Original link: http://middleeastobserver.net/muqtada-al-sadr-us-occupation-the-iraqi-resistance/
(Please support MiddleEastObserver.net on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MiddleEastObserver)
Description:
Prominent Lebanese political analyst Nasser Kandil analyses the strategic significance of Iraqi Shia leader Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s recent call for a “million-man march”, which demanded that the US military completely withdraw from the Arab country.
Kandil is a regular fixture on Lebanese and Arab media, often commentating on matters relating to the regional ‘Resistance Axis’, an emerging anti-Israeli/anti-US imperialist alliance composed of, but not limited to, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq’s Hashed al-Shaabi, Yemen’s Ansarullah, and various Palestinian armed factions.
Source: Nasser Kandil (YouTube)
Date: 18 January, 2020
Transcript:
Dear followers of “60 Minutes with Nasser Kandil”, welcome to the new, third, episode of 2020. The title of this episode is “Two Wars Progressing Side by Side”. The first war is the one that has been started by the Axis of Resistance to expel US forces from the region. This war was faced with some disruptions as a consequence of the Ukrainian plane crash, whether through the international community who’s taking advantage of this incident, or through its impact on public opinion in Iran where protests were held over the incident. But two developments put things back on track. The first was the speech of the Russian foreign minister, who’s considered a (credible) source when it comes to providing information. (In his speech), he says that a squadron of American F-35 jets were flying over Tehran at the time of the incident which disrupted Iranian defence systems in terms of handling flying objects whether civilian or military. The second development was Imam Khamenei’s speech that mobilized the Iranian people. This mobilization came in the form of the amazing crowds of millions in the streets of Tehran (who stayed) under freezing cold weather, and at temperatures between -1 and 4 °C. Not only did (the crowds) stay to pray, but they also listened to the speech in Persian and then the speech in Arabic. His eminence’s speech was strongly worded and clear, stating that the battle in the region will continue until US forces are expelled, and that the long-term goal is freeing Palestine. He advised Arabs and Muslims to unite over the cause of freeing Palestine, and expelling US forces, and to engage in dialogue with neighbouring countries and Arab regimes to prevent segregation, discord and divisions. This strong political message, in addition to these huge crowds, bring us back to square one, in which the resistance forces announced – that is before the consequences that came about after Iran took full responsibility for the downing of the Ukrainian plane – (we are back to) the same climate of cohesion and solidarity. In fact, what matters the most – not because Imam Khamenei’s speech is less important, not at all, but because actions speak louder than words.
(Looking at) the practical steps today, it is obvious that, according to the Axis of Resistance, the key arena in which it will clash with the Americans is Iraq. In other words, when we talk about expelling Americans (forces) from the region, no one should think that we will start from Saudi Arabia, for example, or from the waters of the Gulf. The key battle to expel US forces from the region revolves around beginning (the fight) to expel the US forces from Iraq, and making this a regional and international cause, thus ending automatically the American presence in Syria. Because the American presence in Syria would be impossible if there is no American presence in Iraq.
However, it is obvious that the battle in Iraq today is set according to a calendar. On one side, we have a prime minister, Dr. Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who is obviously making firm decisions. He brings the decision of the Council of Representatives, puts it on the table, addresses the American government with persistence and a serious attitude. He establishes committees to begin technical negotiations in order to devise a mechanism for this withdrawal. The situation will escalate at the diplomatic level, through addressing the Security Council and major powers, and escalation will take place with the US itself. American threats and intimidation, I believe, are empty for a simple reason. When Americans become convinced that they must withdraw (from Iraq), they will have two priorities: first, to make the withdrawal seem voluntary and not an expulsion. And in that case, it is against American interests to impose sanctions on Iraqi governments, because this would mean continuing the battle in a different form. Second, to try to protect their interests that lies with keeping a positive relationship with the Iraqi government. So now Americans can make threats, send messages, exploit divisions and fight the battle for survival. This is normal. It is unlikely for their position to change for months. But when their position starts to change towards them accepting the idea of leaving, Americans will make sure to – they will for sure adopt a position encouraging a friendly positive exit through negotiations. They will prepare a schedule that guarantees keeping a number of advisors for six months for purposes related to the fight with ISIS. After six months they will say they need to make sure that the Iraqi army is prepared and has the (necessary) potentials. They will link the issue to the relationship with Russia suggesting that the Russians act as an ally in fighting against terrorism. This will happen in the next stage. However, now, do not take American threats seriously. What should be taken seriously are the preparations that are being done by the Axis of Resistance to have this confrontation.
