The Empire's New Middle East Map
ethnic cleansing and petroleum geography

using religious and ethnic divisions to split Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia to control their oil rich provinces

In June 2006, Armed Forces Journal published this map (below) from Ralph Peters, a prominent war strategist. It shows the method to the madness -- creating ethnic tension and civil war in order to redraw the boundaries. Most of the existing borders were imposed by Britain and France after World War I - and conveniently (for the US and Europe) divide most of the Arabs from most of the oil. Note that their new "Arab Shia State" would contain much of the oil, separating governments in Riyadh, Baghdad and Tehran from what is currently the main source of their national wealth.

2018: Lt. Col. Peters speaks out against Trump
"Ex-Fox News analyst: Trump is a danger to the US"
Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters
Armed Forces Journal - June 2006

note: the online version of this article no longer has a link to these maps

related pages:

A new map for Peak Oil Wars

Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, former Soviet Georgia, Africa and others.

The US empire is playing a "Good cop / bad cop" strategy where the neo-cons wrecked Iraq but the neo-liberals are in agreement that Iraq should be partitioned (which would allow the US greater control over the oil). If the bulk of the remaining oil was in places that were predominantly Buddhist or Hindu, the US would be waging a war on Buddhism or Hinduism.

The national borders of the Middle East countries were mostly drawn by British and French imperialist bureaucrats around 1920, not by citizens of these nations. These lines separate the bulk of the Arab peoples from the bulk of the oil wealth, a quasi-Apartheid situation deeply resented by millions of poor Arabs. The Arab world is roughly divided into countries with large populations and little oil, and countries with little populations and large amounts of oil (an oversimplification, but the general point is valid). But these configurations still allow for nationalist control over tremendous oil resources - which the US empire still resents.

The neo-cons call the current Middle East conflict "World War IV," since they consider the many wars under the umbrella of the Cold War to have been World War III. If you add up the number of bodies in the wars between 1945 and 9/11, the casualties are comparable to World War II.

Some of the neo-cons have publicly proclaimed that their goal for the War on Iraq (and eventually, its neighbors) is to redraw the borders of the Middle East. The ostensible reason given for this arrogance is to separate feuding ethnic and religious groups from each other. However, if you combine maps of the "new Middle East" sought by these armchair warriors with maps of the oil fields, a more sinister motive becomes obvious. Dividing up Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia would allow the consolidation of most of the region's oil into a new country (which presumably would be allied to the United States). This would remove control over the oil from governments based in Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh, allowing new arrangements of control to be established.

The supposed "failure" of the Bush Cheney invasion of Iraq allows for a new administration to supposedly fix the problems of their civil war by splitting Iraq into three new states - a Kurdish enclave in the north, a Shiite Arab state in the south, and a Sunni region in the center. Most of Iraq's oil would be concentrated in the Shiite region, with lesser amounts in the Kurdish part, and very little would remain for the Sunnis. This would allow the US to focus its occupation and manipulation on the parts of Iraq that have oil, and the parts without oil could be ignored.

Saudi Arabia has a similar confluence of ethnicity with petroleum geography. Saudi oil fields are in the east, along the Persian Gulf. The two holy cities of Mecca and Medina are in the west, along the Red Sea. Some neo-conservatives have floated the idea of partioning Saudi Arabia into at least two countries - one with the holy cities but without oil, the other without holy cities but with oil fields. The US merely wants to control the oil and is not interested in occupying Mecca and Medina.

Iran's oil is mostly in the western provinces along the Persian / Arabian Gulf. One particularly oil rich region is Khuzestan, an Arab area of Iran. Most "Westerners" probably think that Iran is an Arab country, but while it is Islamic, it is not Arab. Most Iranians speak Farsi, not Arabic. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Iran is a multi-ethnic country, but it is a strange circumstance that the area with the most Arabs is also one of the areas with lots of oil. In 1980, when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein attacked Iran (with the covert help of the US), he was hoping to seize Khuzestan's oil fields to add them to his own oily empire (Khuzestan is on the border of southern Iraq).

