retreat.
And today the Times [what Americans quaintly call the London Times] reports that Mr. Trump has been told 20,000 troops are needed to beat the Taliban, a war that he rightly said last year was unwinnable.

The truth is that Russia and China, which both have very large Sunni Muslim minorities, are very scared of and want to defeat Sunni jihadism. This threat was vastly increased by George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq and, to some extent, by Mr Obama calling for regime change in Syria. 

Neocons like Reuel Gerecht and Ray Takeyh persuaded the US Government to make these mistakes. Do these people never tire of trying to squander lives pointlessly?

The answer to that, of course, is no. More importantly, will Donald Trump be true to his instincts and his words in the campaign about America First or will he be turned?

At this point a very traditional pro-Sunni, anti-Iranian foreign policy is emerging.

Donald Trump has announced a review of the Iran nuclear deal.

On Wednesday James Mattis said, speaking of Yemen

We will have to overcome Iran’s efforts to destabilize yet another country and create another militia in their image of Lebanese Hezbollah.
Yet it is arguably the Saudis who are destabilising Yemen.

On the same day, Rex Tillerson said Iran has 

“the potential to travel the same path as North Korea and to take the world along with it.”

3 comments:

  1. Almost all the terrorist atrocities against Western Europe and the USA are committed by Sunnis, yet we are constantly told that Iran, which is fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda, is the great threat. Why?

    All you need to know is that Israel wants Iran destroyed. Whether this is in the best interests of the US, or Britain, or Europe, is quite irrelevant.

    Personally I'd be much happier if Iran did have nuclear weapons. It would improve the chances of peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor Paul, after everything that’s happened over the last 17 years he still harbours the qaint notion that the “war on terror” is a real thing.

      The U.S government has spent an estimated 6 trillion dollars on the “war on Terror” since 2001. Thats six thousand (American) billions!

      With that kind of money the US could have given each Muslim living in the United States several million dollars, a one way plane ticket, and a fully paid mansion in any Middle Eastern country of their choice. They could have provided maximum security for every single Airport in the world. This would have reduced the jihadist “terror threat” to zero and they would still have spent only a small fraction of the money dished out on these random desert wars.

      Instead after 17 years what have we got? 2000 year old Christian communities almost eradicated from the middle east. The once peaceful secular autocracy of Iraq now a hotbed of terrorism, the Islamic population of the US doubled since 2001, every corner of Western europe swamped with Muslim refugees, Syria ruined probably beyond repair, Afghanistan essentially the same as it was in 2001, although now the Taliban are considered heroes by the locals, Iran, a nation that could have been used to help counteract Sunni extremism, has been made into No.1 enemy, Tens of thousands of men killed, maimed, disabled and mentally destroyed for life.

      All for the benefit and empowerment of the semitic bandits Israel and Saudi Arabia. It is ridiculous to call them “allies”. They are parasitic enemies.

      Delete
  2. “I hope I am wrong and bombing Syria was merely a deserved punishment for using chemical weapons.”

    Lol wat? Deserved punishment? Don’t tell me you’ve swallowed the MSM horseshit about Douma, Paul. Surely you’re not that thick?

    ReplyDelete