The Benghazi inquest revealed that the U.S. and its regional allies are behind ISIS.
The more the Republicans insist on humiliating Hillary Clinton, the more sordid details emerge about what was truly going on in Benghazi on that tragic night when Ambassador Stevens died. The focus, of course, has been on the death of Ambassador Stevens, but three other Americans died during the raid on the compound by local militia. And these others were all CIA operatives.
What were these CIA operatives doing in Benghazi months after Ghaddafi was toppled?
The CIA was involved in rounding up Russian made arms from local militias that they armed to undermine Ghaddafi. And they had a ship in Benghazi harbor ready to ship those arms to a port in Turkey to hand them over to the Syrian rebels so they could topple the Assad regime!!
According to an initial Sept. 14, 2012 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar (the CIA ship docked at Benghazi port) was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines.
"This is the Libyan ship ... which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya," said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. "So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons." The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.
Initially, the White House tried to ‘blatantly lie’ about how it was a riot spurned by an anti-Muslim video released in the U.S. It was a silly, almost juvenile, attempt to put up a smoke screen to mislead everyone. Officially, the U.S. did not want to be seen as having any sort of affiliation with the rebels. Giving the rebels Russian made arms from Libya always gave the U.S. a level of deniability. Thus the war in Syria could be characterized as a civil war, not a strategic play by the West to undermine Syria (and eventually a few of Assad’s regional allies).
But clearly it was war by proxy. It was very clever.
The idea, all along was to achieve Western strategic objectives in the region without giving up American blood, at a fraction of the cost. It had succeeded in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen…why not keep going! Why not try again.
So what are these “Strategic Objectives”?
For starters, Europe wants to diversify away from Russian oil and gas. The biggest ‘friendly’ suppliers are Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel. But there was a problem; for Israel to deliver gas to Europe it needs to connect into the Nabucco pipeline in Turkey – and thus traverse Lebanon and Syria. And for sure Assad’s regime in Syria wasn’t going to play. And for Saudi Arabia and Qatar to deliver gas to the Nabucco pipeline in Turkey – they need to traverse Iraq and Syria. And once again neither the Shiites in Iraq who are in power, nor the Alawites in Syria who are also in power will allow a pipeline constructed across to Turkey. More importantly, both regimes in Iraq and Syria are aligned with the regime in Iran! And the Iranians have actually proposed the construction of a competing set of pipelines and roads from Iran to the Mediterranean across Iraq and Syria. Yes, it’s all about the mighty dollar!
But unfortunately nothing has gone to plan for the West! The Arab-spring did not succeed in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to undermine the military with its own militias. And in Syria, the ‘toppling’ of the Assad regime has failed.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has been politely asked by the Maliki government to get the hell out, without a status of forces agreement. Not surprisingly, as a key backer of the Syrian and Iraqi governments, the Iranians have successfully undermined U.S. presence in the region.
Having failed in Syria, Syrian rebels in the form of ISIS, have been pushed to enter Iraq. In fact ISIS has basically left a vacuum in Syria. The Assad regime is now steadily marching into towns and villages ISIS used to control.
America’s calculation in supporting ISIS was simple. It became clear that the Assad regime could not be undermined while it had continuous support and supply from Iran across Iraq. Also, the US realized that the Iranian backed Shiites (in Iraq) could not be toppled by the ballot box. So then the next best option seemed to be to create a completely new state bordering Saudi Arabia and Turkey – to essentially carve up Iraq. It’s also payback, isn’t it? Having kicked out the U.S., it’s a good way for the U.S. to show Iraqi Shiites that they made a mistake siding with Iran. that they needed American security after all. And it’s also a nice display for Afghans watching. If Afghans too, don’t side with the U.S. they might see a resurgence of the Taliban – no?
The problem with all this, is that we are in the internet age. There is mass communications. People write blogs like this. Does the U.S. government really think people don’t understand who is behind ISIS? The irony of all this, is that it’s the U.S. government itself – congress – that has given away the bag. The Benghazi inquest revealed it all. And even more ironically, the house is talking about more public hearings. In their quest for power, and in their quest for undermining Hillary Clinton, U.S. house members are willing to spill the bag completely.
And quite frankly with all these revelations, and the all the brutality shown by ISIS, it puts a lot more blood on the hands of America. Especially when Obama actually came in with promises of change. He was the anti-Bush! It’s laughable. This isn’t good for U.S. interests in the long-run. The U.S. cannot be seen to playing in such an underhanded way. The savings in blood and treasure are short-term, the true long-term cost will be huge. It’s a dumb strategy.