The neo-con proposal for a new "Arab Shia State" along the northern Persian / Arabian Gulf would separate the bulk of the oil from Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), chair of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ran for President in 2007 largely on the platform of promoting Iraqi partition as a "solution" to the Iraqi disaster that Bush's invasion created. That campaign was his audition to be Vice President in the Obama administration.

Shia populations in the Middle East

a small Shia population is found in eastern Saudi Arabia, along the Persian Gulf (near the oil fields)

Decoding the "Middle East"
by "Alice the Kurious"
April 9, 2015

long article about imperialism and sectarianism, worth reading for an indigenous perspective on how these conflicts are fueled

Published on 4 Aug 2006 by MuseLetter / Energy Bulletin. Archived on 4 Aug 2006.
Middle East at a crossroads
by Richard Heinberg

an excellent analysis tying together the Sunni - Shia split, demographics, geology, declining oil fields, the emerging world war - a must read for understanding the situation.

Ambassador claims shortly before invasion, Bush didn't know there were two sects of Islam
Christian Avard
Published: Friday August 4, 2006

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.
In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

note: this unfamiliarity of Bush is all too believable, but the long term planners who set up the War on Iraq probably do not share Bush's ignorance of demographics in the Middle East

The Emerging Shia Crescent Symposium: Implications for U.S. Policy in the Middle East [Rush Transcript; Federal News Service, Inc.]


Fouad Ajami, Majid Khadduri Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

F. Gregory Gause III, Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, University Of Vermont

Vali R. Nasr, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations; Professor, Naval Postgraduate School
Presider: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations

June 5, 2006
Council on Foreign Relations
New York, NY

Trump aide drew plan on napkin to partition Libya into three
Exclusive: Sebastian Gorka told proposal would be ‘the worst solution’ when he suggested it to senior European diplomat

Sebastian Gorka is vying to become presidential special envoy to Libya, but such a position has not yet been created. Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Rome and Julian Borger in Washington
Monday 10 April 2017 02.00 EDT Last modified on Monday 10 April 2017 03.23 EDT

A senior White House foreign policy official has pushed a plan to partition Libya, and once drew a picture of how the country could be divided into three areas on a napkin in a meeting with a senior European diplomat, the Guardian has learned.

Sebastian Gorka, a deputy assistant to Donald Trump under pressure over his past ties with Hungarian far-right groups, suggested the idea of partition in the weeks leading up to the US president’s inauguration, according to an official with knowledge of the matter. The European diplomat responded that this would be “the worst solution” for Libya.

Gorka is vying for the job of presidential special envoy to Libya in a White House that has so far spent little time thinking about the country and has yet to decide whether to create such a post.

Imagining a Remapped Middle East
Published: September 28, 2013



The Atlantic's cover story on partition

A report from the new Middle East—and a glimpse of its possible future
After Iraq

[an article praising the idea of partition, avoids the issues of petroleum distribution as a motive for US elites to support this strategy]

Iraq is split into Sunni Iraq, Kurdistan and Shiite Iraq (the last two would contain most of Iraq's oil).

Iran / Persia would gain territory in Afghanistan but lose the oil rich province of Khuzestan (where most of their oil is).

Saudi Arabia would lose land along the Red Sea and in the highlands near Yemen, but most notably, the eastern province where their oil is located.

The map even supports independence for Kashmir, a region bitterly contested by Pakistan and India.

note the addition of "New Sudan" in this map versus the Armed Forces Journal map (Sudan's oil fields are in the south, where "The Atlantic" suggests a new country should be formed. More oil is exported daily from Sudan - mostly to China - than flows through the Alaska Pipeline. The US media's highlighting of the plight of the refugees of the Darfur region of Sudan is rooted more in Sudan's oil sales to China instead of the US, not empathy by the US government for these victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide.)

