Dinar Daily
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Get Daily Updates of the NEWS & GURUS in your EMAIL

Enter your email address:

Madness: Reflections on American policy toward the Middle East DinarDailyUpdates?bg=330099&fg=FFFFFF&anim=1

Madness: Reflections on American policy toward the Middle East

Go down

Madness: Reflections on American policy toward the Middle East Empty Madness: Reflections on American policy toward the Middle East

Post by Ponee Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:54 am

Madness: Reflections on American policy toward the Middle East

Daniel Koڤalak, - 10/20/2013 - 7:55 p Madness: Reflections on American policy toward the Middle East 1382245036

Translation: d. Malik Salman

Days ago I re-read the article by Seymour Hersh published in the March 5 / March 2007 entitled "redirection: Are our enemies benefit from the new administration's policy in the war on terror?". Discovered that this article insightful and help, in particular, to understand the current conflict in Syria. He explains Hirsch in this article how the United States, since the six and a half years, working to change its policy, adopted by the "war on terror" after the events of 9/11, which focused on the fight against Sunni extremists, representatives of al-Qaeda, and the transition to the fight against organizations and governments Shia in the Middle East with the help of the same Sunni extremists who we claim we fight them.

As Hersh writes, "The United States also participated in covert operations against Iran and its ally Syria. These activities have led to support Sunni extremist groups that promote an extreme version of Islam and hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda." Explains Hersh that ran Bush decided to adopt this new approach because it was surprised that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq has resulted in unintended, even though it was expected, to the rise of a Shiite government in Iraq friendly to Iran, which in turn led to the promotion of Iran in annoying the United States. The United States decided that Iran has become a threat to the United States, most of the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks, and therefore cooperated with them in order to weaken Iran and its allies such as Syria.

It is clear that Obama is pursuing this policy in alliance with the jihadists in Libya to overthrow Muammar Alqmaqa - one of the fiercest enemies of al-Qaeda - with Sunni extremists in Syria, who are linked to each other directly with al-Qaeda, in order to drop, or at least weaken, the Syrian government in Damascus.
While this alliance seems confusing to most Americans, unaware to him at least, there seems to be a little sanity in the American involvement in the Middle East and the Near East. Therefore, hand Aadaotna to Iran today (though I do not see Iran in this way), it comes as a direct result of the coup the U.S. against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and support for the Shah and the forces of "Alsaڤak" security which was used systematic torture against the Iranian people. The United States supported the Shah until dropping in 1979. No wonder, then, that the Iranian government feel some resentment towards us.

After the year 1979, in order to weaken and crush the "Islamic revolution" in Iran, which erupted against the Shah, backed by the United States, the United States supported Saddam Hussein's brutal war against Iran, including the killing of large numbers of Iranians with chemical gases. At a certain point, the U.S. was arming Iran at the same time for funds used (illegally) in the financing of terrorists "Contras" who are fighting the new revolutionary government in Nicaragua - Nicaragua after the same drop-backed dictator of the United States in 1979.

Also in 1979, the United States began arming "mujahideen" in Afghanistan. On the contrary to popular opinion, not the United States of arming these forces to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but in order to bring in this invasion. Thus, as later admitted U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, was arming the "mujahideen" aims to "drag the Russians to trap Afghan and do you want me to regret it? On the day across the Russian border, I wrote to President Carter: Now we have the opportunity to give the Union USSR its Vietnam War. "
Was one of the leaders who أفرزتهم chaos in the war, sponsored by the United States in Afghanistan, Saudi wealthy named Osama bin Laden has funded allies "mujahideen", backed by the United States, and then turned later against the United States in ways that Keithley through the instructions, or Aihaúh, the implementation of the attacks of 9 / 11 on the "World Trade Center".

After the 9/11 attacks, scrambled the United States to attack the "Taliban" in Afghanistan - a government arose directly from the troops, "mujahideen", sponsored by the United States to drag the Soviet Union into a brutal war in Afghanistan, and linked to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden himself. Iran has offered, the arch-enemy of the Taliban and Sunni extremists, to provide assistance to the United States in this effort, but the United States was ashamed to accept help.

In the meantime, after the end of the Iran war - Iraq, and having done a U.S. ally, Saddam Hussein, the worst thing he can do against the Iranians, the United States decided quickly that he was not an ally credible enough and invaded Iraq in 1991, which imposed economic sanctions and brutal people Iraqi and then bombed Iraq heavily disrupt the nineties of the last century.

Then, in 2003, the United States finally - claiming they responded to the 9/11 attacks - Saddam Hussein's overthrow in the second invasion in 2003 - even though he did not have any connection with the attacks of 9/11, and the United States know that very well.

This brings us to the present time where the United States - in a period of "re-routing", as he calls Seymour Hersh - support the forces allied with those radical Islamists themselves, who claims the United States that they carried out the 9/11 attacks in order to weaken Iran, which benefited from the U.S. invasion of Iraq, It is the invasion was justified attacks of 9/11 with it were not for Iraq any relationship. You are following what I say?

Would anyone seen this series of events that concludes that the American intervention in the Middle East, not to mention the destruction and killed hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of people in that region, it was against the interests of U.S. national security, at least if one looks at the safety of citizens Americans as part of the national interests in this context. And, of course, it is clear that our leaders do not look to the national security interests of this
premise. As the interest only of interest to this crazy foreign policy is a military complex - the industrial benefits of this policy - whether this policy succeeded or did not succeed in ways that most people rationalists classifies as a success.
The status quo now is scary, to say the least.

Http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/16/madness /
Translated from the ("Counter بنتش", 16 October / October 2013)

17/5/131020 / editing Ali Salman


Posts : 38256
Join date : 2011-08-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum