Showing posts with label sectarian. Show all posts

Saturday, July 1, 2017

The Sunni Horn is Destroyed (Daniel 8)

Khamenei’s representative says Islamic state’s Baghdadi ‘definitely dead’: IRNA
A man purported to be the reclusive leader of the militant Islamic State Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has made what would be his first public appearance at a mosque in the centre of Iraq’s second city, Mosul, according to a video recording posted on the Internet on July 5, 2014, in this still image taken from video. REUTERS/Social Meda Website via Reuters TV
Iran’s state news agency quoted a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday as saying Islamic State’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was “definitely dead”.
“Terrorist Baghdadi is definitely dead,” IRNA quoted cleric Ali Shirazi, representative to the Quds Force, as saying, without elaborating. IRNA later updated the news item, omitting the quote on Baghdadi’s death.
The Quds Force is in charge of operations outside Iran’s borders by the country’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iranian Foreign Ministry officials were not available to comment on the report of Baghdadi’s death.
The secretive Islamic State leader has frequently been reported killed or wounded since he declared a caliphate to rule over all Muslims from a mosque in Mosul in 2014, after his fighters seized large areas of northern Iraq.
Russia said on June 17 its forces might have killed Baghdadi in an air strike in Syria. Washington said on Thursday it had no information to corroborate such reports. Iraqi officials have also been skeptical in recent weeks.
(Writing by Parisa Hafezi; editing by Andrew Roche)

Sunday, June 25, 2017

The Sunni and Shia Horns

Writing in the Guardian, Ali Akbar Salehi said “lavish arms purchases” by regional actors – a reference to the Saudi purchase of $100bn of US arms during Donald Trump’s recent visit to Riyadh – would be seen as provocative in Tehran and that it would be unrealistic to expect Iran to remain “indifferent”.
Salehi, an MIT graduate scientist who has also served as foreign minister, was the second most senior Iranian negotiator, dealing with technical aspects, during nearly two years of talks between Tehran and six of the world’s major powers that led to the final nuclear accord in Vienna in July 2015.
Although Trump has promised to “dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran”, he has not so far taken any concrete steps to scrap it. Last month, two days before Iran’s presidential election, his administration announced that it was continuing to waive nuclear-related sanctions under the agreement despite Washington toughening up its overall Iran policy.
Salehi said it was possible to rescue the deal’s engagement if it was met with reciprocal gestures. “Often following hard-won engagement, some western nations, whether distracted by short-sighted political motivations or the lucrative inducements of regional actors, walk away and allow the whole situation to return to the status quo ante,” wrote Salehi, who is also a vice-president of Iran.
Salehi warned of “chaotic behaviour” and “further tension and conflict” if the other side disregarded Iran’s security concerns, failed to adhere to its commitments and insisted on what he called alternative facts including ideas such as the “clash of civilisations”, “Sunni-Shia conflict”, “Persian-Arab enmity” and the “Arab-Israeli axis against Iran”.
His article comes at a time of simmering tensions in the Middle East, where relations between Tehran and Riyadh, which are on opposite sides of many regional conflicts such as the wars in Syria and Yemen, have deteriorated.
Trump’s first post-election foreign trip to Riyadh tilted the regional balance, and contributed in part to the diplomatic isolation of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and its allies, who have accused the tiny emirate of funding terrorists and appeasing Iran. Meanwhile, in Syria, Iran-backed militias and a coalition of forces led by Washington have collided a number of times in recent weeks while fighting Islamic State.
“Stoking Iranophobia” or failure to deliver on promises under the deal would jeopardise engagement, Salehi wrote. “We would all end up back at square one,” he cautioned. “Unfortunately, as things stand at the moment in the region, reaching a new state of equilibrium might simply be beyond reach for the foreseeable future.”
Salehi urged the outside world to take heed of the results of last month’s Iranian presidential election and the message Iranians sent, but he said “engagement is simply not a one-way street and we cannot go it alone”.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Iran Is Correct: We Created ISIS

Iran blames US for creating ISIS amid worsening Middle East tensions

By James Griffiths and Hamdi Alkhshali, CNN

Updated 4:22 AM ET, Tue June 13, 2017

(CNN)Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has blamed the US for creating ISIS and fostering instability in the Middle East amid an ongoing crisis in the region.

