Jihadists Seize Iraq's Nineveh Province!

[seekerz]

I don’t suppose the U.S. HAD TO depose Saddam, any more than we HAD TO revolt from British rule. But Saddam was a manifestly dangerous man; one who had started two aggressive wars, utilizing WMD in one of them, and one of them practically a world war if you use participants as a yardstick.

The breakup of Iraq could have happened at Saddam’s death, his regime being ruthlessly sectarian. But while the U.S. was there in force, it didn’t happen.

Islamic radicals come from all over the Islamic world.

Comparing*** invasion*** of Iraq to the American war of independence? Wait, did some foreign superpower come sailing in and kick the Brits out while Americans bickered with each other?

Besides, the invasion was not based on Saddam being a bad man - it was based on non-existent WMDs.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Bottom line he wants to get across: American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq

Thats what 2/3rds of America has been saying, and only 37% agree with his foreign policy. Its the American way, listening to we the people. I’m with him, very American.

 

[gilliam]

Obama: “Right now is a moment when the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance and the test is going to be whether they can overcome…” sectarian divisions and form a unity government.

He says the US must ensure ISIL is not attaining “the capacity to threaten us directly, us or our partners.”

“Our view is that Iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government htat we’re sending,” which is that the government must be inclusive, Obama says:

If Iran is coming in only as an armed force on behalf of the Shia… then that probably worsens the situation.

Just as Iraq’s leaders have to make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us. We’ve indicated to them that it is important to avoid the kinds of steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war.

We have deep differences with Iran… on a whole host of issues. Obviously what’s happened in Syria is [partly] the result of Iran coming in hot and heavy on one side… they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places."

Obama says that’s probably not good for the Iranian people or economy, and they ‘probably recognize that.’

 

[Ridgerunner]

Comparing*** invasion*** of Iraq to the American war of independence? Wait, did some foreign superpower come sailing in and kick the Brits out while Americans bickered with each other?

Besides, the invasion was not based on Saddam being a bad man - it was based on non-existent WMDs.

The Brits WERE a foreign superpower. So were the French. We fought both. The French helped us against Britain, of course, after we helped Britain with the French. There were certainly loyalists who fought against the revolutionaries here. Some left for Canada thereafter. Some didn’t.

I’m sure the fear of WMD was the biggest motivator for those who voted for intervention. But in the counsels of power, there were likely others.

Oh, I see the Brits didn’t destroy all the remaining WMD last summer after all, even though they destroyed what the Iraqi government asked them to destroy. ISIS now has its hands on some more of them, at least such as they are. Mostly empty shells and rockets, I understand, with some full but possibly degraded by the passage of time, possibly not entirely. And perhaps worst, they got some of the ingredients for sarin and mustard gas. Maybe somebody will help make them useable. Perhaps not.

 

[Brendan_64]

Besides, the invasion was not based on Saddam being a bad man - it was based on non-existent WMDs.

That and the non-existent threat Iraq posed to our own security. In the UK the scaremongering included claims that British military bases in Cyprus were under immediate threat from WMD missile attacks from Saddam Hussein. The claim was that Saddam Hussein possessed 20 Al-Hussein missiles which had a range of 650km and that these were going to be launched at Cyprus carrying chemical or biological, or nuclear warheads, and that Cyprus was just 45 minutes from attack. The claim was made in Tony Blair’s dossier which was presented to the British Parliament in order to convince MPs to vote in favour of war (which they did).

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-139703/Just-45-minutes-attack.html

This claim was of course spurious, along with much of the content of the dossier that was used to convince the British Parliament to vote in favour of war.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That and the non-existent threat Iraq posed to our own security. In the UK the scaremongering included claims that British military bases in Cyprus were under immediate threat from WMD missile attacks from Saddam Hussein. The claim was that Saddam Hussein possessed 20 Al-Hussein missiles which had a range of 650km and that these were going to be launched at Cyprus carrying chemical or biological, or nuclear warheads, and that Cyprus was just 45 minutes from attack. The claim was made in Tony Blair’s dossier which was presented to the British Parliament in order to convince MPs to vote in favour of war (which they did).

