IRAQ, IRAN AND PAKISTAN
Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
[Note: If you want a glimpse at the future plans of the power elite, look at European Union Secretary-General Javier Solana's September 20, 2007 article "Where We Stand," in which he wrote: "Sovereignty is now expressed...by a seat at the table....The world is moving to a system of continents....I am convinced that we need stronger regional organizations: the African Union, ASEAN, Latin American structures....To organize our globalized world, we need to...tame power (extend the rule of law internationally)....One big problem is that we all know that we live in a globalized world. But our politics remain local or national....Europe will have to apply itself to the task of promoting the emergence of a new international order...based on clear rules and strong institutions." Solana's website.
Relevant to the power elite's plans, I have mentioned before Cecil Rhodes' secret Society of the Elect. Rudyard Kipling (who has swastikas on his early books) was a member of the Rhodes Trust, and in 1898 wrote: "When he shows at seeking quarter, with paws like hands in prayer, that is the time of peril -- the time of the Truce of the Bear." This is timely today because the Russian state news agency, NOVOSTI, on December 10 published "Russian 'bear' who loves Black Sabbath set to succeed Putin." It was about First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev (surname comes from Russian word for "bear") who loves heavy metal hard rock music like that of Black Sabbath, whose name originated from the occult.]
The situation in Iraq as presented by the major media has not been adequately described. Therefore, I thought it would be useful to give a fuller picture of the situation based, in part, on information from a source who has been in Iraq for much the time since 2003.
One of the myths about Iraq that we keep hearing today is that there is a vast Shia Muslim majority. Actually, only a little over half the population is Shia, and about 40% are Sunni Muslim if one includes those Kurds and Turkomen who are Sunnis.
The Shia impact politically is also lessened when one realizes there is a rift between Iraqi Arab Shia and Persian (Iranian) Shia who are in Iraq. The Shia do have a large majority represented in the national parliament, but that is due to a large number of Sunnis boycotting the last election, along with Persians (from Iran) on pilgrimage to Kufa, etc., who didn't return home and were allowed to vote in Iraq.
The next election cycle's results will be different, and much of the internal displacement in Iraq (about 2 million people) has occurred with that in mind. In addition, there are about 1 to 2 million Iraqis in Jordan, and about 1 to 1.5 million in Syria. However, a number of them are now beginning to return to Iraq.
Another myth about Iraq is that the religious mullahs are in control. Actually, they only control Basra and the surrounding area in the southeast. The Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, about whom much was made at the beginning of the Iraq war, is now seemingly engaged only in writing religious fatwas (religious directives).
Two reasons the U.S. wanted a presence in Iraq were its oil and that it's more secular than, for example, Saudi Arabia. On November 7, 2007, Hans Blix (former chief U.N. weapons inspector) explained: "One fear I would have is that the U.S. has a hidden thought to remain in Iraq. One reason why they wanted in was that they felt they must leave Saudi Arabia. After the Gulf War in 1991, they left their troops in Saudi Arabia to protect pipelines. And when they felt they could no longer stay in Saudi Arabia, Iraq was the next best place because it was more secularized than Saudi Arabia and had the second biggest oil reserves in the region."
Still another myth we hear today about Iraq is that Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister of the National Assembly, owes his power to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Sadr is a nationalist Shia who really doesn't have direct control over the Mahdi Army now, because at the lower levels they have received a great deal of funding and training directly from Iran. Maliki's real sources of power come from Iran (he lived there and in Syria in exile when Saddam Hussein was in power) and his Finance Minister Bayan Jabr.
In addition to being supported by Sadr, Maliki also receives considerable support from the Shia conservative militant Dawa Party (formerly the Islamic Call Party) and the Badr organization, which is the military wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) political party. It was originally founded by Iran to fight Saddam's Baathist regime. The Badr organization is headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a Shia cleric supported by Iran. But he is currently dying of cancer and passing leadership to his son.
In terms of sectarian violence today, Sadr supporters have a temporary ceasefire in place, as he seems to be inclined toward more political involvement. The Badr forces, however, are attacking Sunnis, but avoid direct confrontation with U.S. forces. Under Saddam, Sunnis and Shia in Iraq got along well for the most part, even inter-marrying. The Shia are the more pious of the 2 Islamic groups, and in places they control (e.g., Iran-dominated Basra and surrounding area), religious principles are strictly enforced. Whereas, Sunni-dominated areas only have minimal enforcement of Islamic principles.
Much of the sectarian violence in Iraq has been caused by the militias, which Maliki's central government has failed to disband. Perhaps this is because, for example, about 75% of the police are embedded with Shia militia members. Iran actually is the source for a great deal of the violence in Iraq today, as it provides funding, weapons (e.g., Improvised Explosive Devices, IEDs), and fighters, not only to assist the militia but Al Qaeda as well. Initially, Sunnis had harbored members of Al Qaeda, but now they are abandoning them due to Al Qaeda's mistreatment of some Sunni women and others. However, there were 2 car bomb attacks on Christmas Day in Beiji and Baqouba, 2 areas where Al Qaeda is regrouping.
Al Qaeda is also increasingly active in Pakistan, and author Gail Sheehy says Al Qaeda and elements of the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) were responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27 (Sheehy has an upcoming article in PARADE magazine on January 6, 2008). Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her aides arranged for Bhutto's return to Pakistan to run for Prime Minister with U.S. support. Bhutto tried to get Blackwater to protect her, but they refused the contract.