It’s obvious to me that ISIS will fail. Why? For one, they have multiple enemies and lame (toothless) backers. Yes, the U.S. can feed ISIS arms and the Saudis/Qataris can give ISIS money – but they have too many enemies to survive in the long run. Here’s a short list of their enemies: Iraq’s army, Syria’s Army and the Iranian army and guards’ right behind them. And not to be ignored is Vladimir Putin’s role in all this. Is Russia going to stand by while West schemes to undermine Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe? Secondly, there is a precedent of how money from Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia etc. along with arms from the West never materialized into a win. Yes, Saddam Hussein had all that and never defeated Iran (which was then even more impotent and inexperienced then today. Thirdly, I think once other (regional) Sunni-Arabs sit back and really understand what ISIS is about, they’ll turn against them too. They could easily walk into Jordan and shut down and take over there. If they get pushed out of Iraq, ISIS will have no place to go but to Turkey. Turkey too will be destabilized. The potential for blowback is huge. Fanatics cannot reason, and will turn against secular Turkey where women walk without Islamic covers. No, ISIS will not survive. And with all this brutality, the Sunnis clearly will never be able to govern anywhere.
Then, as sort of a joke we have John Kerry suggesting that the U.S. might work with their nemesis Iranians and Shiite militia to fight ISIS. Who is he fooling? Is this a seasoned, well thought out statement from a statesman?
While the West has its boys in Tehran, the real power in Iran is in the hands of the IRGC. The IRGC is filled with seasoned warriors who fought hard in Iran’s 8 year war with Iraq. Many of those in Iraq’s government were protected in Iran, by the IRGC, as asylum seekers. Today, the head of Iran’s national security apparatus (Admiral Ali Shamkhani) said the concept of US and Iranian troops fighting side by side is not realistic. And he further suggested that it is part of an orchestrated campaign to conduct psychological warfare against Iran. Apparently Iran’s security apparatus read the Times of London, and watch Fox News too!!
Thinking cynically, if setting up ISIS to fight in Iraq was part of a strategy to force Iraq’s Shiites to compromise and at the same time bring the U.S. and Iran closer to each other, then that too appears to have been a failed notion. The price for this bankrupt idea is being paid not in the comfort of US government official’s homes in Maryland or Virginia but in run down villages in Iraq and Syria with the blood of innocent civilians.
There is also another very wild and even more cynical theory that this is actually a plan to undermine Israel via Iran (and its Shiite allies). And that with ISIS’s eventual demise there will be an even greater alliance among Shiites in the region and unify them to challenge Israel. That this is ethnic cleansing and a clearing of the ‘pathway’ for a real challenge to Israel. Who knows? Who really knows?
And then, people in America wonder why Iraqis (and now the Afghans) don’t the Americans to stick around. In these times of mass communications, these U.S government strategists should know that ordinary people will soon know who is behind all this. You just can’t fool them anymore!
So where does this leave the U.S.? What should the U.S. do?
It is not good U.S. policy to behave like a snake. I would say instead of fighting Iran by proxy or via destabilizing Iranian allies in the region, or trying to fool everyone with complex strategies the U.S. should simply go after the Mullahs directly. Proxy wars – whether through financing Saddam Hussein, or arming the Taliban or ISIS have actually been huge failures. The U.S. ‘won’ in Libya and other Arab nations NOT because it armed the rebels – but because its policies coincided with a ‘win’ for the people in those nations. It was a win-win. But mass bombing and killings in Iraq or Syria will never reinforce American policy or strategies. People don’t like to be treated like ants! And bringing Democracy to Iraq with over 200,000 deaths after the ‘invasion’ or over a million deaths in three U.S. inspired wars since 1980 has not endeared Iraqis or indeed Afghans to the U.S.
As Iranians, we too have witnessed Western failed policies in Iran. We remember too well, Khomeini’s arrival in Tehran on a French government chartered Air France 747 plane. Arming ISIS is equivalent to arming the Taliban in the ‘80s. It will back fire on the West. It’s a big mistake. It will actually be another trillion dollar mistake leading to other wars… exactly like arming the Taliban. And the media has already spilled the beans! There are no more secrets in the 21st Century!!
U.S must always side with reasoned, civilized allies that share true American values enshrined in the U.S. by its founders who fought against the brutality of the Brits. The U.S. should never support fanatics - anywhere. No Mullahs, No Muslim Brotherhood, No Wahabi Princes, No Taliban, No ISIS ... NO WHERE!!!