The frontline of this confrontation is Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s call for millions (to demonstrate). Here I have to parenthetically say that we must look into the meaning, position, value and importance of this call. Because this entire American move, as I have said earlier when the Council of Representatives voted (to expel US forces) – it is not true that Americans were counting on a political coup in Iraq, by seeing whether they will succeed to exert influence on Sunni and Kurdish parliamentary groups under the auspices of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf or others. They knew they had that in their pocket. They are counting on the answer to this question: is there hope to (win) the battle in Iraq? Which brings up another question: is there hope to shatter the unity of the Shia community? Yes, or no? They pinned their hopes on shattering the unity of the Shia community via (effecting change in) Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s position, because they cannot manipulate the highest religious authority. They hope for divisions among the highest religious authorities in Qom on the one hand, and in Najaf on the other, especially since the highest religious authority in Najaf always tends to be more moderate. However, even the position of the highest religious authority in Najaf will be tougher if there is unity in the Shia community.
So, how does the Shia community unite? Or what is the factor that can divide them? Is it Ayad Allawi? Of course not. The factor that can divide them is Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. The elections are the proof. Don’t we talk about the Sairoon political bloc, that is represented and led by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr? When there was a dispute on which is the bigger bloc that should be entitled to nominate a candidate as the prime minister. The two competing blocs were Sairoon and Al-Binaa, i.e. Sayyed Muqtada and the resistance forces. And the dispute was resolved through the agreement of these two blocs to choose President Adel Abdul-Mahdi. This is the equation. This is the battle. Americans have tried, through third parties, especially through Gulf states and some Iraqi groups, to change Sayyed Muqtada’s position. They have succeeded to make accomplishments in some places, and failed in others. But the answer to the big question of “where does Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr stand?” remained unclear. Neither resistance forces have the answer to this question nor its opponents. Sayyed Muqtada has his own position.
In terms of Iraqi internal affairs, he is against the alliance of the resistance. However, regionally, he makes sure to reflect the image of an Iraqi patriot who develops relationships with Gulf states, Iran and Syria – but in his unique way which he makes sure to preserve. Therefore, the Gulf and American high hopes for the position of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr (to change) is what explains America’s hard efforts to destabilize Iraq, especially after the last movement sponsored by Sayyed Muqtada. The reason is that they think that if the status, position and authority of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr – and that is a reasonable and important assumption – shifts to become against Iran and the resistance forces, big changes will take place in Iraq, which is extremely accurate.
This (assumption) is based on the fact that, first, Sayyed Muqtada has inherited this enormous institution, in Baghdad in particular and in Iraq in general, from his father, Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr who, during the previous regime, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, had a political vision that kept him away from violent clashes (with the regime). He also made sure to maintain his position as a top religious scholar without cutting ties and completely destroying relationships, although the previous regime showed great hostility towards Sayyed Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr and committed crimes against his family through murder, death sentences, etc….But Sayyed Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr turned into a social institution. Baghdad traders feel beholden to him. They used to pay contributions to his fund. While his institution has and is still providing for thousands of families, giving tens of thousands of (cases) of aid, taking care of a community of almost two million Iraqis and responding to their social, economic and developmental needs. This gave Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr, who followed in his father’s footsteps of honesty, integrity, and direct supervision, and having (close) ties with the poor, assuming the role of their leadership and authority, and representing their interests. This is the first factor.