Articles by Hitchens, Kaplan, Gellhorn, and others make clear that if history is any guide, then probably not.

Iraq: Is Partition the Answer?

August 31, 2006 at 08:09:08
US Army Contemplates Redrawing Middle East Map to Stave-off Looming Global Meltdown
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
September 5, 2002
The Guardian
The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil
Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region
Mo Mowlam

What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem.
Why is he so determined to take the risk? The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing more when prices are too high and less when there is a glut. The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of oil to the west at reasonably stable prices.
Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example. The love affair with America is ending. Reports of the removal of billions of dollars of Saudi investment from the United States may be difficult to quantify, but they are true. The possibility of the world's largest oil reserves falling into the hands of an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely - and this is unacceptable.
The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption
. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.
This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn't one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west's supply of oil.
-- Mo Mowlam was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet from 1997-2001

Fatal Vision: The Strategy of Chaos and Ethnic Cleansing
Written by Chris Floyd
Tuesday, 12 September 2006

Dostoevsky paints the scene: a pathetic group of would-be world-shakers gather in a bleak provincial town for a clandestine political meeting – third-rate intellects all, but useful fodder for the socially and politically connected nihilists who sets them on. One earnest dullard rises to address the group: the "long-eared" Shigalov, with a thick notebook outlining his "system of world-organization." It is, he says, the only possible way to ensure the happiness of humanity – although he admits to being puzzled at his own conclusion.

"Having started from the idea of unlimited freedom," he says, "I've ended up with unlimited despotism," in which a small elite will order the affairs of the human "herd," who are to be kept deliberately undereducated, misinformed, plied with myths and spin, and periodically set against each other with fearmongering and "shocks" as a diversion from their servitude. It might sound grim, he adds, "but there can be no other solution of the problem but mine."

Dostoevsky's 1872 novel, The Possessed (also known as Demons)– a prescient dissection of the roots of political terrorism – provides a revealing glimpse of how the noble idea of "humanitarian intervention" to bring freedom and democracy to the benighted places of the earth invariably becomes a brutal despotism, geared toward imposing a single vision of world order.

Thus a Shigalovian plan for global re-ordering – a brutal vision of national dismemberment, forced migration and ethnic cleansing on a gargantuan scale – recently published in Armed Forces Journal has thrown a stark light on the mindset of the "full spectrum dominance" gang now in power in Washington. The article could perhaps be dismissed as the fantasy of a would-be world-shaker – but it has already provoked a diplomatic firestorm from the plan's intended targets, requiring a State Department intervention to dampen the flames.

What's more, a series of events now emerging from the "arc of crisis" stretching from Central Asia to the Mediterranean bear witness to the deadly chaos and "creative destruction" celebrated by the new Shigalovs dancing attendance on the Bush-Cheney administration. These disturbances include strange, Bush-backed treaties with al Qaeda fueling American deaths in Afghanistan; the assassination of moderate voices in Pakistan and Iraq; the despairing surrender of the last hope of holding back civil war in Iraq; and feverish new plans for more war in the turbulent arc, based on the deliberate fomenting of sectarian strife.

Ralph Peters – "Terror War" analyst, hack novelist, ex-military intelligence officer – was the cartographer of creative destruction in the Journal article. Peters, a long-time member of the "close your hearts to pity" school of warhawking commentary, forever urging more strenuous application of hot iron on the recalcitrant tribes that beset us, has recently joined with the bold visionaries at the Project for a New American Century crowd. That's the group made up of Bush Faction heavy hitters – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Brother Jeb and others – who in September 2000 laid out the blueprint that George W. followed faithfully once he acquired the presidency.

.... Late last month, the U.S. State Department was forced to issue a disavowal of the article, as Pakistan's Dawn newspaper reports. The article was the work of a private citizen and didn't reflect official government policy, said State mouthpiece Sean McCormack, who couldn't resist adding that, yes, the U.S. was committed to sweeping change in the arc of crisis – but only because "this call [for change] comes from the Middle East itself." In other words, they're asking for it.

and an Iraqi perspective:

True Colors...

