West Asia News and Discussions

[RoyG]

a LPHD ship with some 300 marines and v-22 osprey has entered the persian gulf....ready to the saigon embassy roof thing if the ramparts crumble.

The problem is most of the manpower and brains behind ISIS are made up of professional Sunni Old Iraqi Army personnel who have no say in this government. They have sat patiently and waited for the right moment to launch their guerrilla campaign. Get out the popcorn because the biggest Shia-Sunni conflict the world has ever seen is about to take place. Iran + Syria + SCO vs Arab Royals + Turkey + West is about to take place.

[ramana]

UB, Are we ready to discuss "Who lost Eyerak?"

Or was it never found?

[Philip]

Tony BLiar,co-architect of the illegal invasion of Iraq that has devastated that country,appears to have flipped his lid as he defends his actions and blames everyone else for the crisis.The popular mayor of London and Tory gadfly,Boris Johnson let's fly at Tony's insanity.

http://rt.com/news/166224-boris-johnson ... raq/[quote]
‘Blair has finally gone mad’: London mayor ridicules ex-PM over Iraq
Published time: June 16, 2014 11:59
Edited time: June 16, 2014

Tony Blair’s essay on how the Middle East should blame its own religious dynamics for its troubles – instead of Western attempts at intervention - has seen London Mayor Boris Johnson launch a scathing attack on the “unhinged” former PM.

Johnson’s strong condemnation is a reaction to the arguments made in the former British Prime Minister’s piece entitled 'Iraq, Syria and the Middle East,' where claims range from placing blame on the Shiite government in Iraq to the inherent religious dynamics within the Middle East region, even to Syria for allowing the recent attack on Mosul to take place from within its borders, as well as Shiite fighters from Iran – all to explain why militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) are making such progress these days.

But perhaps the most off-the-wall remark that has sent everyone, from the British press to Blair’s former party mates, to Boris Johnson, over the edge was Blair’s claim that Britain should be thanked, not blamed, for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Lashing out at the former Prime Minister, Johnson wrote for The Telegraph on Sunday that “I have come to the conclusion that Tony Blair has finally gone mad.”

His essay “struck me as unhinged in its refusal to face facts. In discussing the disaster of modern Iraq he made assertions that are so jaw-droppingly and breathtakingly at variance with reality that he surely needs professional psychiatric help.”

Attacking also the former PM’s vague claim that Islam should act more responsibly in watching out for both Shia and Sunni extremism on its fringes (since extremism, allegedly, arises out of thin air), Johnson writes: “He said that the allied invasion of 2003 was in no way responsible for the present nightmare – in which Al-Qaeda has taken control of a huge chunk of the country and is beheading and torturing Shias, women, Christians and anyone else who falls foul of its ghastly medieval agenda. Tony Blair now believes that all this was ‘always, repeat always’ going to happen.”

Not so, Johnson believes.

An Iraqi weeps as he walks away from the ministries of justice and labour following a suicide bombing on October 25, 2009. (AFP Photo / Ahmad Al-Rubaye)

“The reality is that before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was no Al-Qaeda presence in that country, none at all.” Despite his brutal tyranny, “Saddam did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attack and he did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

Hammering the point home about just what exactly British and American interventionism accomplished in Iraq, Johnson lays it out simply, “The truth is that we destroyed the institutions of authority in Iraq without having the foggiest idea what would come next. As one senior British general has put it to me, ‘we snipped the spinal cord’ without any plan to replace it. There are more than 100,000 dead Iraqis who would be alive today if we had not gone in and created the conditions for such a conflict, to say nothing of the troops from America, Britain and other countries who have lost their lives in the shambles.”

The London mayor makes the admission that he was among those that voted for the war in the belief that it was the right thing to do – after all, Saddam was considered a madman whose prolonged rule would only bring about a further stagnation in Iraq. But because there was no government waiting to replace him, as well as no institutions or infrastructure set up in place for after the devastation of the conflict, Johnson, like others, became disillusioned with the Bush/Blair plans.

By refusing to admit the colossal miscalculations and lack of foresight that led to Iraq’s present state a decade after invasion, “Blair is now undermining the very cause he advocates – the possibility of serious and effective intervention.”

An image uploaded on June 14, 2014 on the jihadist website Welayat Salahuddin allegedly shows militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) capturing dozens of Iraqi security forces members prior to transporting them to an unknown location in the Salaheddin province ahead of executing them. (AFP Photo)

An image uploaded on June 14, 2014 on the jihadist website Welayat Salahuddin allegedly shows militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) capturing dozens of Iraqi security forces members prior to transporting them to an unknown location in the Salaheddin province ahead of executing them. (AFP Photo)

“Yes, we helped cause the disaster in Iraq; but that does not mean we are incapable of trying to make some amends. It might be that there are specific and targeted things we could do – and, morally, perhaps should do – to help protect the people of Iraq from terrorism (to say nothing of Syria, where 100,000 people have died in the past three years),” Johnson wrote of Iraq's neighbor, whom Blair accused of being guilty of leading his country into a war with extremist insurgents, while also accusing the West of not doing more to topple the president – the Alawite Bashar Assad, who has been fighting the same Sunni extremism plaguing Iraq for three years now.

Johnson asserts that unless Britain, with its great military spending and permanent seat on the UN Security Council, does not admit to its failures as well as enjoy its successes, it would be completely self-defeating for what it tries to accomplish.