The second factor is that Sayyed Muqtada was not among those who fled from Iraq. Therefore, opposition forces who came back to Iraq when the American occupation began can be criticized by those who are affiliated with the previous regime and by the Sunni commentators who have the same stances as the representatives of the previous regime; those who consider that the patriotic position against the occupation lowered the status of Sunnis in the government and gave Shias a high status. Those people can face Shia leaders, and say: “you came with the American tanks. Don’t give us a lesson in patriotism. We have fought”, because at the beginning members of the resistance were mainly Sunni. However, they cannot say this to Sayyed Muqtada. First, he didn’t come (to Iraq) on American tanks. He was in Iraq from the beginning. Second, and most importantly, he is one of the first Iraqi leaders to call for resistance. He also never had any relationship with the occupation. He was the symbol of fighting the occupation. He established the Mahdi Army with the objective of fighting the occupation. And on top of that, when the battle of Fallujah took place following the actions of the resistance, and when Americans raided the city, committed what they committed, put its people under siege and deprived them of food, drinks and electricity; no one stood with Fallujah, except for Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. He offered moral and financial support, and sent food supplies and aid convoys. He adopted a tough stance during the demonstrations that were held in support of Fallujah in Shia regions. Therefore, people of Fallujah and people of central Iraq in general, Sunni people, will always be grateful to him. Then, this issue happened again, when Nour al-Maliki was the prime minster, during the al-Anbar uprising, and the uprising of Sunni people against al-Maliki, who ofcourse later took a stand (against) the occupation, the (in support) of the resistance, and in support of the forces affiliated to the Axis of Resistance. However, Sayyed Muqtada, at the time, in addition to beating others in terms of his position in support of the resistance, also showed solidarity with the people of al-Anbar and central areas against the government of Nour al-Maliki. He was also the one that gave this opposition a national united aspect, which was another reason that increased his status and influence. At least, if anything, it results in the inability to challenge (Sadr) regarding his sincerity in confronting the occupation.
Today, when Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr calls for a ‘million-strong march’ to expel the occupier, no one can challenge his position as a leading religious scholar and as a patriot. On the one hand, no one has a record that is like Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr’s record in confronting the occupation. On the other hand, regarding the issue of national unity i.e. refraining from sectarian calculations and sectarian violence, no one emulates the position of Sayyed Muqtada. Neither have the Sunni leaderships succeeded in showing solidarity with the concerns of Shias, nor have the rest of the Shia leaderships succeeded in showing solidarity with the concerns of Sunnis as the Shia leader Sayyed Muqtada has done. He always pays attention to the suggestions and concerns of Sunnis which secures in turn his strong position in politics and society amongst all Iraqi leaders. Thus, when Sayyed Muqtada himself calls for this march and the resistance forces join in, it means that he didn’t issue the call in competition with the resistance forces. Not at all, this has happened in coordination between them all. As they did when they nominated the Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the resistance leaders communicated with Sayyed Muqtada, met him, and agreed with each other, but this time the equation is more accurate and clearer; it came as a shock to the US and the Gulf. (The shock came in the form of) the political leadership of Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, in addition to the popular leadership of Sayyed Muqtada, in addition to the presence of the resistance forces who stand in support behind both (Abdul-Mahdi and Sadr). This reflects a smart, mature, wise and courageous advancement that offers the resistance forces the ability to decide the appropriate timing and tempo of (military) resistance actions that serve the interests of the battle taking place on the legal, diplomatic and populist path i.e. the path being led legally and diplomatically by Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and the one being led on the popular level by Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. Thus, the ‘million-strong march’ beginning on Friday is not just one march; it represents a starting point on the path that will be followed by other ‘million-strong marches’ on the popular level.
The US and the Gulf rushed to work on how they can agitate the civil movement to challenge the call of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. They found groups that can gather merely hundreds of people. In contrast, the great mass of people that were at the beginning of the (recent) Iraqi (protest) movement and that moves in the name of Sayyed Muqtada value his stance towards the movement; they know that he is an Iraqi patriotic leader and an Iraqi populist leader; they know that (Sayyed Muqtada) is on the front lines in fighting corruption, and in terms of fighting the occupation he is on the front lines, and he is the most eligible and capable to clash with any (Iraqi) government or authority. In fact, we have an excellent opportunity (before us).