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-139703/Just-45-minutes-attack.html

This claim was of course spurious, along with much of the content of the dossier that was used to convince the British Parliament to vote in favour of war.

If the execution of Saddam was all a hoax, and he appeared alive still, and if you had the power to reinstate him, but only to reinstate him to power, not to control him in any manner, would you?

 

[Brendan_64]

If the execution of Saddam was all a hoax, and he appeared alive still, and if you had the power to reinstate him, but only to reinstate him to power, not to control him in any manner, would you?

Would that also include being able to bring back the 400,000 people killed as a result of the war?

Do I think that that the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed was a price worth paying for the removal of one of the great many despotic leaders (many of whom we support) on this planet? No I don’t.

 

[gilliam]

From the Guardian

How Nouri al-Maliki fell out of favour with the United States: here’s new reportage and analysis from the Guardian’s Martin Chulov and Spencer Ackerman.

We pick up the story after the Maliki government’s 2011 refusal of a residual American troop presence in Iraq:

With much of the Sunni Arab world in uproar, Maliki wanted the safety in numbers that his Shia neighbours offered. While embracing Iran, Maliki put distance between his government and Iraq’s Sunni minority, arresting several tribal leaders, laying siege to a protest camp in Ramadi, and brazenly issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni former vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi days after US forces left.

He set about co-opting key institutions left behind by the Americans; the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, which was soon stacked with officials from his Dawa party, and Iraq’s elite special forces unit, which soon became his praetorian guard.

Some in Washington started believing that Maliki’s moves were consolidating power along nakedly sectarian lines. “It was more out of making sure that power could never be stripped from him,” said one senior US diplomat.

Another American official who acted as senior US adviser to the Iraqi government from 2004-11 said: “The only thing that I saw with my eyes that could be construed as sectarian was his appointments, especially in the military”. While they were not all sectarian, most were; and the competence of the candidate was not an issue.

Evermore disturbed, Washington protested loudly and made calls for political inclusiveness. But the former occupier no longer had the leverage – or apparently the will – to force Maliki to act.

Read the full report here, including this tidbit:

Iran has yet to declare its hand about who should lead Iraq. However, the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani, long a kingmaker in Baghdad, has an increasingly dim view of Maliki. “He says the man’s an idiot,” a senior Iraqi politician who met Suleimani last week told the Guardian. “When he was asked about who should lead the country, he didn’t say a word.”

 

[Tomdstone]

Saudi Arabia has warned against foreign meddling in Iraq. Writing in the Telegraph, the Saudi ambassador to the UK, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saudi, said:

We oppose all foreign intervention and interference. There must be no meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs, not by us or by the US, the UK or by any other government. This is Iraq’s problem and they must sort it out themselves. Any government that meddles in Iraq’s affairs runs the risk of escalating the situation, creating greater mistrust between the people of Iraq – both Sunni and Shia.

I agree with this. The US should stay out of it.

 

[RACJ]

Obama: “Right now is a moment when the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance and the test is going to be whether they can overcome…” sectarian divisions and form a unity government.

He says the US must ensure ISIL is not attaining “the capacity to threaten us directly, us or our partners.”

“Our view is that Iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government htat we’re sending,” which is that the government must be inclusive, Obama says:

If Iran is coming in only as an armed force on behalf of the Shia… then that probably worsens the situation.

Just as Iraq’s leaders have to make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us. We’ve indicated to them that it is important to avoid the kinds of steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war.

We have deep differences with Iran… on a whole host of issues. Obviously what’s happened in Syria is [partly] the result of Iran coming in hot and heavy on one side… they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places."

Obama says that’s probably not good for the Iranian people or economy, and they ‘probably recognize that.’