When it comes to the question of why the Iraq invasion happened in the first place, the London mayor alleges that the former British leader’s whole campaign arose out of a desire to achieve personal “grandeur.”

“Somebody needs to get on to Tony Blair and tell him to put a sock in it – or at least to accept the reality of the disaster he helped to engender. Then he might be worth hearing. The truth shall set you free, Tony.”

Boris Johnson traveled to Iraq and wrote his own piece for The Spectator in May 2003, giving his thoughts on life in Iraq after Saddam Hussein.

He reminisced about how "within the space of the last half-hour, I had slunk past a ten-year-old with an AK47 over his shoulder, chewing the fat with his dad in the door of the shop" to the harrowing theme of gunfire, and his tragic near-death experience "in a city with no recognized authority" after accidentally interfering with its shopkeeper.

"It was troubling that we were preparing war against a sovereign country that had, so far, done us no direct harm," Johnson wrote. Despite this, he stated that the disorder was rampant and it wasn't solely at the direct hands of the US but the subsequent post-invasion turmoil.

"Weeks after the invasion, buildings are still burning, not from missiles but from the looting. Most of the shops are shut. There is glass everywhere, and rubbish all over the streets, because there are no municipal services; and there are no municipal services because civic order has broken down," Johnson wrote, citing the concerns of one Iraqi emphatically questioning: "Where is our gas, our electricity? They just make promises!"

"Power is being contested on every corner, between Shia moderates and extremists. It is being fought for by umpteen Kurdish parties, Assyrian parties, secular parties," he added. [/quote]

[harbans]

ISIS executions: Saw several pictures of Iraqi soldiers, hands unbound walking to their graves, lying down and getting shot. Wonder why when they knew death is certain, lie down without a fight. Puzzles me a bit.

[harbans]

And for a change i think i completely agree with Tony Blair. The ME and Islamic world will have to ultimately look at it's own dynamics to realize why these killings, hatred, murders and literal Islamist militant takeovers take place.

[ashish raval]

It is better isis be given the very real hope of taking baghdad with a retreat by iraqi army, so they concentrate and surge forward, before a solid trap is sprung.

I doubt they will not be knowing about the trap around Baghdad. Basic war tactic.

[ashish raval]

ISIS executions: Saw several pictures of Iraqi soldiers, hands unbound walking to their graves, lying down and getting shot. Wonder why when they knew death is certain, lie down without a fight. Puzzles me a bit.

Agree harbans, when someone points gun it is very real chance that they intend to kill so it his best to fight. I don't know why did they gave up in such large numbers despite superior weapons and probably training !!! Shia's normally die fighting than run. Seems Iraqi shia are different from Iranian ones in their fighting spirit, I guess hence they were ruled over by 20% sunni Arabs in Iraq anyway. Loss of confidence.

[A_Gupta]

And for a change i think i completely agree with Tony Blair. The ME and Islamic world will have to ultimately look at it's own dynamics to realize why these killings, hatred, murders and literal Islamist militant takeovers take place.

ME & Islamic world will have to look at its own dynamics - agreed. No solution can or will come from outside.

But who stirred the hornet's nest? Not just that, who nurtured the hornet's nest?

Whether it be partition of Bengal in 1905, Churchill/Jinnah in the 1940s, or Pakistan ever since Independence, who has been providing sustenance & support to the killers, haters and murderers? And India doesn't even have oil. It is hard to imagine the extent of skulduggery in the ME. IMO, the colonial powers and then the superpowers have not hesitated to use Islamic fundamentalism and jihad to further their objectives, not worrying about collateral damage. We know that from the Indian experience; why would they behave any differently in the Middle East.

Using my favorite gardener metaphor, if at every step of the way, you encourage the weeds and stifle the garden plants, at the end of it, what do you expect?

[A_Gupta]

ISIS executions: Saw several pictures of Iraqi soldiers, hands unbound walking to their graves, lying down and getting shot. Wonder why when they knew death is certain, lie down without a fight. Puzzles me a bit.

The difference between a promised quick death and a painful, drawn-out (and maybe even demeaning in the religious sense) death?

Could also be ISIS promises to spare the families or children if the soldiers don't resist.

[Gerard]

Einsatzgruppen reported similar reactions amongst those they murdered at Babi Yar. Many victims were so shocked at the mass of dead bodies that they lost all will to resist. They had lain down by themselves in the mass grave on top of the bodies of previous victims to await the shot to the head.

[vinod]

A similar scenario can be expected in Afghanistan soon once US troops are gone. Pak's terror babies will be launched into it and soon we will have our hands full. I hope Indian planners has some sort plan ready for this. Even with immense resources at their hand, the west is finding it difficult to handle these guys, so not sure what kind of plan our guys will be preparing for. Iran will be the worst hit, sandwiched from both sides.

[Shanmukh]

Einsatzgruppen reported similar reactions amongst those they murdered at Babi Yar. Many victims were so shocked at the mass of dead bodies that they lost all will to resist. They had lain down by themselves in the mass grave on top of the bodies of previous victims to await the shot to the head.

+1. Actually, this kind of reaction is not uncommon among victims. You will find quite a few examples in the Holocaust literature. For a particularly heart rending example, the destruction of the Romanian Jews at Bogdanovka stands out.