.... Now what amazes me most, is why is everyone suddenly “surprised” or “shocked” by the Biden Resolution? Any true Iraqi knew it all along. And as Haroon Mohamed above, pointed out, that was the plan all along, ever since 1990.

I would go even further, and assert that this was the plan all along, prior to Desert Storm in 1991 and I would add, prior to the Iran-Iraq war.

As a matter of fact, these wars were nothing but a preparation for this resolution. And this is where Iran was a very useful ally with its retrograde Khomeinism and political shi’ism. And Iran, the hypocritical dog of sectarianism, obliges till this very day.

So why is everyone so shocked?

My grandmother who could not read and write used to tell me that the enemies of Iraq will never cease before they divide it and steal its resources. My grandfather recounting Britannia in Iraq used to say the same thing. My late father in the 80’s affirmed the same thing. My mother in her typical motherly fashion keeps repeating it today “See, I told you so, 20 years ago.”

So why are you so surprised or shocked?

When the Americans decided to invade and occupy Iraq and split it on ethnic and sectarian grounds, (kurds, shias, sunnis) were they not preparing for that day?

When they declared “Iqlim Kurdistan” a safe, protected area in the 90’s, where they not preparing for that day?

When the anti-war (another hahahahaha) sell outs, with Chomsky at their head, cried about the oppression of the Shias and the Kurds, were they not preparing for that day ?

Go and refresh your memories and read your darling Chomsky in the Independent of February 2007. You dig it out, I have no time to do your research for you.

When I wrote, article after article, affirming that the sectarian Shia militias from IRAN were ethnically cleansing Baghdad and its provinces in preparation for that day, I was the one who was accused of sectarianism.

When I repeated, article after article that the thug Muqtada al Sadr, that some of you still consider a "patriotic anti-American" was/is an accomplice in the ethnic cleansing along with the Badr Brigades of al-Hakeem, in preparation for that day, I was accused of being a partisan of the U.S.

When I wrote that the Kurdish militias also called the Peshmergas have not ceased ethnically cleansing the North, and were/are trained by Israel in preparation for that day, I was called a Fascist.

What will it exactly take ?

Well what you, hypocritical, intellectual perverts of the zionist left, and that includes a good deal of the so called Arab ”left“- wanted all along, took place and will continue - Partition, Federalism call it what you like.

SUNDAY, MARCH 23, 2008

Out of the Arab Equation - Part I
Paving the Way

There is one word that has been bothering a lot these past weeks, ever since Ahmadinejad landed in the American occupied Green Zone in Baghdad. That word that keeps recurring in many articles and "analysis" is "unwittingly".

Other variations are "blunders, mistakes, errors, miscalculations..."

You're problably wondering what I'm on about. Ok, I'll tell you the cause of my malaise...

Most of the articles, comments, etc..coming from the U.S and the West and some Arab milieux in particular from the Arab Revolutionary Left (a misnomer) argue the following.

America in its stupidity and arrogance "unwittingly" handed Iraq on a silver platter to Iran. They further argue that America because of poor planning and lack of knowledge and information, committed several strategic errors, blunders, mistakes in Occupied Iraq. And one of those glaring errors is the very prevalent Iranian influence in Southern Iraq, in Baghdad and I would add in "Kurdistan" since Iran played a very important role in the Kurdish separatist movement -- along with Israel.

Now that word "unwittingly" annoys me deeply. It annoys me because it presumes that the Americans really acted in good faith initially. Of course none will come out and say that so bluntly but it is insinuated. The argument is the occupation of Iraq could have been a good thing had it delivered what it promised to deliver because after all (and we go back to the same old broken record) -- Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical dictator.