In practice, the unique (position) of Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr has been proven in practice with the following example: the US and the Gulf had bet on creating division in Lebanon among the (Speaker of the Parliament) Nabih Berri ̶ that is between Hezbollah and the Amal movement – their assumption being that (these two parties) compete with each other (on the Lebanese scene), and that (Parliament Speaker) Berri has his own unique (characteristics), his own approach towards (political) issues, that he follows his own path concerning his relations with the Gulf and the international environment, while Hezbollah adopts a more deep-rooted stance in the political and regional arena. During the key stages and (historical) moments that (Lebanon witnessed), the US and the Gulf made their bets and calculations (based on such assumptions). In 2005, we read a lot of analyses, and today we arrive at the same scene, that all parties, the (Lebanese) March 14 alliance, the US, and the Gulf used to hold that: the struggle is to find out how to attract (Parliament Speaker) Berri and get him out of (his) relationship with Hezbollah, but (these parties) found an impenetrable wall and lost all the cards (which they were betting upon).
Today in Iraq the same scene is repeated. In so much as the Iranian leadership and his eminence Sayyed (Hassan Nasrallah) have always been keen to preserve the relationship with (Parliament Speaker) Berri in Lebanon, they also make sure to preserve the relationship with Sayyed Muqtada (in Iraq). Previously, we didn’t use to say this (publicly) but today we have an interest in saying this: the relationship and the meetings of Sayyed Muqtada with the Iranian leadership have never stopped, and his relationship, meetings and visits to his eminence Sayyed (Hassan Nasrallah) have never stopped either. There was always an acceptance and understanding (by Iran and Hezbollah) of the special room for manoeuvre that Sayyed Muqtada had assumed within which he was carrying out his (political) movements and stances. Thus the relationship (between Sadr and Iran/Hezbollah) was always based on accommodating this specificity. However, the moment that the situation becomes critical, (it was agreed that) Sayyed Muqtada will not be outside this decisiveness in terms of taking a political stance. Concerning this battle, when Imam Khamenei spoke about expelling the US (forces) from the region, he was not merely giving lip service on this matter. Nor was Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah giving lip service on this matter either. Not at all. The (regional) resistance (movement), its leadership, the leadership of the Resistance Axis, holds that the battle today (must be waged) in Iraq, and that it is a political and popular battle, within which the (resistance forces) have to gradually warm-up (the circumstances and conditions), such that when the resistance in the battlefield is required to undertake its highest level of (military action), it will be ready to carry it out.
—————————–
The US is facing a challenge: it is now trying to engage in sowing sedition in a political, diplomatic and security battle to remain in Iraq, yet in any case it will lose (this battle), because with regards to the issue of ‘sedition’, the US’ options are linked with the ability of finding an environment (conducive for this). However, when Sayyed Muqtada is the focus of the struggle, it is difficult to find large solid Sunni blocs that can fight Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr. (In that case) they will prove to be disloyal and ungrateful. They will appear as if they are denying the history, unity and stance in confronting the occupation. It is difficult for these (Sunni forces) to fight (in such circumstances) with the forces that it accuses of being an extension of Iran, or (fight) with the resistance forces whose leaderships appeared after the occupation began. (Let alone) when talking about Sayyed Muqtada. If they want to say that you didn’t take into account the (political) storms and tribulations that Sunni regions have faced, they can’t say it about Sayyed Muqtada. Therefore, the intelligent manner in which this current struggle (against the US occupation) is being waged nullifies the possibility of sedition. It nullifies the possibility of sedition with the Kurds as well. The joining of forces between Adel Abdul Mahdi and Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr creates a new balance on the political, psychological and social scene in which the fight against the US occupation is taking place. What can the US do in such a situation? It will certainly (try whatever it can do) since it is difficult for it to (accept) going down in defeat.
The Iraqi people clearly want the Americans gone. Anyone can see this, and understandably so, to any rational man. Who can name a person, that one knows, who has not lost someone to the occupation? Not very many, that is sure.
What results would come of an honest and verifiable referendum on the matter of American military forces being present in Iraq?
Truly.
Not to say that this is the only way, far from it. But, please think on it.
Thank You.
Are you kidding? Nothing would come of it!
The USA has no intention of leaving Iraq.
But you are absolutely correct: The Iraqi people clearly want the Americans gone!!!
Anyone can see this… and every rational person should easily be able to understand WHY
the Iraqi people want the Americans gone.
The endgame is on; the chips are down. Alia iacta sunt.
Die Würfel sind gefallen?
Google translate,MOD:
The die is cast?