Obama also said that he is heartened that all parties involved have indicated a willingness to seek a political solution. Maybe it’s just me, but the Decapitation Central Party may not prove to be trustworthy. Now, I’m sure beneath those executioner hoods, they’re really nice fellows. :sad_yes: Rob

 

[Ridgerunner]

Would that also include being able to bring back the 400,000 people killed as a result of the war?

Do I think that that the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed was a price worth paying for the removal of one of the great many despotic leaders (many of whom we support) on this planet? No I don’t.

It wasn’t 400,000 (most of whom were killed by terrorists). But okay, let’s say you could. Would you reinstate Saddam, knowing as you do that he was responsible for a million deaths, many tortures, rapes and other horrors?

Would you?

Your second paragraph suggests that you might reinstate Stalin or Hitler too. Would you?

When you think about it, probably many fewer people would have died had nobody at all resisted even Hitler. Yes, he probably would have killed all the Jews he could get his hands on, (though he did “Aryanize” some, and his SS at least tried to "Aryanize even more) and not a few Slavs, gypsies and homosexuals.

Kind of makes one think of that old Cold War adage “better red than dead”; basically meaning that living under tyranny is better than resisting it. I realize some, like Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, hold that as a religious principle. Undoubtedly there are others of a similar nature.

Is that where you are with this?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Obama: “Right now is a moment when the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance and the test is going to be whether they can overcome…” sectarian divisions and form a unity government.

He says the US must ensure ISIL is not attaining “the capacity to threaten us directly, us or our partners.”

“Our view is that Iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government htat we’re sending,” which is that the government must be inclusive, Obama says:

If Iran is coming in only as an armed force on behalf of the Shia… then that probably worsens the situation.

Just as Iraq’s leaders have to make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us. We’ve indicated to them that it is important to avoid the kinds of steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war.

We have deep differences with Iran… on a whole host of issues. Obviously what’s happened in Syria is [partly] the result of Iran coming in hot and heavy on one side… they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places."

Obama says that’s probably not good for the Iranian people or economy, and they ‘probably recognize that.’

I’m inclined to think Obama can’t possibly believe in this. Just for starters, does he really think the Mullahs care very much about the welfare of the Iranian people?

 

[gilliam]

I’m inclined to think Obama can’t possibly believe in this. Just for starters, does he really think the Mullahs care very much about the welfare of the Iranian people?

He is sending a message overseas.

 

[Milasol]

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Quada which, as one may remember, killed some 3,000 people in New York City well before "Bush’s War (actually Phase II of the Gulf War). There were plenty of foreign jihadis who poured into Iraq during Phase II of that war, and Bin Ladin issued a call to foreign fighters to do just that. We didn’t create them. Bin Ladin was a Saudi. Zawahiri is an Egyptian. When we went into Iraq, our troops encountered Islamists from all over. Libyans, as I recall, were the largest single contingent, though i could be mistaken about that.

And the Sunni “Awakening Council” provided some 90,000 men to work with U.S troops. Not too resentful.

And the Muslim Brotherhood, which birthed Al Quaeda as well as other related groups, far predated the Gulf War, actually starting during the reign of Nasser in Egypt.

It’s just silly to say “we” caused any of those groups. This is an amusing argument, though. It assumes people in the Islamic world are incapable of coming up with their own objectives and movements, and based on their own ideologies. I’m not saying that’s “racist”, but it reminds one of it.

And “well enough” wasn’t all that “well enough”. Saddam Hussein had invaded two countries previously and tried to assassinate Bush I. Now ISIS is invading Iraq. People there are entirely capable of having their own wars and their own reasons for them.

The problem is not that all people in the Middle East hate the U.S. The U.S., for a time, frustrated the would-be empire builders there; the “Caliphatists” and Iran. Now we’re gone, and the Middle East is one continuous battleground from the Mediterranean to the Iranian border.

Out of all the comments on this thread you are the only one who got a bit of the whole picture.