For the sake of clarity and truth, let us backtrack in history for a moment

The Iraqi National Opposition (INC) was in contact with the American administration since Gulf War 1 i.e since the 1990's. The INC headed by Ahmed Chalabi (and K.Makiya) and comprised but not limited to the following :

- A.Hakeem of the SCII from Iran. (born in Iran and bred in Iran)

- Reps from the Dawa party notably -- M.Al Rubaie, Al Jaafari, Kubba, (Dawa party was formed in Iran and had close links to Hezbollah in Lebanon during the 80's. They were both responsible for the bombs in Baghdad and Beirut during the Iran-Iraq war, targeting Iraqi infrastructure and interests)

- Reps from the shiite Hawza or Marjaiyah for Sistani (exiled in Iran until the occupation) and reps for Al-Sadr.

- Ayad Allawi and Pachachi (a sunni) were amongst the members as well.

- and last but not least, Talabani and Barazani the two kurdish warlords.

The INC headed by Chalabi got the full backing of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Perle and of course Bush and millions of dollars were pumped into it preparing them for the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq.

These personalities landed with the Americans. Some came from London, others from Tehran and others from the USA.

The plan for the sectarian/ethnic division of Iraq was on the agenda. Hence these personalities with their allegiances to sect and ethnicity were very much needed.

The first fallacy was that Iraq is majority Shia and that Sunnis have been in power ever since the Monarchy hence robbing the Shias of their political rights. Of course this fallacy was picked up by the anti-war movement and other anti-occupation writers such as Cockburn and Co, and became their bread and butter. Needless to add, Chomsky became the first spokesman to further this lie echoing the same song coming from the White House.

And of course you can add the litany of the kurds repression which was beautifully well knitted up by the CIA and Mossad propaganda agencies and swallowed whole by the "well intentioned" lefties in the West including the "alternative media".

I do not want to dilute the subject too much and will expose these fallacies in some other post. (Gosh, I have so much writing to do!)

The reason I am mentioning these little bits of history is to show you the obvious.

Namely that in the 1990's (and well before that in my opinion), the CIA, Pentagon, Israeli and British intelligence, when they concocted the plan for the invasion of Iraq, they knew EXACTLY who this "Iraqi" opposition was and where it came from and where its ultimate loyalties lied.

In other words when delegation after delegation from the INC met in London and Washington, the Americans knew very well, that the SCII, that al-Dawa party (of which Maliki the current "Iraqi" PM is a member), that the highest Shia marjaiya all had their loyalties to Iran. After all this is where they came/flew from, to attend these meetings.

Incidentally and it is very important that I mention that -- During the Iran/Iraq war, 1/5 of the Shiites individual/personal revenues (a form of religious tax) went to Qum -- as contribution money. The money did not go into the Hawza's treasuries in Nejaf or Kerbala, no, it went to Iran at the height of the Iran -Iraq war. The reason I am stating this piece of information, is to show you the overriding Shiites affinity/pledge --in particular in Nejaf and Kerbala -- to Iran. And let me remind the reader that Khomeini spent several years in exile in IRAQ right up to 1978, before being extradited to France on request of the Shah. He returned to Iran in 1979- one year before the Iran-Iraq war!)

When the Americans on behalf of the Zionist lobby drew up the sectarian and ethnic division of Iraq, they knew very well where the majority of the shia's allegiance is. They had prepared the grounds for it since Gulf War 1 (and before) and Iran capitalized on it.

So when some writer or commentator comes up with the words "mistake, blunder, or miscalculation" they are fooling none but themselves. There was NOTHING UNWITTING about the whole plan. It was all well thought out in advance.

In other words, to make it even simpler for you -- and I would ask you to re-read that sentence several times until it really sinks in.

--Without Iran's help, the occupation of Iraq would have never been possible--

The Americans knew that, the Israelis knew that, and the Iranians knew that -- and they prepared for it.

Now the layperson may get very confused, they would think how can that be possible?

What about all this anti-imperialist talk from Iran about the Great Satan, what about its anti-zionist speeches, what about ....? It is called a massive cover up. Simply put.