[Singha]

jews in the middle ages had been banned from most farming, disarmed and confined to urban trades. so they had no core of fighting or well armed men to organize any form of resistance. in a way similar to how indians have been disarmed and set up for the slaughter by the british and the congis . anyone with a gun is done thoo thoo as a goonda.

[A_Gupta]

A comment in the NYTimes:

B.Sugavanam
Vienna, Austria 10 minutes ago

Indian born Peter Mansfield wrote a book entitled "A history of the Middle East" in 1991 and was updated by Nicolas Peltham. The book is a clear depiction of how the British/French/Russians and Americans and played a game of chess using the Arabs (Sunnis,Shiites,Christians factions and the Jews} as pawns especially after the discovery of oil. I wish Mr. Bush , Mr. Blair and Mr. Powell had read his book instead of taking scripts from a PH.D Thesis written by an Iraqi student to wage a war against Iraq. Peter clearly understood when he says " for real peace the internal groups should be at peace not just with their enemies but also with themselves". " In the ten years since Peter wrote his book the Middle East "has shrunk in on itself and become a more embittered , suspicious and intolerant region". Ten years after this above statement by Peter , the Spring Revolution that swept across the Arab Region totally confused the people and what we are witnessing to day is a reflection of past history and the hopes of the young Arab generation for democracy is a mere mirage in the Arabian desert awashed with oil. i do not see any light at the end of the tunnel for oil rich poor Arabs.

[Cain Marko]

And for a change i think i completely agree with Tony Blair. The ME and Islamic world will have to ultimately look at it's own dynamics to realize why these killings, hatred, murders and literal Islamist militant takeovers take place.

Weren't they doing exactly that under Saddam? Irrespective of his brutality/debauchery etc., the situation was far more controlled, perhaps a strongman like Saddam is exactly what was required to prevent the present "dynamic".

This western penchant for democracy as a panacea for all global issues is a bit much. There was a reason why Plato, who coined the term, thought so poorly of it! The ME proclivity for Saddam types imho is a perversion of their desire for a purer form of autocracy.

[kmkraoind]

Radical Islamists take hammer to Syrian artifacts

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant fighters smash 3,000-year-old Assyrian statue in latest act of cultural genocide

[Raja Bose]

Western penchant for democracy is a fig leaf used to justify intervention. Where was that same penchant for democracy when they were best buddies with Saddam before the same penchant for democracy apparently caused them to kill Saddam and 'liberate' Iraq?

[Cain Marko]

^ True enough. Democracy has become a sort of religion for the West, and it is used, just as religions have been, to justify all sorts of colorful ends. As such, it can be applied selectively and conveniently. IOWs you bomb Saddam in the name of democracy, and as required, you also buddy up with him, all in the same name.

[ramana]

A similar scenario can be expected in Afghanistan soon once US troops are gone. Pak's terror babies will be launched into it and soon we will have our hands full. I hope Indian planners has some sort plan ready for this. Even with immense resources at their hand, the west is finding it difficult to handle these guys, so not sure what kind of plan our guys will be preparing for. Iran will be the worst hit, sandwiched from both sides.

lets explore this scenario further.

ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group in Iraq started by you know who to combat Iran in Syria operating in Sunni strongholds of Iraq.

Taliban is a Sunni terrorist group in Afghanistan started by same you know who and operatingin Pasthun areas of Afghanistan.

Iraq Army just as Afghan National Army (ANA) are mainly trained by US 'experts'.

When the ISIS ventured out of Sunni areas of Iraq, the Iraqi Army surrendered enmasse leading to the chaos in Iraq today.

The scenario postulates that similarly ANA will melt away when faced with Taliban once the US leaves Afghanistan after say 2016.

The Iraq Army is more like a Shia army and not interested in control of Sunni areas of iraq.

ANA is interested in controlling all of Afghanistan.

ANA when allowed to fight by US has taken on the Taliban. So no danger of a rout.

The worse secanrio is if TSPA troops put on shalwars and fight alongside the Taliban, we dont know how ANA will react with US as usull pretending to be concerned and bad mouthing Afghan leadership(they are doing so in IRaq right now) while their non-state actor, Pakistan takes over Kabul.

[shravan]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zj49 ... as-em_news
Al-Furqan Media Production Presents - Clanking of the Swords 4 - ISIS Propaganda - Shocking footage has emerged showing Sunni insurgents of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)
----
NSFW.

the video is explicit, bloody and lengthy (over an hour). The over/under on incantations of “Allahu Akbar” must be about 1,000. Please be warned that the video repeatedly depicts cold-blooded murder. It seems to me consistent with yesterday’s report of the ISIS massacre.

[vinod]

A similar scenario can be expected in Afghanistan soon once US troops are gone. Pak's terror babies will be launched into it and soon we will have our hands full. I hope Indian planners has some sort plan ready for this. Even with immense resources at their hand, the west is finding it difficult to handle these guys, so not sure what kind of plan our guys will be preparing for. Iran will be the worst hit, sandwiched from both sides.

lets explore this scenario further.

ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group in Iraq started by you know who to combat Iran in Syria operating in Sunni strongholds of Iraq.

Taliban is a Sunni terrorist group in Afghanistan started by same you know who and operatingin Pasthun areas of Afghanistan.

Iraq Army just as Afghan National Army (ANA) are mainly trained by US 'experts'.

When the ISIS ventured out of Sunni areas of Iraq, the Iraqi Army surrendered enmasse leading to the chaos in Iraq today.