CNN’s Katie Polglase and Katie Hunt contributed reporting.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Antichrist's Men Trained By The First Horn (Daniel 8:3)

Hezbollah fighters train Iraqi Shiite militants near Mosul

Hezbollah A video surfaced this week which purports to show Lebanese Hezbollah fighters present on the outskirts of the Iraqi city of Mosul. The footage, published by Pan-Arab news site Al-Araby Al-Jaeed, was reportedly filmed in al-Zarka, approximately 30 miles southwest of Mosul, where thousands of Shiite militia fighters have assembled. Though the fighters, seen in the video training Iraqi Shiite militiamen to fire mortar shells, are not wearing their militia’s insignia, their distinct southern Lebanese accents betray their membership in the Lebanon-based Iranian proxy group.

According to the video’s accompanying report, an unnamed Iraqi Shiite militant said that the Hezbollah fighters arrived in the area days earlier to reinforce local Shiite fighters.

“[Hezbollah chief] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah sent them to support us, for Syria and Iraq are all on one side,” he said.

Hezbollah’s intervention in Iraq is not new, its fighters and advisors have been on the ground since the outset of the Iranian-led fight against the Islamic State. Hezbollah has been sending highly trained military experts to help in managing the battles against the extremist Sunni organization. Their presence was made known in late 2014, when Hezbollah commander Ibrahim al Hajj was killed fighting against the Islamic State in northern Iraq’s Tel Afar. Nasrallah himself finally acknowledged sending Hezbollah’s fighters to Iraq in a 2015 speech, describing the organization’s presence at the time as small and “in its earliest stages.” He also issued an invitation for volunteers to join them there to fight ISIS.

Since then, Hezbollah appears to have stepped up its involvement in Iraq. In late April, Hussein Yazadan, a Kurdish military official, alleged that the Shiite organization had deployed 1,000 fighters to the city of Kirkukon – approximately 100 miles southeast of Mosul – on Iranian orders and were concentrating in the nearby town of Taza Khurmatu. Led by an Islamic Revolution Guard Corps–Quds Force (IRGC-QF) commander, the Hezbollah guerillas arrived in the area to provide support for the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) fighters as part of Iran’s attempt to solidify its control over both oil-rich cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, and establish a land-bridge to the Syrian border. Yazadan said that the Hezbollah fighters were wearing PMF uniforms in an effort to conceal their identity. At the time, Hezbollah denied having sent such a large contingent of fighters to Iraq, instead claiming it had sent the PMF dozens of military experts and trainers months prior to Yazadan’s warning.

Hezbollah’s Iraqi presence actually predates the rise of ISIS by a decade, going back to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Hezbollah developed its own insurgent capability in Iraq, engaging in assassinations, kidnappings and bombings. At Iran’s behest, Hezbollah also created Unit 3800, an external operations unit to train and assist Iraqi Shiite militias – known as the “Special Groups” – fighting against US and multinational forces. In fact, the group is even rumored to have sent its late legendary military commander Imad Mughniyeh to Iraq in early 2006 to help train members of the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia led by Muqtada al-Sadr.

However, the key figure in this effort by Hezbollah was Ali Musa Daqdouq.

Daqdouq joined the Shiite organization in its early days in 1983 and quickly rose to commend its Special Operations Unit 2800, Unit 3800’s predecessor. In May 2006, Daqdouq was sent to Iran to coordinate the Special Groups’ training program with the IRGC-QF, and make periodic visits to Iraq. Daqdouq trained Iraqi militants in carrying out terrorist operations, including the IED attacks, especially using Explosively Formed Penetrators, which Hezbollah excelled at using against Israel during the IDF’s 15-year occupation of south Lebanon. He also trained them to use mortars, rockets and sniper rifles, as well as carrying out intelligence and kidnapping operations.