If this Iraqi religious leader, Iraqi Shia leader Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr, is taking on the burden of uniting Sunni and Shia for at least the part of the ’emerging anti-Israeli/anti-US imperialist alliance’, it would be a very positive move.
The “burden” of uniting Sunni and Shia has been deliberately exaggerated by the Empire and imperial media for over 16 years. As in Syria, Sunni and Shia lived in close proximity before 2003, especially in Baghdad. Intermarriage was not uncommon. It was John Negroponte and his sidekick James Steele who fomented the sectarian civil war as part of the “El Salvador option.” Al-Sadr himself never bought into it, though it became hard for him to control the Mahdi Army while he was forced to hide out in Iran, and I think the violence perpetrated by his militia was probably exaggerated as well to try to discredit him with Sunnis, but Sunnis remember his works during the attacks on Fallujah, so he has political capital with them.
Excellent Analysis.
Iraq is where the American Hegemon will be mortally wounded and geopolitically defeated.
It will become the ME Viet Nam.
The Missile Attack on their base (where they suffered very significant casualties) and the Million Man march are the emblems of what is to come.
The defeat is designed. It is inevitable. Thirty years of Karma is about to turn on the American forces.
@Larch
“Thirty years of Karma is about to turn on the American forces.”
Karma maybe.
But more surely, idotic, self-defeating, corrupt and decadent policies.
I concur that at the end of the day it would be heartning that greater Evil is defeated… And that material world join the all time true spiritual view of morality and common decency victory over corruption.
And and a the very end of the day it is truly a spiritual battle of willpower…
I sure do hope you are right, Larchmonter445.
But the possibility exists that Satan will successfully hold on to the Last Grand Imperial Empire and turn it into his very own sick-sick-sick dystopian One World Order.
The US Reich needs to have its Dien Bien Phu in Iraq,the sooner the better.
If America cannot possess Iraq, it will try to dismember and destroy Iraq.
The Americans are now resorting to their back-up plan to balkanize Iraq along sectarian lines by sowing more division between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds.
Like the British Empire that spawned it, the American Evil Empire specializes in Divide-and-Conquer stratagems to subjugate a targeted nation.
Syria: Army Liberates Maarat al-Numan – U.S. Plans New Mischief
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/syria-army-liberates-maarat-al-numan-us-plans-new-mischief.html
@ Anonymous,
You are correct, except that the plan to Balkanise Iraq was not a backup plan, it was part of the original 1960’s joint CIA/MI6/MOSSAD to reshap the Middle East.
Then, as now, Iran and the Russians (Soviet Union back then of course) got in the way. The Soviets in particular, then as now, by supplying nations such as Egypt and Syria with advanced air-defence and missile systems.
Ignoring the well known plans for a Greater Israel, the UK and US planned to break up Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey reshap what was left into so called ‘rump puppet states’.
Slap bang accross the broken bones of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, would be a new ‘state’ called Kurdistan (actually ‘Greater Kurdistan’ which would border with ‘Greater Israel’).
The 1st and 2nd Gulf wars, and the creation of the intermediate group known as ‘Daesh’ or ‘Isis’ were the most obvious tools in the Balkenization process.
Iraq and Syria were a done deal until Iran and Russia got involved.
Turkey is still a wildcard in this and they know they are being set up, yet seem to be embarking upon adventurism.
To cut a very long and complex story short, Greater Israel and Greater Kurdistan (a fake US / UK Kosovo-esq military and CIA/MI6/MOSSAD pirate nation) would dominate the Middle East and eventually push the Russians behind the Kerch Straits.
Greater Kurdistan would house masive NATO firepower and would extend through the bottom of old Iraq into the Persian Gulf, through Eastern and Northern Syria to the West of Syria and the Med Sea, and through what was North East Turkey to the Black Sea. If more of Iran could be chipped away, then Kurdistan would extend to the Caspian Sea too.
Russia would be ‘contained’ within the Kerch Straits, and with Ukraine inside NATO, along with all the Baltic Nations too, Russia would face capitualation or risk nuclear first strike.
That has been the plan, by the joint CIA/MI6/MOSSAD planners since the 1960’s, and although moving slowly, it is moving in that direction.