The scenario postulates that similarly ANA will melt away when faced with Taliban once the US leaves Afghanistan after say 2016.

The Iraq Army is more like a Shia army and not interested in control of Sunni areas of iraq.

ANA is interested in controlling all of Afghanistan.

ANA when allowed to fight by US has taken on the Taliban. So no danger of a rout.

The worse secanrio is if TSPA troops put on shalwars and fight alongside the Taliban, we dont know how ANA will react with US as usull pretending to be concerned and bad mouthing Afghan leadership(they are doing so in IRaq right now) while their non-state actor, Pakistan takes over Kabul.

I'm expecting more on the lines of pak-jihadis being given a free line to do what they please across border. The final stage only will probably involve the pak troops. I don't think ANA will melt away but probably won't be able to hold out long against a big Taliban initiative to recover everything they lost after US invasion. They will need support just like the northern alliance had. With economic situation worsening across world, I'm not sure how many would be willing to fund others battles. Only nations with leaders who have proper strategic vision can invest in that fight.

[ramana]

Vinod, Also think about unkil endorsing the Paki plan for Taiban taking over Kabul as a Sunni sandwich to hem Shia Iran.

In that case ISIS could be the Western naan to Taliban the Eastern naan.

[Sanku]

Vinod, Also think about unkil endorsing the Paki plan for Taiban taking over Kabul as a Sunni sandwich to hem Shia Iran.

In that case ISIS could be the Western naan to Taliban the Eastern naan.

My understanding is that ANA is primarily non Pashtun. Hence wont be kind to Taliban like Iraqi Sunni forces. Is that incorrect now ?

[Vikas]

Also you forget that Taliban might be more tempted to take over Islamabad first which is closer and more likely to surrender without firing a single bullet.
Pak Army has shown that when asked to bend over, They pull down their Salwaars first and TTP won't hesitate to choose same methods as ISIS to bring Sharia to Pakjab.

[ramana]

Calling things by right name is beginign of wisdom. Chinese proverb.

What Taliban who are they? And why will they take over Islamabad?

Taliban ar Ghilzai Pashtuns from Afghanistan who want to take over Kabul. They are supported by TSPA/PAA for strategic depth reasons.

I think the ones who want to takeover Islamabad are the TTP who are also called Pakiban by the forum.

The Zarb-e-Azb is launched by PAA against them and is applauded by three irrelvant actors:PTI, MQM and ANP.

[Vikas]

Calling things by different or conflicting names sometimes gives one the cover and keeps the foes confused.
Just like TTP, we don't know who is with whom and who is being killed by Drones and who is smoking peace pipe with TSP Army and everyone calls itself Taliban.
The ones who want to take over Islamabad might be supported by Ghilzai Pashtuns to get strategic depth against Afghan Govt along with Qadri and Im the Dim types if the charge towards Islamabad gets traction and success.
Even lower level Puke Army Jawans might join them and support them. It is all about initial success and fear tactic.

Moreover Iranians are not so stupid to let Kabul be run over by Talibans once again which would effectively box them for any foreseeable future. Whether they can do anything effective without Indian and Russian help looks bleak.

[UlanBatori]

This is not good news, for anyone who was around in 1990

[Austin]

Baghdad slams Saudi Arabia for ‘encouraging genocide’ in Iraq

Iraqi Shiite tribesmen brandish their weapons as they gather to show their willingness to join Iraqi security forces in the fight against Jihadist militants who have taken over several northern Iraqi cities, on June 17 2014, in the southern Shiite Muslim shrine city of Najaf (AFP Photo / Haidar Hamdani)

The Iraqi government says that it holds Saudi Arabia “responsible” for the current crisis and has blamed Riyadh for encouraging “genocide” in the country through the backing of Sunni militants.

“We hold them [Saudi Arabia] responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that - which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites,” the Shiite-led cabinet said in a statement issued by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office.

Comments from Riyadh this week "indicate siding with terrorism."

Maliki pointed the finger at both Saudi Arabia and Qatar for perceived support of terrorism in Iraq in March.

[harbans]

While a charter outlining an antiquated interpretation of Sharia was being disseminated in Mosul, #SykesPicotOver trended on jihadist Twitter feeds. From the point of view of Iraq's jihadist celebrities, the 1916 borders drawn in secret by British and French imperialists represented by Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot to divide up Mesopotamia are not only irrelevant, they are destructible.

Stratfor: Intrigue lying behind Iraqs Jihadist uprising

When some of these think tank 'experts' start calling this an 'antiquated' interpretation, i tend to lose interest in the analysis. The basis itself for all emanating reason however intricate and detailed seems to have little meaning..

[IndraD]

Vinod, Also think about unkil endorsing the Paki plan for Taiban taking over Kabul as a Sunni sandwich to hem Shia Iran.

In that case ISIS could be the Western naan to Taliban the Eastern naan.

tweet this pls

[Philip]

Great US "surge" in Iraq.O'Bomber sends to defend Baghdad (embassy only) a massive troop surge of....275 soldiers (one Yanqui soldier is equal to 100 ISIS ragtag "street arabs")!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk
US and Iran hold Iraq talks but reject military alliance
Discussions take place on sidelines of nuclear summit as Obama sends up to 275 'combat equipped' troops
Qassim Suleimani, puppeteer of the Middle East
Iraqi city of Tal Afar falls to Isis insurgents
The terrifying rise of Isis
Isis terror group to be banned in Britain

US and Iranian officials held talks over the advance of Islamist insurgents in Iraq on Monday, the first time the two nations have collaborated over a common security interest in more than a decade.