US forces finally captured Daqdouq in March 2007, along with the leader of the Asa’ib Ahl Al-Haq Shiite militia, which carried out the Jan. 2007 attack on the Karbala Joint Provincial Coordination Center. Five US soldiers were captured during the attack and later executed.

Currently, Hezbollah’s activities in Iraq are being led by Muhammad Kawarithmi, who works on behalf of the group’s leadership to promote its interests in Iraq. Through Kawarithmi, the organization continues to provide training, funding, political and logistical support to Iraqi Shiite militant groups.

David Daoud is an Arabic-Language Analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Friday, October 28, 2016

The Sunni versus the Shia Horn

Imam Khamenei: Saudi Killing of Yemeni People Worst Type of Terrorism

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei says Saudi Arabia’s killing of Yemenis is “the worst type of terrorism.”

“Terrorism is not defined as terror acts committed by some groups only, but massacres at the hands of certain governments, such as the Saudi attack on people in a mourning procession in Yemen which left hundreds killed and injured, is the worst type of terrorism,” the Leader said in a meeting with visiting Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in Tehran on Wednesday.

Ayatollah Khamenei also described terrorism as one of the “painful” sufferings gripping the human society, and called for a sincere fight against the scourge.

“Countering terrorism needs the serious resolve of all those who have an influence within global powers,” the Leader said, calling on world pundits and governments to take measures to deal with the phenomenon.

Ayatollah Khamenei also said the US and certain Western countries are not sincere in the fight against terrorism.

“These governments calculate all issues based on their own interests, and they do not think about eradicating the malady of terrorism in Iraq or Syria,” the Leader added.

Ayatollah Khamenei further criticized UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s failure to end and condemn the Saudi war on Yemen.

“The UN secretary general said explicitly that it is not possible for the body to condemn the killing of Yemeni children as the UN depends on the Saudi government’s money,” the Leader said, stressing this approach is indicative of the “wretched ethical status” of politicians at the helm of international organizations.

Source: Press TV

Saturday, October 22, 2016

How Obama Created The Libyan Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8)

FIVE YEARS LATER, KILL MUAMMAR GADDAFI WAS A MISTAKE

The country is still in chaos, five years after the fall of former Libyan dictator October 20, 2011.

This article appeared on Slate.fr October 24, 2011 . We are republishing this October 20 on the occasion of five years of the death of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi .

***************

Yielding to a feeling of overwhelming helplessness and vague absurdity, I borrowed an iPad Thursday afternoon to send my very first message with this tool. It was addressed to one of these distinguished French who asked the most active on the international community to dislodge Muammar Gaddafi from his obscene toad position in which, for over forty years, it is spread over the life of the people Libyan. Please, I wrote, intercede with your friends from the National Transitional Council , as well as with any of the revolutionary tribunal to be constituted, to stop the killing of Gaddafi family and ensure a smooth transition to the bench defendants from the Hague to those already charged with crimes against humanity.

A implicitly desired removal

Rather simple? This is a moment that the International Criminal Court in The Hague announced that it was ready to take charge of affairs of Libya. But now Gaddafi is dead and, it seems, that one of his son, Mouatassim [confirmed information from the writing of this article, ndt], and not a word about the legality or propriety of all this case has yet been uttered. No Libyan spokesman has even referred to the court in the ads of the late dictator disgusting.

The president of the United States made a speech that suggested the possibility of an indictment had not even been mentioned. And it was in this perfectly followed by his secretary of state, returning from a trip to Libya, who settled for a few joyful projections, noting in particular that the transition would be facilitated if Gaddafi were to die . British Prime Minister David Cameron, who has yet found time to mention the victims of international terror years of Gaddafi , has also failed to mention the possibility of a lawsuit.