At this point it's worth remembering what I wrote in my NewsWithViews column of July 23, 2007 titled "Javier Solana and the Larger Plan." I referred to northwest Pakistan "becoming a haven for Al Qaeda." Bhutto's assassination is creating a certain amount of chaos, and in my article I explained that the creation of chaos in Pakistan could result in foreign (e.g., U.S.) military intervention.
Returning to the subject of Iraq, a lot of what's happening there has to do with money, as the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iranian Covert Special Forces (Qods) make a great deal of money not only in Iran but also in Iraq by smuggling. And this money buys influence.
What's happening is the pursuit of a "Greater Iran," which would include Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, then Syria, and then Lebanon which borders Israel. Relevant to this desired expansion of power, remember that Ezekiel 38:5 reveals that Persians (Iranians) will come against Israel. And geographically, this would be through Iraq, then Syria, then Lebanon. U.S. policy toward Iran has been to hype its nuclear weapons program, thus providing a rationale for a pre-emptive strike against them. However, a November 2007 National Intelligence Council report revealed that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 ! This is problematic because it raises the questions of why the U.S. took 4 years to find out about this, or if we did know about this 2003 program termination, why has the Bush administration hyped this non-existent program now for the last 4 years?
The information on which the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was based was essentially the same as that of 2005, so why the different conclusion? What I suspect actually happened was the power elite sent the word to President Bush to back off on the hype regarding Iran. The power elite is comprised of members all over the world. And given Putin's threat if the U.S. took action against Iran, and Communist China's ability to dump 1 trillion of our dollars on the world market causing a severe economic recession here, one can surmise this 2007 NIE's less threatening conclusion about Iran didn't just "happen" to come out now.
For the first 4 years of the Iraq war, U.S. policy was also a disaster. Iraq's central government white collar corruption is widespread, and a great deal of U.S. financial aid has gone missing or been wasted. The Iraqi government has been receiving considerable money from its oil production, and it promised about $10 billion for reconstruction. Thus far, only about $4 billion has been spent for that purpose.
Quietly now, the U.S.policy has shifted, with U.S. support for Maliki's central government only a form of lip service. American hopes now center around "Awakening" programs uniting Iraqi nationalist Shia with Sunnis into a shadow army under Sunni leadership. In addition, "Concerned Citizens" groups are being formed and armed by the U.S. in the provinces over Maliki's objections.
About 60% of Iraqis now agree with the new U.S. policy of building provinces into regions. Three provinces can form a region, as is already the case with Kurdistan. Other regions are to be (1) Assyrian (consisting of 4 provinces), (2) Anbar province (an all-Sunni province so big it will be a region unto itself), (3) the region south and east of Baghdad (Shia majority), and (4) the southeastern most part of Iraq (containing Basra) will be Sumerian region (slight Shia majority). Baghdad itself will be like Washington, DC, simply a federal capital city. The 40% of Iraqis not yet signed off on this new plan may change their minds in the next year or 2, because if they don't, funding for their provinces might not be forthcoming. Money is driving this process, and it is therefore likely that a federation of regions with each basically having the same religion, tribes, etc., will be formed.
In terms of violence, both U.S. casualties and violence in general have declined recently, especially in Baghdad. There are still problems in Ninewa Province, including Mosul. In addition, Kurdish independence elements' strikes into Turkey have resulted in Turkish military incursions into Kurdistan. And worst of all is violence in the area of Diyala. In addition, U.S. forces have begun their draw-down in December, and this could result in the insurgents becoming emboldened.
A lot of what will happen in Iraq depends on what Iran decides to do. For example, there is a big unemployment problem in Iraq, especially among young adults. If Iran decided to pay them to attack American soldiers, violence could increase. Would the U.S. respond by attacking Iran regardless of warnings from Putin and the Communist Chinese leaders? Then would Iran retaliate by instructing its agents in the U.S. to commit acts of terror here?
Yossef Bodansky, former director of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, has indicated that Iranian-trained agents have been in the U.S. since at least the 1980s. And concerning Iran's ally, Syria, Lt. Col. Craig Roberts was told by a sheriff near the Mexican border that they had recently found Syrian commando patches in an abandoned farm house there. Think of the damage just 20 Iranian or Syrian agents could inflict with chemical weapons (which can effect 8 square blocks) in the concentrated urban areas of New York City, Chicago, etc.
This is the real situation in Iraq today, along with possible consequences of future military action, much of which has not been explained by the major media to the American people. Of course, the power elite is in control of the situation. Why else do you think President Bush unnecessarily has taken criticism for invading Iraq because he said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and no WMD were found? The fact is Saddam had WMD (he had used chemical weapons against Iran) and missiles to deliver them. When President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq or the U.S. would attack, that told Saddam he had 48 hours to move his WMD to Syria, which he did. If WMD were sufficient cause to invade Iraq, why aren't they sufficient reason to attack Syria? After all, Syria supports Hezbollah and Hamas, either of which could use these weapons against Israel. There's no logical reason not to pursue these WMD, except that the power elite has given orders not to attack, just as they recently did regarding Iran.
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
E-Mail: Not Available
For the first 4 years of the Iraq war, U.S. policy was also a disaster. Iraq's central government white collar corruption is widespread, and a great deal of U.S. financial aid has gone missing or been wasted.