Only Iran and Russia can prevent this plan – without Iran and Russia greater Kurdistan (and later Greater Israel) would be a done deal.
A picture says a 1000 words, so check out this image of a ‘limited’ Greater Kurdistan to see what I have described. Simply extend it slightly for the sea access.
https://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2013/11/state7515.htm
There are plenty more examples of Greater Kurdistan (and Greater Israel) but that is closest to the war room map in section C (off Langley Avenue) inside the joint CIA/MI6/MOSSAD command centre at Croughton, England:
http://www.fraw.org.uk/frn/cw.html
In Summary then – A Balkanized Middle East was, still is, and always has been ‘plan A’.
Peace to all.
Thank you very much for all of this information!
Yes indeed, without Russia and Iran’s resistance a Balkanized Middle East would ALREADY be a done deal…
@ Hassan Carim:
“Ignoring the well known plans for a Greater Israel, the UK and US planned to break up Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey reshap what was left into so called ‘rump puppet states’.
Slap bang accross the broken bones of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, would be a new ‘state’ called Kurdistan (actually ‘Greater Kurdistan’ which would border with ‘Greater Israel’).”
I cannot express how pleased I was to read this little bit. A subject that doesn’t get near enough attention. The reshaping of the region. Advantageous to Israel and the US. Nearly everyone is aware of Greater Israel, but, not nearly enough pay attention to the ongoing creation of Greater Kurdistan. Israel’s best new neighbour in the hood!
This is a topic I’ve written about for at least 8 years. And know of only one other person/blogger beside myself who has discussed this plan in action. Unfolding, in real time While others choose to portray the Usrael Kurds as egalitarian freedom fighters… the reality of their role in the ongoing remake is obfuscated as these thugs are lionized.
“Greater Kurdistan would house masive NATO firepower and would extend through the bottom of old Iraq into the Persian Gulf, through Eastern and Northern Syria to the West of Syria and the Med Sea, and through what was North East Turkey to the Black Sea. If more of Iran could be chipped away, then Kurdistan would extend to the Caspian Sea too.”
Beside housing massive NATO resources , the new terror state ala Kosovo, will control resources, waterways etc., Impede the silk road. Enable easier smuggling. The new KKK; Khazars, Kurds, Kosovars
In Summary then – A Balkanized Middle East was, still is, and always has been ‘plan A’.
A balkanized and remade region has indeed and always been plan A.
How this will end? It’s still up in the air. but, that has been the plan
As for this Turkey is still a wildcard in this and they know they are being set up, yet seem to be embarking upon adventurism.
Turkey has long known it’s been targeted, and from where I sit they are not embarking on adventurism. Rather they are making moves to secure their place in the region, including their present day borders and viable trade alternative.
Thanks for a great comment!
@ Penny,
Thank you for a great comment.
Also, you stated, “Turkey has long known it’s been targeted, and from where I sit they are not embarking on adventurism. Rather they are making moves to secure their place in the region, including their present day borders and viable trade alternative”.
Looking at the evidence I would have to agree.
As it was no secret that Libya was to become Israels ‘free’ gas station in the middle east, Turkeys ‘adventurism’ in Libya could be re-interpreted as maintaining a strong bargaining position / protecting its own energy interests.
It is a complex picture with several ‘blocks’ of nations gaining and loosing power (and gaining and losing ground) seemingly each month.
Sadly this is a very complex and sophisticated multi-generational ‘long game’ – and as such very few people are able to see all the pieces being played, much less comprehend the game actually being played.
Thanks again.
Peace.
Any truth to the rumor of CIA director being killed in Afghanistan?
@fed
There is an information war out there.
Difficult to know the truth with true denial. False claim.
Potential false flag. And do on.
What I personally get from the story line is that the Iran claimed the shut down though with deniabilty by Salami.
The US saving face and avoiding the to be pulled into situation easily slipping out of control , then keep quiet.
The truly troubling point is that D’Andrea being in the plane came at some point from Iranian agencies. But also from Russian intelligence so called sources…
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200128-cia-chief-behind-soleimanis-assassination-killed-in-downed-plane-in-afghanistan/
Nobody knows the truth.
But it seems to me as some kind of “unofficial” (for obvious reasons) claim of involvement from Russia.