The discussions in Vienna took place on the sidelines of separate negotiations about Iran’s nuclear programme, as Barack Obama told Congress that the he was deploying up to 275 military personnel to Iraq.

The developments came amid conflicting signals in Washington over the extent of any coordination with Tehran over the crisis in Iraq.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, pointedly declined to rule out military cooperation in an interview on Monday, but US and Iranian officials later stressed that there was no prospect of military coordination, and none was discussed in Vienna, where talks were described as short and inconclusive.

“We are open to engaging the Iranians,” said a senior State Department official, who characterised the discussions as brief. “These engagements will not include military coordination or strategic determinations about Iraq’s future over the heads of the Iraqi people,” the US official said, on condition of anonymity.

The Iranians confirmed that military cooperation was not on the cards. "The disastrous situation in Iraq was discussed today. No specific outcome was achieved," a senior Iranian official told Reuters.

Fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) have rapidly advanced through mostly Sunni areas of Iraq in recent days, capturing several cities. It was reported on Monday that they had taken Tal Afar, a northern Iraqi city. On Sunday, the insurgent fighters posted images purporting to show the execution of hundreds of Shia fighters.

Obama said in his notification to Congress that the military personnel being sent to Iraq would provide support and security for the American embassy in Baghdad, but was "equipped for combat".

"This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed," he said.

Around 170 of those forces have already arrived and another 100 soldiers will be on standby in a nearby country such as Kuwait until they are needed. In addition, officials told Reuters that the White House was considering sending a contingent of special forces to train and advise beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts in the face of the insurgency.

Earlier, in an indication of how sensitive in Washington any cooperation with Tehran would be, officials moved quickly to clarify remarks by Kerry, who went further than his administration colleagues in entertaining military cooperation with Iran against a common adversary.

"We're open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and ability of the government to reform," Kerry told Yahoo News.

Pressed by interviewer Katie Couric over whether that would include military cooperation, Kerry replied: "At this moment I think we need to go step by step and see what in fact might be a reality. But I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability."

Less than three hours later, the Pentagon released a series of public statements that firmly ruled out military coordination. "There has been no contact, nor are there plans for contact, between [the Department of Defense] and the Iranian military on the security situation in Iraq," lieutenant commander Bill Speaks, a Pentagon spokesman, told the Guardian.

Notwithstanding the denials of military collaboration, the advent of joint diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran over the chaos in Iraq represents a dramatic turnaround for the two rival powers, whose relations, frozen for several decades, have only begun to thaw over the past year.

Military experts say any US air strikes in Iraq would will be impeded by the lack of intelligence from the the ground. An Iranian offensive, by contrast, would be expected to involve elite forces of ground troops that would engage in direct combat with Isis fighters, gaining a detailed knowledge of the battle lines.

Yet the notion of a partnership between the longtime foes prompted intense resistance in some quarters of Washington and Tehran on Monday. "It would be the height of folly to believe that the Iranian regime can be our partner in managing the deteriorating security situation in Iraq," senator John McCain said in a statement.

McCain's remarks contrasted with those of another Republican hawk, Lindsey Graham, who on Sunday expressed support for cooperating with Iran. McCain and Graham are usually in lockstep over foreign policy issues and their dispute revealed the divisions uncovered by the prospect of a collaboration with Iran.

Washington has dispatched some of its most senior White House and State Department officials to the nuclear talks in Austria, including the top deputy secretary of state, William Burns. He was scheduled to meet Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on Monday.

Their meeting kicks off five days of negotiations between Iran and the six world powers collectively referred to as "P5+1". Before arriving in Vienna, Zarif spoke by telephone with the British foreign secretary, William Hague, about the possible role Iran could play in easing the conflict in Iraq.

Iran and the US previously collaborated over military intelligence in the post 9/11 fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan 13 years ago. But a US offical cautioned against reading too much into the latest talks. "No one should expect that all of a sudden, overnight, even if we resolve the nuclear agreement, that everything will change. It will not," the official said. "The fundamentals remain exactly as they are. Until we resolve the nuclear issue there cannot be any kind of fundamental change in this relationship."

In Iraq on Monday, the capital, Baghdad, remained outside the grasp of Isis. But the mayor of Tal Afar, a city of 200,000 people located 260 miles north-west of Baghdad, told the Associated Press that the insurgent group was in control there. A resident said militants in pickup trucks with machine guns and jihadi banners were roaming the streets as gunfire rang out.

Fighting in Tal Afar began on Sunday, with Iraqi government officials saying Isis fighters were firing rockets seized from military arms depots in the Mosul area. They said the local garrison suffered heavy casualties and the main hospital was unable to cope with the wounded.

There were fears that militants would carry out further atrocities in Tal Afar, which is ethnically mixed and made up of Shias and Sunni Turkomen.

Claims at the weekend that the insurgents had killed 1,700 Iraqi soldiers could not be verified. But pictures, on a militant website, appear to show masked Isis fighters loading captives on to flatbed trucks before forcing them to lie facedown in a shallow ditch with their arms tied behind their backs. The final images show the bodies of the captives soaked in blood after being shot at several locations.