Most average Americans do not understand the machinery of the Muslim Brotherhood and how this new modern day version of “Caliphatists”, as you put it, can be traced back to people like Al-Bana, Al-Qutb.

Starting in the late 40s and early 50’s (after WWII) Muslim fanatics who were educated in the West, begun to form an organization with the goal to re-establish the old Caliphate of the Ottomans to a new glory.

They begun in Egypt and called themselves “The Secret Apparatus”. Their initial goal was to get rid of westernized leaders and establish purist Sharia abiding leaders. We see in Egypt that they conducted the assassination.

The USSR slowed their progress. However with the collapse of the Soviet Union along with petro dollars we saw a sudden rise of Islamic purist throughout various countries in Africa and the Middle-East.

The Secret Apparatus morphed into what it is today the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the overarching organization of ALL Sunni based terrorist organizations spreading from Asia to the Middle East to Europe and to the Americas. That movement spread all over with evermore terrorist organizations rising globally. Though Al-qaeda is one that can be said to have spawn out of the war in Afghanistan with the USSR (see Abdulla Azzam and his organization in Afghanistan), there are numerous organizations that trace back even further.

This war in Iraq right now, has nothing to do with the Gulf Wars. Rather those wars were a symptom of a much larger war. It is also a consequence of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining so much power during the last decades that they are literally taking governments, regions, and countries as a whole. We see it in Libya now, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, tried in Egypt (failing thank God), in Turkey with Erdogan, and also creeping in Western governments and financial institutions. They also tried to gain power in Syria, however Russia, Egypt (not Morsi’s government but the current leaders), other Shia based organizations put enough friction to them so they are now migrating into Iraq.

So this has nothing to do with the Gulf wars, though it did affect the solidity of the country. And it made it possible because of the havoc of war and the different interests there that the region would become the next conflict area.

It is not so hard to see how the two Gulf wars Kuwait/Iraq were really fought for Saudi Arabia initially. It has now of course turned into a proxy war of Shia vs Sunni, Muslim Brotherhood versus some of the Western nations still fighting the sunni global encroachment.

Note, that this administration along with many other western leaders do support the Muslim Brotherhood. Directly or indirectly. In the case of the so-called Arab spring policy of this administration… One can say directly.

Bush and Cheney were merely setting the ground for what this administration then took advantage and turned into an opportunity for a proxy warlike strategy. This strategy seeks to push back and eliminate shia as well as to gain control of regions by establishing purist Islamic sharia abiding leaders. Exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood intended all along.
This is no secret. They even published their desires with their most famous plan called “The 100 year plan”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Out of all the comments on this thread you are the only one who got a bit of the whole picture.

Most average Americans do not understand the machinery of the Muslim Brotherhood and how this new modern day version of “Caliphatists”, as you put it, can be traced back to people like Al-Bana, Al-Qutb.

Starting in the late 40s and early 50’s (after WWII) Muslim fanatics who were educated in the West, begun to form an organization with the goal to re-establish the old Caliphate of the Ottomans to a new glory.

They begun in Egypt and called themselves “The Secret Apparatus”. Their initial goal was to get rid of westernized leaders and establish purist Sharia abiding leaders. We see in Egypt that they conducted the assassination.

The USSR slowed their progress. However with the collapse of the Soviet Union along with petro dollars we saw a sudden rise of Islamic purist throughout various countries in Africa and the Middle-East.

The Secret Apparatus morphed into what it is today the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the overarching organization of ALL Sunni based terrorist organizations spreading from Asia to the Middle East to Europe and to the Americas. That movement spread all over with evermore terrorist organizations rising globally. Though Al-qaeda is one that can be said to have spawn out of the war in Afghanistan with the USSR (see Abdulla Azzam and his organization in Afghanistan), there are numerous organizations that trace back even further.