And the layperson also wonders, what about US threats of an attack against Iran, what about the sanctions against Iran, what about all the barking from the international community against the Iranian threat ? It is called a psy-op.

There were no mistakes. There were no blunders and nothing was unwitting about the whole diabolical plan.

Anonymous said...
Wonderful article Layla, just wonderful…
This is the best article I have ever seen talking about the so called “US mistakes” in iraq. The US actions in iraq are very rational, systematic and very well thought and executed.
You really feel degusted when you read articles written by the anti-war media about this issue.
You know Layla, there is a saying in Arabic I am sure you know: “to put the poison in the honey.” So that when somebody eats it, he will die enjoying the very sweet taste of the honey. Personally, that is what I think the anti-war media is doing. Since some group of people might not swallow the obvious CNN lies. The job of the anti-war media is to put it in a sweet encapsulate and sell it back again. I watched one of there movies were they talk about the US mistakes in Iraq. They say that the biggest mistakes of all are: dismantling the former Iraqi army, and the dibaathification. Then they say because of their mistakes they handed Iraq to Iran.
The first question to ask is why they dismantled the Iraqi army? Simply they cannot divide Iraq if they kept the Iraqi army, can they? First step to divide a secular country is to terminate its “secular” army. They left all the former army weaponry in the hand of the people, in hope for them to slaughter each others. They were planning for the civil war from day one.
The second question is why they forced the dibaathification? Basically they cannot divide a secular country with the secular educated class, intellectuals, and secular ideologist running the country. So they have do hunt, kill, and remove everyone with secular ideology, by the accusation of being baathest. That is why you can still see former baathest in the current puppet regime, as long as they replaced their greenish army suits with black turbans. They replaced the seculars who were running the country with fanatic religious wolves, because they know this is the only way to divide the country.
So no it was not a mistake, it was well planned. All the actions they did were well planned ahead of time. If you want to get the real picture, you have to understand why they came to Iraq in the first place. First of all they came and they did not plan and are not planning to leave anytime soon. Second, they want to divide the region, starting with Iraq. This is the only way for them to stay. The only way to divide the region is to make the Sunnis and the Shiats fight each other. Divide and conquer, sounds familiar? So it is really utterly stupid for the anti-war shitty media to think that the civil war was not stimulated and orchestrated by the US invaders. Everyone knows (I mean here Iraqis), that the Maliki government and the Iraqi parliament are directly involved in the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis in Baghdad. And what I mean by directly is that they are carrying the cleansing process personally. And the US is still supporting such government. Well this is completely make sense when you know that the US wants a civil war to take place.
But who’s taking the blame for the civil war? Who is taking the responsibility in carrying the civil war? It is the Iranians. So basically the Iranians are doing the Americans a big favor. They are just going along with the plan in dividing the region. In creating a sunni shia conflict. As you stated in your post, the US cannot and would not invade iraq without the support from iran. Iran is holding the shia in iraq from fighting the Americans, and instead they are fighting the Sunnis. The US should really be grateful for that. The American and Iranian plan in Iraq is exactly, precisely the same. Now, when you listen to the shitty anti-war carp, they say well ok Iran has the right to interfere because they are next on the list. So they have to defend themselves. Man, if hypocrisy is a suit, it sure fits the anti-war movement the best. When Saddam fought the ugly revolution of the Mullahs of Iran, when Saddam invaded the shitty country of Kuwait, when Saddam fought the Kurdish state of Zion, oh he is a horrible monster, he killed his own people. But when Iran kills 1 million Iraqis, that is OK they are defending themselves.
Listen to the God father of the intellectual masturbators, Chomsky, saying that “well the US should leave Iraq to Iran to rule it” his justification is that Iraq is 60% shia and Iran is shia state so Iran should rule it. Well, I got news for this piece of junk Chomsky, believe me the US is trying to do that, and no luck so far.
The big role for Iran in the region is not a mistake by any chance. It is intentional. It is well designed plan. It is not random. The only distraction for the Arab and Muslim nation from fighting the Zionist state is Iran. Iran is creating trouble and instability in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia. The key to divide the region is in the hands of iran. That is why you see the anti-war movement defending iran oh so passionately.
Don’t you find ridiculously amazing that the Iranian-US staged conflict is taking the whole picture in the anti-war media? The iraq war is almost forgotten. Maybe they show the number of the Iraqi dead count, or blast here and there. Long and long articles and analysis about whether the US will hit iran or not. And no analysis what so ever about the severe implications of the iraq war on the people of iraq. No but wait they sure can give you a reason for that, “well iraq war is done, but we have to stop the next war.” If you don’t call this hypocrisy then I really don’t know what hypocrisy is.
Why no body mentioned that the plan of the serial killer, Ahmadinajad, was guarded by the Americans from the moment he entered iraq to the moment he left. Don’t you think it is worth “analyzing”? Why the neo-cons, the Americans, the invaders of iraq would help and guard the head of the so called “terrorist state” Iran. Would they please analyze this for me? Last time I checked they were saying that the US and Iran are enemies. They don’t seem enemies to me, they look like very close allies.
Last but not least, the only and only mistake the Americans did in iraq, they under estimated the Iraqi ability to defeat them and to resist them, other than that everything happening in iraq are going exactly to the Iranian/American/Israeli plan.