Iraq's chief military spokesman, Lt Gen Qassim al-Moussawi, said the photos were genuine and that he was aware of cases of mass murder of captured Iraqi soldiers in areas held by Isis.

Tal Afar's capture came hours after Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, vowed to retake every inch of territory seized by the militants.

"We will march and liberate every inch they defaced, from the country's northernmost point to the southernmost point," Maliki told volunteers joining up to fight the insurgents.

Additional reporting by Mark Tran

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... iran-syria
Qassim Suleimani: commander of Quds force, puppeteer of the Middle East
Iran's power player emerges from the shadows to rescue Baghdad

Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is a useful man to have on your side in a crisis. Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, must have been relieved to see him last week as he scrambled to organise a counterattack against the Sunni jihadis of Isis who have taken swaths of territory and were threatening Baghdad.

Suleimani is a regular, though usually unannounced, visitor to the Iraqi capital, where he has been a key player since even before the 2003 US invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Stiffening resistance, mobilising militias and greasing palms is the stuff of a clandestine career which has given him the reputation of being one of the most powerful and mysterious men in the Middle East.

Now his latest mission to Baghdad is being seen as an indication of the gravity of the Iraqi crisis – a client of Tehran facing extremist jihadis. "The IRGC will see this as another front, akin to what is happening in Syria," said Ali Ansari, a historian of Iran at the University of St Andrews. "They are taking it very seriously indeed."

In the past three years, Suleimani, as the point man in Iran's strategic backing for Bashar al-Assad and its ties to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia movement, has focused on Damascus.

US sanctions imposed on him because of his role in Syria mean he is unlikely to meet any American officials – even if Washington and Tehran were to agree on short-term military cooperation in Iraq. Still, Suleimani was discreetly involved in negotiations with the US after the September 11 attacks, when Iran offered help to US forces in Afghanistan – until George W Bush included Tehran in "the axis of evil". Nowadays Iran's battle lines are clear. "Syria is the main bone of contention," Suleimani said in a rare speech in February. "On one side stands the whole world and on the other stands Iran. Some people urge Assad to go … but they don't realise the truth." Saudi Arabia, Tehran's bitter strategic rival and patron of some of the Sunni militants fighting Assad, came in for especially harsh censure.

Fiercely loyal to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, Suleimani usually keeps a low profile at home, his pale, almost ghost-like face, deep-set eyes and greying hair on show only occasionally at the funerals of IRGC men killed in Syria. Khamenei once branded him "a living martyr" – high praise. Last month a photo on Facebook showed him offering condolences to the family of Hilal al-Assad, the Syrian president's cousin, who was killed fighting near the Turkish border.

Suleimani, now 57, was in his early 20s when he joined Iran's forces in the war Saddam launched against the country in 1980 – a conflict that became the longest conventional war of the last century and which left more than a million dead on both sides in its eight bloody years. Afterwards he was deployed to Iran's eastern border, fighting drug smugglers from Afghanistan. In 1998, he was appointed commander of the Quds (Jerusalem) force.

Estimated to be several thousand strong, the Quds force carries out a range of highly sensitive functions: intelligence, special operations, arms smuggling and political action – anything that constitutes protecting the revolution or attacking its enemies, Israel foremost among them. "It combines the functions of MI6, the SAS and DfID," a British official quipped. "It is Iran's long arm – everywhere."

Suleimani was also pictured last year with the son of Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah military commander whose assassination in Damascus in 2008 was widely blamed on Israel's Mossad secret service.

Experts agree that is hard to overestimate Suleimani's role in Iraq. "At times of crisis Suleimani is the supreme puppeteer," said Prof Toby Dodge of the London School of Economics. "He is almost like a Scarlet Pimpernel. He is everywhere and he's nowhere. He can be blamed for everything. Suleimani is doing in Baghdad what he did in Damascus – giving advice and help to an ally in trouble, Maliki in this case."

The Iranian's brash behaviour sometimes raises eyebrows: when he met the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, in 2008, according to one well-placed source, it looked like a "master-client relationship".

The previous year, during a series of battles between the US and Iraqi army on one side and Shia militias on the other, he sent an SMS message to the US commander, General David Petraeus. It read: "General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. The ambassador in Baghdad is a Quds force member. The individual who's going to replace him is a Quds force member."

According to Dodge, one of Suleimani's most valued Iraqi assets is the Asaib Ahl al-Haq (the League of the Righteous), a Shia militia created by the Iranians to undermine the movement led by Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia nationalist who emerged at the forefront of opposition to the US. Its leader, Qais al-Khazali, was one of the Iraqis Suleimani reportedly saw in Baghdad. "Like other Iranian-created structures, Asaib al-Haq is deeply religious and ideological and runs in parallel to the state, undermining it when it needs to and working with it when it doesn't," said Dodge.

The League of the Righteous staged some spectacular attacks against US troops before their withdrawal in 2011. Another old Iranian-backed Iraqi player, the Badr brigade, which was supposed to have been disbanded, reappeared in public last week.

Suleimani's public comments demonstrate a powerful sense of strategic commitment to Iraq and the preservation of both Iranian and Shia political power. "Iraq used to be the citadel of opposition against Iran," he said. "This is why they [the west] gave all that money to Saddam for such a long time, even before the creation of the Islamic republic."

[harbans]

Isis terror group to be banned in Britain

Funny ban considering that more Muslims there are joining Jihadi groups in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia than are volunteering for the Army reserves.

