Since World War II,
there has been a raging battle between secular pan-Arabism
and its enemy, pan-Islamicism, in the Middle East.
Supporting the latter, a coalition:
Turkey, Iran, the United States, Israel, Qatar, Britain
and (sometimes) Saudi Arabia.
This battle has been waged under the cover of, first,
anti-communism, then, pro-democracy Arab Spring and
a fictitious Sunni vs. Sunni conflict.


Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States

"While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." -Wikileaks, Correspondance between John Podesta and Hillary Clinton, August 2014

"Qatar, Turkey and Iran -- which is not part of the 10-state coalition -- have lent their backing to Islamist groups, though none has publicly supported Islamic State." -Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2014

"Obama confers with Turkish, Qatari leaders on Libya: The Obama administration wants to shift the United States out of the lead role for military intervention in [secular] Libya." -March 22, 2011, Reuters

Youtube, Time code: 53.24
On Thursday, October 2, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden:
"Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. The Turks....the Saudis, the Emirates, etcetera... What were they doing? ....They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad -- except that the people who were being supplied, [they] were al-Nusra, and al-Qaeda, and the extremist elements of jihadis who were coming from other parts of the world.....Where did all of this go? So now that's happening, all of a sudden, everybody is awakened because this outfit called ISIL, which was al-Qaeda in Iraq, when they were essentially thrown out of Iraq, found open space and territory in [eastern] Syria, [and they] work with al-Nusra, who we declared a terrorist group early on. And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them."

Declassifed Defense Department document:
"There is a possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want..."

"Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?
.... In 2002, we destroyed Iran's main Sunni foe in Afghanistan (the Taliban regime).
In 2003, we destroyed Iran's main Sunni foe in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein).
.... That is why Tehran's proxies now indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad."
New York Times March 18, 2015
Thomas L. Friedman Op-Ed Columnist

Controlled Blunders Will Create the Islamic Empire
Rock Creek Free Press
January 27, 2007

By K. Rosenbaum

The U.S. government is willing to acknowledge supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan because there was an anti-communist justification. The U.S. openly supports Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, because they are stable and have precious oil. What about all the other countries of the Islamic Crescent?

The U.S. supported Iran's fundamentalists through the 1980s to help free hostages and after they were released. Robert Dreyfus in his book "Devil's Game" details U.S. Cold War support for Islamic groups and governments, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. According to US documents, the stated purpose for the support was to counter the influence of the Soviet Union. In Palestine, U.S. support for Hamas was justified to counter the influence of the Fattah movement and Arafat.

Click for audio/video
But after the Cold War ended and the excuses were no longer valid, the policy of supporting Islamic Fundamentalists continued. Congressman Jim McDermott admitted on CNN's Crossfire (9/10/2002) that the U.S. supported the Taliban's installation under Clinton during the 1990s. According to a 2006 RAND report, CIA support for the Taliban in Pakistan is still strong. At the same time U.S. soldiers are fighting them in Afghanistan; the CIA is funding and training them in Quetta. Does this make sense?

Most Americans readily accept a confession of government incompetence, because they do not believe supporting fundamentalism would benefit America. But creating a Union of Islamic States (UIS) does benefit the American elites and England's financial Lords which is why it is being covertly pursued. When pan-Islamicism forms, the standard liberal explanation will be, "U.S. blunders contributed, but it was the natural tendency of the Muslim resurgence that created it."

What is really the natural tendency of Middle East leadership?

There are three kinds of governments in the Middle East. First, there is the parliamentary secular democracy, almost always with socialist and nationalist leanings, such as the Mossadeq government in Iran before the famous 1953 CIA coup. Second, there is the secular dictatorship or monarchy, usually again with socialist leanings. Examples of these regimes are Saddam Hussein of pre-invasion Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Assad in Syria and the Shah in Iran. The U.S. supported many of these governments enthusiastically while simultaneously supporting the third type, Fundamentalist Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and present day Iran.