The US has been involved into a proxy war in Iraq and Syria with ISIS.
Now that ISIS is defeated. It seems that the US is directly in a clash with Iran and Russia in the ME front.
Soleimani is seen by Russia as an ally in Syria and beyond with direct link to Putin.
And allegedly Soleimani went to meet VVP personnaly and plead for Russian involvement in Syria.
My 2 cents is that D’Andrea killing is true. And that it is Iranian and Russian joined operation.
The US action seems desperate, unconsistent and detached from reality with such as the Deal of the Century. Trump policy in the ME is in disarray.
Dangerous times indeed.
“The US has been involved into a proxy war in Iraq and Syria with ISIS.
Now that ISIS is defeated. It seems that the US is directly in a clash with Iran and Russia in the ME front.”
This comment itself is detached from reality.
America has been involved in a proxy war with ISIS and other jihadists as de facto US allies against Iraq and Syria.
ISIS has been defeated thanks to Syria, Iran, Russia, Iraq, Hisbollah and their allies, while America and its Coalition crime partners have been covertly and overtly arming and financing these jihadist groups as part of their malevolent strategy to regime change or balkanize Syria and Iraq.
This was called Operation Timber Sycamore and has been ongoing for years.
US and Gulf allies supported Islamist extremists in Syria, Qatar’s ex-prime minister admits, bolstering growing evidence
https://thegrayzone.com/2017/06/16/us-gulf-islamist-extremists-in-syria-qatar/
The US has backed 21 of the 28 ‘crazy’ militias leading Turkey’s brutal invasion of northern Syria
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/10/16/us-backed-crazy-militias-turkeys-invasion-syria/
Thank you for adding relevant information and clearing up some inconsistencies here.
“America has been involved in a proxy war with ISIS and other jihadists as de facto US allies against Iraq and Syria.”
Sure that was what I meant. Not the the other way arround.
You should climb down 1 notch.
Max disinfo Blumenthal? Really?
Every single word written by that person needs to be fact checked. Every time.
Nobody REALLY knows the whole truth, yet.
Dangerous times indeed!
I feel SO overwhelmed, more often than not…
But even so, my faith is strong that Goodness and Truth will ultimately prevail.
What does the Christian Bible prophecy about Satan’s Diabolical One World Order?
America is very good at starting wars, especially against weaker adversaries. However, their greatest weakness is not knowing how to win wars where they impose occupation costing extensive outlays without any obvious return on the investment. Knowing when to end a war is far more important than when to start a war. Wise men do not dance with elephants!
@Dick,
That is the popular view, however the real ‘Wars’ are fought in the sphere of Chaos that few can fathom.
The CIA/MI6/MOSSAD have been reshapping the Middle East since they took over from the British Empire (who established Israel as a State do not forget in 1947).
The idea is not to ‘win’ a war in the tradditional sence, but to deny the area to the indiginous population in terms of self-government and natural development / progress, and also any other nation who would seek to trade with the indiginous people.
Through apparent ‘Chaos’ a reordering of the old into a new ‘ordered’ shape takes place so slowly and so subtle that barely 1 person in 100 can see it (and 1 in 1000 understand it).
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA in American) was being rehaped into the North African and Middle Eastern Union (with Greater Israel being the dominant power and the resources of Eygpt and Libya, and with a massive NATO force in Greater Kurdistan ‘containing’ Russia and what was left of Iran).
This was to be the ‘order from chaos’, following the infamous ‘Ordo Ab Chao’ motto of the US deepstate.
The plan to dominate and create change hidden by chaos is above the need to win. Once people recognise that, and of course the century old plan for Greater Israel and Greater Kurdistan, the seemingly strange or incompetant behavior of both the US and Israel in the region becomes crystal clear.
Peace to all.
I call it “Satan’s clever mission-creep”. And it’s not just in the Middle East.
Over the span of thousands of years, hard-working Satan has successfully stolen more control and more territory from all of the sane and righteous creatures in this troubled and greatly deceived world.
What do I really know, but my best guess is that Satan already owns total control of the minds of about 65% of the world’s entire current human population.
Seems like a matter of the insane majority against the sane minority!
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst: Satan is likely to continue increasing his success rate all the way to the exponential tipping point.