[ramana]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140618/j ... 520967.jsp

YEARS OF GROWING IRONY
- As the West dithers, Iraq is inevitably left open to violence
DIPLOMACY: K.P. Nayar

Baghdad, June 15, 2014

Of the many ironies of recent history, this one surely justifies its description of “supreme”. Last weekend, as Sunni militants, describing themselves colourfully as the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” or ISIL for short, captured thousands of kilometres of strategic land in Iraq and threatened to march on the capital of Baghdad, Barack Obama’s defence secretary, Chuck Hagel, ordered to sail into the Persian Gulf a giant American aircraft carrier.

The supreme irony in Hagel’s order is that the aircraft carrier’s name has a special resonance with the ongoing events in Iraq which have the potential to transform that entire region forever with consequences for India which ought to be taken more seriously in New Delhi than they appear to be. The name of the ship in question is USS George H.W. Bush. Until not long ago, few experts on the Gulf or Levant lost their sleep over ISIL. But last weekend, its fighters forced official Washington to stay awake.

The United States of America’s secretary of state, John Kerry, was kept busy on the phone to the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, among others. President Obama interrupted his vacation in California. He struggled to stay on course with the promise that got him into the White House and won for him the Nobel peace prize: a break with his predecessor’s penchant to put his country’s boots on the ground against anyone he thought was not “with us”, and therefore, “against us”.

But Hagel had the most unenviable task of all: to create an illusion that by moving USS George H.W. Bush — along with a guided-missile cruiser and a guided-missile destroyer — into striking distance of Iraq, the Pentagon’s military might could scare away the steely and determined ISIL fighters.

In reality, Washington is making contingency plans for the evacuation of Americans from the Gulf region if Baghdad does fall to militants. Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said as much when he explained that Hagel’s “order will provide the commander-in-chief additional flexibility should military options be required to protect American lives, citizens and interests in Iraq”. Ironically, on Sunday the tide turned and brought unexpected relief to Washington — only because of understanding from the most unlikely of sources of succour for the Americans, namely Iran, ruled by ayatollahs, whom successive occupants of the White House have loved to hate.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, whom the Americans put in power only to watch helplessly as he grew too big for his boots for Washington’s liking, may yet survive the ISIL onslaught, but with help from Tehran. Iran’s help for the beleaguered Maliki government has come as Obama fears to tread in messy Baghdad. Yet the supreme irony of all will be if the aircraft carrier named after a president — along with his son-successor, the names of both men indelibly tied to the recent history of Iraq — is tasked to supervise an evacuation from the Gulf.

The Bushes, Herbert Walker and ‘Dubya’ or ‘W’, his son, the 41st and 43rd presidents of the US, falsely promised the world an Iraq free from an aggressive dictator and liberation from an “axis of evil”. After untold suffering lasting more than a decade, what the world is watching is the prospect of Americans turning tail and leaving the entire region within the grasp of terrorists far, far worse than Saddam Hussein. Watching from New Delhi, it ought to be of utmost concern.

The ironies in Iraq do not end there. In this centenary year of World War I, several books on the Great War have hit the stores in the West. One of them, Enemy on the Euphrates: The British Occupation of Iraq and the Great Arab Revolt 1914-1921, published last month, stands out. It is easy to mistakenly assume from the title chosen by its author, Ian Rutledge, the distinguished economist, that the book is about Saddam or about men like Muqtada al-Sadr, the cleric-politician who openly confronted the Americans or even about Maliki, who undermines Washington in an underhand style.

But Enemy on the Euphrates is a reminder that nothing has changed in the oil-rich part of the Arab world in a century and that the more things appeared to change, the more they have remained the same. Familiar to all those who have followed the events since Dubya’s invasion of Iraq is a rallying cry by Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Mahdi army” which had the US on edge in 2004: “Just give the order, Muqtada, and we will repeat the 1920 revolution.” This call by the Mahdi army to empower Shias and fight the Western presence in Iraq has earned the nearly successful Shia uprising against the British in 1920 a special place in Iraq’s current political folklore. For those who know little about the dramatic and historic events between the start of World War I and 1921, which changed the course of Arab history in Iraq and nearby, Rutledge’s scholarly work is a valuable education.

For the people of what is now known to us as Iraq and neighbouring areas, World War I did not end in 1918. The embers of conflict were merely suppressed from growing by the use of massive force by the then colonial powers, mainly Britain. Mosul nearly became Britain’s Waterloo in the 1920 revolt which Iraqis are glorifying today. So when Mosul fell into the hands of ISIL last week, history was not repeating itself, history was running its course after it was unnaturally interrupted by outside forces 94 years ago.

The dramatis personae in Rutledge’s narrative make for eerie reading. An oil company by the name of Anglo-Persian played a big role in the events in Mosul and its surrounding areas in the post-World War I period. In its current avatar that company now goes by the name of BP. Among other key players amid the potential oil fields in Mosul — and in nearby Basra, where the oilfields were already under British control — were Royal Dutch and Royal Shell. Britain spared no effort to suppress a revolt by ragtag tribesmen who only wished to preserve their nomadic ways and bedouin lifestyle. The colonial powers, on the other hand, were seeking to control the oil then as they are doing now.