This war in Iraq right now, has nothing to do with the Gulf Wars. Rather those wars were a symptom of a much larger war. It is also a consequence of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining so much power during the last decades that they are literally taking governments, regions, and countries as a whole. We see it in Libya now, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, tried in Egypt (failing thank God), in Turkey with Erdogan, and also creeping in Western governments and financial institutions. They also tried to gain power in Syria, however Russia, Egypt (not Morsi’s government but the current leaders), other Shia based organizations put enough friction to them so they are now migrating into Iraq.

So this has nothing to do with the Gulf wars, though it did affect the solidity of the country. And it made it possible because of the havoc of war and the different interests there that the region would become the next conflict area.

It is not so hard to see how the two Gulf wars Kuwait/Iraq were really fought for Saudi Arabia initially. It has now of course turned into a proxy war of Shia vs Sunni, Muslim Brotherhood versus some of the Western nations still fighting the sunni global encroachment.

Note, that this administration along with many other western leaders do support the Muslim Brotherhood. Directly or indirectly. In the case of the so-called Arab spring policy of this administration… One can say directly.

Bush and Cheney were merely setting the ground for what this administration then took advantage and turned into an opportunity for a proxy warlike strategy. This strategy seeks to push back and eliminate shia as well as to gain control of regions by establishing purist Islamic sharia abiding leaders. Exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood intended all along.
This is no secret. They even published their desires with their most famous plan called “The 100 year plan”.

I disagree with very little of what you said above. However, I am not sure you are giving Iran enough credit for its imperialist ambitions. Indeed, it has been more successful in spreading its influence than has the Muslim Brotherhood, with which it is at war.

Iran has largely kept itself “under the radar” in all of the current mess, and before. But Iran is exactly why the Sunni tribal leaders are at least tacitly (and only for now, one hopes) backing ISIS. The Sunni oil states back jihadis because the latter will fight against Iran or anyone else that’s not Sunni.

We’re seeing the “war of the Middle East empires” unfolding right now. It’s not only Sunni vs. Shia. It’s Caliphate vs. Persian Empire.

 

[Milasol]

I disagree with very little of what you said above. However, I am not sure you are giving Iran enough credit for its imperialist ambitions. Indeed, it has been more successful in spreading its influence than has the Muslim Brotherhood, with which it is at war.

Iran has largely kept itself “under the radar” in all of the current mess, and before. But Iran is exactly why the Sunni tribal leaders are at least tacitly (and only for now, one hopes) backing ISIS. The Sunni oil states back jihadis because the latter will fight against Iran or anyone else that’s not Sunni.

We’re seeing the “war of the Middle East empires” unfolding right now. It’s not only Sunni vs. Shia. It’s Caliphate vs. Persian Empire.

Iran has imperial ambitions however the ayatollah’s reach does not compare to the Muslim Brotherhood reach. We see globally that sunni based terrorist organizations are not only much better financed but they have reached almost, if not all corners of the world. From Gama’a al-Islamiyya to Abu Sayyaf in the east Pacific to Inda (though there are dozens of other sunni-based terrorist organizations in the area, particularly in the regions of East Timor and the Philippines), to Lashkar-e Tayyiba, to Hizb-la tarhir, to Indian Mujahedeen, to Hamas, to Alqaeda (of every region), to Al Shabaab, to Boko Haram, to Al-furkan, to the dozens of PA based terrorist groups, to Ansar al-Shari’a of Libya, Tunisia, Darnah… The sunni based organizations list is so extensive and quite larger than shia based terrorist organizations.

Iran has been in check for a long time. Russia and NK partner with Iran, however it is, in my opinion, nowhere near a threat to the West as the already infiltrated within our midst sunni-based terrorist organizations.

I wouldn’t put it Caliphate versus Persia. Those shia really are of Turkish decent who invaded Persia. They don’t even have the support of their population. Last estimates are that the Ayatollah have a mere 22% of support from the Iranian young people.

Iran has not a global infrastructure to the extend the Muslim Brotherhood has. It does not have the level of infiltration into the West as sunni based terrorist organizations do.