We are told that the natural tendency of Muslims is to move towards the third type, Islamic Governments. The proof is in plain sight, we're told, with the elected Muslim Brothers in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, emergence of Shiite power in Iraq, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. But the US has been covertly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Taliban. Just recently during June of 2005, Condoleezza Rice told the Egyptian President to open Egypt's elections. Before then, the Brotherhood had been refused parliamentary seats. Now they hold a share of power thanks to Rice. A similar situation happened with Hamas when Bush asked for open elections in Palestine. Is this caused by the natural tendency of Muslims to support religious leaders?

The last time religious leaders ruled across the Middle East was during western colonialism. Before WWII, religious monarchs such as those still in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait occupied almost every nation in the region, and all were pawns of either France or Britain.

The west lost control of the Middle East immediately after WWII when monarchies were overthrown and replaced with secular socialist democracies. The CIA quickly replaced many new democracies with dictatorships, starting with Iran in 1953. For most of these countries, there was no Islamic base after WWII to restore a religious government, so an intermediary dictator was installed. In order to gain cooperation from the people, the regime often had socialist leanings, as in the case of Saddam Hussein from the socialist Baathist party. Health care and universities were almost free in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Saddam's Iraq. Women generally had access to good jobs and higher education.

Ayatollah Khomeini arrives in Iran
delivered on French Military plane February 1, 1979
Yet while supporting these dictatorships, the West covertly supported an Islamicist opposition, and in some cases, these Islamicists have already come to power. The support is usually a two-path approach. The first path is direct covert support of Islamicists, always with the excuse of fighting Communism, or under the cover of policy blunders. Path two is to publicly support the opposition to Islamicism, so secularists will inadvertently help the West restore a religious government.

In Iraq, the U.S. is in the process of replacing a secular dictator with an Islamic government. This will be attributed to "missteps" and incompetence on the part of the U.S. but the current chaos in Iraq is clearly the result of what the Pentagon called the "Salvador Option." According to online Newsweek (1/14/2005), "The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq." The death squad attacks on religious sites and markets should be familiar to our ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, because he was running these same types of operations in Latin America under Reagan.

Finally we come to Iran, the most important player of the US game. A June 24, 2005 London Financial Times article titled, "US hawks rooting for hard-line Iranian candidate" stated that while Dick Cheney is secretly supporting the religious candidate, Bush was publicly supporting the progressive candidate. Bush's opposition and rhetoric has had the effect of helping Ahmadinejad gain power and influence throughout the Middle East. Now stepping in to save Bush in his Iraq war blunder is James Baker, Robert Gates, Blair, and the Study Group. Their plan involves Iran gaining influence over Iraq. Back in May 2004, it was revealed that Ahmed Chalabi's loyalties were to Iran, yet we [the United States] continued to support Chalabi's installation to leadership in Iraq.

During the Iran-Contra affair, the weapons destined for Iran were funneled through Israel. An August 28, 2002, headline read, "Germany holds up Israeli military shipment said headed for Iran." The excuses have run out, but the UIS (Union of Islamic States) is just around the corner.

Copyright 2007

Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam


Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States

"Mideast identity politics more than Sunni-Shia schism: What scares so many regimes is the possibility of a united opposition, so every opportunity is taken to split them by identity including sect."
-Chris Doyle, London Financial Times, August 1, 2013

"The myth of the 1,400 year Sunni-Shia war: The 'Sunni-Shia conflict' narrative is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst, suggests author."
-Murtaza Hussain, Al Jazeera, July 9, 2013

"Palestinian [Sunni] Hamas says it has 'resumed' ties with [Shiite] Iran"
- AFP, December 9, 2013

"Iraq pulls licenses of [Qatari] Al-Jazeera, other channels: In a statement posted on its website, the commission blamed the banned stations for the escalation of a sectarian backdrop that is fueling the violence that followed the deadly clashes at the Hawija camp on Tuesday."
- Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press, April 28, 2013

More about the "Coalition of the Willing" to divide Iraq into 3 states