If Indians who lived under colonialism smirk on reading that these tribesmen were called budhoos by the British, the smirk ought to be condoned. There was no joy last week in reading that Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s birthplace, fell into ISIL hands, but it certainly showed that the tribes which continue to inhabit the plains of Iraq are no budhoos. Not then, not now. It required genius of some sort to bring together deadly enemies, Shias and Sunnis, in a common fight to drive out British occupation. A less charitable explanation is that the British were so hated by the local people that they were willing to temporarily sink differences that are part of their DNA even to this day.

What lies ahead? Rutledge recalls all sorts of promises of convenience made by the British to assorted sheikhs and their followers. The Whitehall then roped in other big powers and convinced them to follow in tow. Behind the backs of Arab tribes, the same land in nearby Palestine was at the same time being promised to Jews. History will not absolve those who made those promises unless they are fulfilled through a political process or the use of force as in Iraq now is inevitable.

The latest events are a rueful reminder of the maxim about fooling some people for some time but not all the people all the time. The British finally vanquished the tribesmen only because of the advantage of the Royal Air Force. Today the Americans are talking of using drones to contain the ISIL. The best illustration of how complex the situation is and how unpredictable the outcome promises to be is this: in Iraq, the ISIL is fighting to overthrow the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, while in Syria they want to see the back of the president, Bashar al-Assad. The Americans and the British and the rest of the West want Maliki to stay in power and Assad to vacate his office. If anyone can rationalize this contradiction, they may find the seeds of a solution there.

telegraph_dc@yahoo.com

[chanakyaa]

Iraq Breaks Down, Oil Surges

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/8580 ... oil-surges
The context underlying the growing crisis

The situation in Iraq is serious, and is probably going to get worse before it gets better. The potential for this recent action to morph into a regional conflict is very high. That that means that oil could go a lot higher, and if it does, we can expect the odds of a global economic recession and an attendant financial crisis to go up considerably from here.

Before we dive into what's actually happening over there right now, I need to begin with a longer and deeper historical context of the region, which is essential to understanding pretty much everything in the Middle East. The western press likes to report on things as if they suddenly occur for no discernible reason, context-free and unconnected to our actions and activities over there

Iraq Is Not Really A State
To start this story, we have to go back to the period just after WW I when Britain and France were divvying up the spoils of the region between themselves.

Iraq did not exist prior to these two western powers taking out a map of the Middle east, a ruler and a pen, and summarily drawing straight lines that happened to rather inconsiderately cut across cultural, language and racial boundaries. The architects of this secret agreement were a Brit by the name of Sykes and a Frenchman by the name of Picot.

Prior to this Franco-British interference, the area was called Mesopotamia and had long been ruled by a contentious but roughly-balanced mixture of tribes and kings.

The old partition of the Middle East is dead. I dread to think what will follow

June 13, 2014

The entire Middle East has been haunted by the Sykes-Picot agreement, which also allowed Britain to implement Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour’s 1917 promise to give British support to the creation of a Jewish “homeland” in Palestine.

The collapsing Ottoman Empire of 1918 was to be split into two on a north-east, south-west axis which would run roughly from near Kirkuk – today under Kurdish control – across from Mosul in northern Iraq and the Syrian desert and through what is now the West Bank to Gaza.

Mosul was initially given to the French – its oil surrendered by the British in return for what would become a French buffer zone between Britain and the Russian Caucasus, Baghdad and Basra being safe in British hands below the French lines.

But growing British commercial desires for oil took over from imperial agreements. Mosul was configured into the British zone inside the new state of Iraq (previously Mesopotamia), its oil supplies safely in the hands of London.

[UlanBatori]

So the Champions of Democracy, the Bagdad regime, massacred some 63 prisoners in a jail when the ISIL attacked.

[abhishek_sharma]

Between Iraq and a Hard Place - thoughts on the crisis in the Middle East.

[Singha]

imo the entire northern half of africa from kenya to nigeria is ripe for a bloodbath.
there too, the borders are straight lines drawn by british, french, belgian and german colonial rulers.
rule of law is fitful, govts are weak and corrupt, and ethnic and religious passions are kind of high.
the entire coast of the Med has already been primed by the revolts whether in chad , libya or egypt.
two days of massacres on the kenyan coast either by somali squads or local warlords.
boko haram is gaining footprint in nigeria
the vast wastes of chad and niger beckon those of true faith willing to camp out and train to punish the kafir.
US has captured one leader of the benghazi attack yesterday.

africa command of amirkhan socom / army looks like a hot growth area.

[VikramS]

What I find odd is that even on BR, people call it "Western Stupidity".

On the contrary I feel that Green on Green, is, by design.

Are you serious? White on Green, Green on Green, Blue on Green, White on Blue (Although not so much now)

On a civilizational basis, Islam(Arabs) & XTians(Europeans) have been duking it out for more than a millennia.

As long as there is no (or limited) blow back to the mainland, why does the West care?

[Singha]

iraq's main oil refinery Baiji is under attack:

NDTV
From about 4:00 am (0100 GMT), clashes erupted at the refinery complex in Salaheddin province, north of Baghdad, according to a senior official and a refinery employee.

Some stores of oil products caught fire during the assault on the facility, Iraq's biggest refinery.

Officials told AFP a day earlier that the refinery had been shut down and many employees evacuated because, due to the militant offensive that has seen swathes of northern territory slip from government control, several major cities were no longer being supplied with refined oil products.

[Singha]

cnn: 40 miles north of baghdad

Militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, have "made a great advance on Baquba" and are pushing very hard to take it, officials said. But the city has not fallen.