23/3/08 9:25 AM

Anonymous said...
Hi Layla,
I am sorry I wasn’t able to find the interview I was referring to, but you know what you made me go and research more. This guy, Chomsky, convinced me more than ever that iran/Israel/neo-cons have the same exact agenda.
Ok I will quote him in his exact words:
“suppose the parliament represents popular will, say the popular will of 80 percent of Iraqis who want the occupying forces to withdraw…Well then the occupying forces should immediately initiate withdrawal and leave it to the Iraqis. Now there's a good reason why Washington and London are not contemplating that. …. I mean if you're going to have a Shi'ite majority. Therefore the Shi'ites will have a lot of influence in policy, probably a dominant influence. The Shi'ite population in the south, which is where most of the oil is, would much prefer warm relations to Iran over hostile relations to Iran. Furthermore they are very close relations already, the Badr brigade, which is the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The clerics have long-standing relations with Iran; the Ayatollah Sistani actually grew up there. Chances are pretty strong, they'll move towards a some sort of a loose Shi'ite alliance, with Iraq and Iran. Furthermore right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a substantial Shi'ite population, which has been bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny in Saudi Arabia, the fundamentalist tyranny. Any move towards independence in Iraq is likely to increase the efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see not far in the future a loose Shi'ite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of the US.”
Is this guy talking about the new Middle East famous blood borders map?
The neo-cons invaded Iraq for this specific exact reason, to divide the region and create a shia state that takes part of Saudi Arabia. How come this guy saying that the US will not withdraw from iraq because they are afraid of such shia state they themselves planned in creating and supporting.
You see, when you read about such hideous divide and conquer plan by Ralph Peters you feel it is large pill to swallow. However, when Chomsky put it in a nice sweet lovely way, it is very easy to accept it and go along with it. You see now what I mean by “to put the poison in the honey.”
If you want to put things in the correct perspective, it makes more sense to say, that the Americans will stay in iraq until they can force the new middle east map they want. The only threat to their plans is the secular Iraqi resistance that is still strong enough to take iraq back of what it was, one secular country. The Americans will withdraw only when they know that the blood borders will take place for sure, i.e. such shia state is created. Don’t you think that this makes more sense?
The only real threat to the divide and conquer plan is the secular ideology that the Iraqi resistance has. The religious fanatics, whether they are shia mullahs or alqeda, fit perfectly in their blood borders idea. That is why you see a lot of black turbans running the current Iraqi parliament. That is why religious retards like Sistani, Sader, and hakim have a major role in the new iraq.

24/3/08 8:43 AM