It does have extensive reach, terrorist organizations (eg. Hizbullah), a rather large number of adherents (~15% of all Islamic followers are shia), but it is not as large as the sunni. It doesn’t even have the support of their headquarter nation, Iran and Syria. It is a militant regime with a huge number of restrictions and more sanctions than even many of the sunni terrorist organizations. It is the second largest producer of natural gas in the world, yet it is by far not the most prosperous.

If anything, the shia only serve to put friction into the advancement of the sunnis across the globe because the West is incapable of defending itself at the moment.

The solution to this rapid global growth and takeover of sunni based fundamentalism will not come from the West but from the same Middle-East. As more nations will become firm and do what Egypt is doing now, eradicating the Muslim Brotherhood as a weed and not treating the cancer with a bandaid as the West is doing.

“The Sunni oil states back jihadis because the latter will fight against Iran or anyone else that’s not Sunni.”
Saudi Arabia would support them if the royals there weren’t so scared of them. Saudi Arabia’s petro families are terrified of the Muslim Brotherhood. They know that the fundamentalist want to take control of the Peninsula. They know they are next. Saudi Arabia’s petro royal government is evermore facing a growing opposition within. They repress it. This is not to say that they don’t support sharia and a purist form of Islam, however they don’t want to give up control.

It is the story of a tiger and a lion and a little fox.
Caged tiger=Shia
Lion=Sunni
Little fox=Russia, NK, some Western nations.

The little fox must keep the lion attacking the tiger in order to survive.
The US and other Western nations support the Lion and feed him.
Russia, NK, sometimes China support the caged tiger only to keep the lion from attacking them.

 

[Atisor207]

It is the story of a tiger and a lion and a little fox.
Caged tiger=Shia
Lion=Sunni
Little fox=Russia, NK, some Western nations.

The little fox must keep the lion attacking the tiger in order to survive.
The US and other Western nations support the Lion and feed him.
Russia, NK, sometimes China support the caged tiger only to keep the lion from attacking them.

I like how you represent the geo players as a tiger, lion, and fox. Very figurative.

What you say about Saudi Arabia explains a lot their inconsistencies. Very well said.

 

[gilliam]

US should launch targeted military strikes on ‘terrorist army’ Isis, says General David Petraeus
America should launch “targeted” military attacks against an emerging “terrorist army” in Iraq if it jeopardises the security of the West, the former head of Coalition forces in the country said last night.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, David Petraeus, one of the most senior figures in the American military over the past decade, said that he would now support limited strikes against the leadership of Isis.

Gen Petraeus’s intervention came as Barack Obama, the US President, announced that America was sending 300 special forces advisers to Iraq to help support the fight against Isis. Mr Obama also said that the US was prepared to launch military strikes if future intelligence recommended such action.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913259/US-should-launch-targeted-military-strikes-on-terrorist-army-Isis-says-General-David-Petraeus.html

 

[Brendan_64]

So this has nothing to do with the Gulf wars

But the power vacuum that currently exists on Iraq which has allowed the likes of ISIS to move in and take control over large areas of Iraq, enabling it to make a start on trying ti set up a Caliphate, has everything to do with the last Gulf War and how the West handled the situation aftetwards. The destruction of Iraq as a viable state has created a power vacuum which ISIS is trying to fill in an opportunistic move.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Iran has imperial ambitions however the ayatollah’s reach does not compare to the Muslim Brotherhood reach. We see globally that sunni based terrorist organizations are not only much better financed but they have reached almost, if not all corners of the world. Iran has been in check for a long time. Russia and NK partner with Iran, however it is, in my opinion, nowhere near a threat to the West as the already infiltrated within our midst sunni-based terrorist organizations.

I wouldn’t put it Caliphate versus Persia. Those shia really are of Turkish decent who invaded Persia. They don’t even have the support of their population. Last estimates are that the Ayatollah have a mere 22% of support from the Iranian young people.