@Humble Student,
It is good to see that you have the eyes to se what barely 1 in 1000 can, which is the centuries long ‘Great Works’ of global control / domination.
Very few people can comprehend plans and strategies that are longer than one single life span, perhaps 2 at best with great engineering or military plans and strategies.
This relative short-sightedness is a relatively recent conditioned and programmed (education) problem, which means that the very concept of centuries old or even milenia old plans is simply inconprehensible to the majority of people.
Even otherwise intelligent and well educated people struggle to see this, indeed if you try and explain these ‘great works’ / multi-generational plans and strategies to them they either think you are crazy or simply ignore you – even if comprehensive evidence is provided.
I have studied both Islamic and Christian Eschatology for years, and have even studies elements of Luciferianism (know thy enemy) so the plan is quite clear to me. It is actually a brilliant strategy (Diabolically Brilliant), so much so that it is no real suprise that the average person who has to work for a living simply does not have the time to study this ‘Great Works’.
Without going into too much depth, and so that other people can begin to ‘see’ what you and I can see, I will quickly point out the obvious:
The very top of the management / political / military tree direct the so called enligtened groups and globalists to ensure that the masses consent / submit to thier plan.
The minions at the lower levels of the pyramid are simply following a very well prepared and sophisticated plan, which has been compartmentalised so that very few indeed can see the extent of the plans and how it intersects with seemingly unconnected projects / events / wars elsewhere.
In Eschatological terms the end the plan is to ‘rejoin what has been cut asunder by God’. The elite / globalists / technocrats will create thier ‘New World’ by bringing order from todays chaos. For example stated goals include:
“Unite mankind as one people, under one great human nation, under one set of universal laws, under one god, with world peace and life in harmony with nature”.
Sounds quite reasonable to the uninformed, does it not?
But as you and I know it is basically a retelling of the Satanic/Luciferian goal creating a global prison planet of drones with no racial or culteral identity, with a drastically reduced human population with nature given priority over Humans, and unarmed slaves supporting a tiny elite of technocrats who worship Satan/Lucifer – with CONSENT.
Consent is key to this – people will readily consent to slavery (give up all rights for the greater good, work for tokens and digits instead of Biblical and Islamic money which is Gold and Silver), submit to evil practices prohibited by the Bible and Quran (such as LGBT, abortion / infanticide, speaking with spirits, etc), rejection of God (and embracing of new ‘gods’), and the belief that Man can be as a god (Transhumanism).
As for the Kingdom of Satan / Lucifer, and how long this has been in the planning, we need look at only the growing global Unification process. It is actually very old:
Few people can see that:
1) The nations of the the British Isles were smashed apart by chaos and war to be UNITED as the United Kingdom,
2) The indiginous nations of North America were destroyed by war and chaos to be formed into the states that through more chaos would be UNITED as the United States.
3) The ancient nations and states of the continent of Europe were crushed through x2 Great World Wars to be later forced together to be UNITED as the United States of Europe – renamed the European Union.
4) North Africa and the Middle East are currently being smashed apart and destroyed through wars and chaos, with the clear plan to redraw the map and UNITE what is left as the Middle East and North African Union (United states of MENA).
5) All the UNITED nations will become UNITED as a great Kingdom / Superstate, eventually under one leader. The Superstate will dominate the planet and slowly gobal up lesser nations (even Russia and China if they are not destroyed by war with the Superstate).
6) All nations of the World were UNITED financially through global currency – Currently the US Dollar but soon to be replaced with something digital (meaning acceptance of a device or even implanted chip / bio-electric mark to use it).
7) All nations UNITED through One Voice / Language – Currently ‘Internet English’, but may be something new in the future.
I could go on but I hope people can see the plan – and more importantly that it is a very LONG plan.
I hope the above very simple comment helps some people to see the truth.
Peace and Blessings to all.
America is a sore loser. They will jump up and down and scream and cry and blame somebody or something for losing but there is nothing they can do in this case. I saw an issue of The Week way back when the Empire invaded Iraq that a cover showing a helicopter with a rope ladder hovering over the roof of a Mosque and GIs and civilians in a line waiting to climb it. That is going to actually happen in the not too distant future.