Iran has not a global infrastructure to the extend the Muslim Brotherhood has. It does not have the level of infiltration into the West as sunni based terrorist organizations do.

It does have extensive reach, terrorist organizations (eg. Hizbullah), a rather large number of adherents (~15% of all Islamic followers are shia), but it is not as large as the sunni. It doesn’t even have the support of their headquarter nation, Iran and Syria. It is a militant regime with a huge number of restrictions and more sanctions than even many of the sunni terrorist organizations. It is the second largest producer of natural gas in the world, yet it is by far not the most prosperous.

If anything, the shia only serve to put friction into the advancement of the sunnis across the globe because the West is incapable of defending itself at the moment.

The solution to this rapid global growth and takeover of sunni based fundamentalism will not come from the West but from the same Middle-East. As more nations will become firm and do what Egypt is doing now, eradicating the Muslim Brotherhood as a weed and not treating the cancer with a bandaid as the West is doing.

“The Sunni oil states back jihadis because the latter will fight against Iran or anyone else that’s not Sunni.”
Saudi Arabia would support them if the royals there weren’t so scared of them. Saudi Arabia’s petro families are terrified of the Muslim Brotherhood. They know that the fundamentalist want to take control of the Peninsula. They know they are next. Saudi Arabia’s petro royal government is evermore facing a growing opposition within. They repress it. This is not to say that they don’t support sharia and a purist form of Islam, however they don’t want to give up control.

It is the story of a tiger and a lion and a little fox.
Caged tiger=Shia
Lion=Sunni
Little fox=Russia, NK, some Western nations.

The little fox must keep the lion attacking the tiger in order to survive.
The US and other Western nations support the Lion and feed him.
Russia, NK, sometimes China support the caged tiger only to keep the lion from attacking them.

You might be right, and I don’t for a moment deny that there are a lot more Sunni in the world than Shia. But power does not always follow numbers. The U.S./Europe have populations around four times that of Russia, are vastly wealthier and have far superior armed forces, yet the west is watching Russia take chunks out of Ukraine with disapproval and doing essentially nothing about it. It’s Sudetenland redux and the west is paralyzed.

Iran, for whatever reason, does not have the high profile the Sunni terrorist organizations do. But it is far better organized, and, in my estimation, is much more crafty. What Sunni jihadi organization is anywhere near having nuclear weapons? What Sunni jihadi organization has IRBMs? What Sunni jihadi organization has close relationships with China, with Russia, with North Korea? Which of them has a navy, with submarines?
Which has a close government-to-government relationship with any Latin American country? Only Iran.

It doesn’t matter whether lots of Iranians are perhaps really Turkic in distant origin. After all, the majority of “Arabs” aren’t really Arabs either. The question is whether they identify themselves as the historic empire builders and whether the Arab Sunni regard them as the “rascally redheads” always feared and hated by Arab empire builders.

One thing is for certain. While ordinary Iranians might have a better view of the U.S. than nearly anybody else in the Middle East (and some sources say that) that does not mean mullah-governed Iran is anything but the enemy they say it is. So, only 22% support the mullahs? If so (and one wonders about that) one needs to remember that the Soviet Union was controlled by approximately 10% of the population.

It does seem to me the central question of the moment is whether the Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders think they’re in control of the situation or not. Is ISIS, in their minds, serving their purposes, or is it going to be their master in a situation over which they have no influence or control? Given that those tribal leaders potentially have far more men at their disposal as well as seasoned Baath and other army officers, who is the master and who is the servant? What’s the longer-term tribal Sunni view of this? Do the Saudis know something we don’t, perhaps, in warning us off bombing ISIS? Or are they being stupid, long-term, with one foot in the sacred soil and the other on the plane pointed toward Switzerland?

It’s difficult for me to believe nobody in our military or intelligence services has sufficient relationship with any of the tribal leaders to get at least some portion of the truth about the latters’ positions. Somebody knows the real story. Is anyone listening to them?