This tacit agreement, among others, convinces me that no sort of general instruction was ever given to the forces tightened their noose on Gaddafi in his hometown of Sirte. No instructions like, kill it if absolutely necessary, but try to stop it and send it (along with others mentioned by name, be it family members or not) in the Netherlands. In any case, it seems certain that if an order of this style has been formulated, it has not been very strong.

Between revenge and healthy reconstruction

While ends obscene regime, which notably showed that he preferred to destroy society and the state, rather than give up power, it is very natural that people aspire to a kind of exorcism. It is satisfying to see the cadaver of the monster and make sure it will not come back. It is also reassuring to know that there is no leadership to which hate any kind of resistance “werewolf” could converge to perpetuate suffering and atrocities. But when he was killed, Gaddafi was wounded and out of harm’s way, and at the head of a small group of thugs terrified.

He was unable to resist in any way. And all positive results that I mentioned above could have been obtained by working simply to send it to the hospital and then in jail and from there to the airport. Indeed, a small living Gaddafi on the dock would surely have done much to enhance the positive impact, as the illusions of the poor misguided souls who were still trust him would not have survived shoplifting, even for a few hours , the mad ramblings of court.

And here is born the new Libya, including the birth is marked by a sordid lynching. Media correspondents did not hide a certain enthusiasm for the spirit of general tolerance shown by the rebels in the faithful location of Gaddafi and their property. This makes it even more regrettable that this principle could not be honored when it was most crucial. As I write this, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi , a son of Muammar, is still at large. This would be a real shame if he were also killed without any trial, or at least the NTC and the international community do not remind their soldiers he must be legally stopped.

My intention is not to show undue sympathy Saif or other wanted persons. But he, in particular, is the repository of a huge amount of potentially useful information about the nature of the fallen regime and perhaps even hiding concealing material strategic-not to mention the huge sums of money, property right of the Libyan people. It would be criminal in every sense, to participate in the destruction of evidence. And I have to clarify that Gaddafi grandfather utility in the still underdeveloped field of the study of megalomania had no price. Yet countless victims will have no other satisfaction than seeing a character wandering bloodied and treated with brutality and in full panic, whose sufferings were cut short by a shot that has absolutely nothing brought to safety from the country.

I was in Romania on the day that Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were hastily done , and Mosul yesterday from where Uday and Qusay Hussein were trapped, strafed and bombed fatally in a house without issue. In both cases, the relief felt by the population was palpable. There is no doubt that public disposal of old symbols of torture and fear has an emancipating effect, at least in the short term.

But I would say its profits decline rapidly, which became evident in Iraq when unpolished acolytes of Muqtada al-Sadr were instructed to drive the execution of Saddam Hussein . Sectarian scars of this sordid episode sloppy are still apparent, and I would be very surprised if the same kind of resentment was not born among many Libyans on Thursday. It is too late to repair. But it would be a shame that the Gaddafi family continues to be decimated, and insulting that the summons to the Hague remains ignored.

By Christopher Hitchens

Friday, September 30, 2016

ISIS Was Created By US

Daesh Owes Its Existence to US 'Philosophy of Dominance' Which Led to Iraq War

Sputnik
© 1st Lt. Daniel Johnson / dvidshub.net
War Crime? American Forces Caught Using White Phosphorus Munitions in Iraq
In an interview with Sputnik, filmmaker Jacques Charmelot said that the 2003 takeover of Iraq by the United States ultimately resulted in the emergence of the terrorist group currently known as Daesh, the self-proclaimed caliphate alternately known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.
Charmelot, who worked as a journalist in the Middle East, the Balkans and Africa, is also known for directing the documentary 'Irak, une veritable imposture' (Iraq, real imposture).

According to him, Washington's intervention in Iraq was based on a false pretext and driven by its perpetrators' personal financial ambitions.

"The intervention was certainly a mistake for the Americans, who suffered losses in Iraq, but it was not a mistake for those who capitalized on the three or five trillion dollars that was spent [on the Iraq War]," he said.

In this vein, he pointed the finger at the neo-conservatives, whom he described as "a group of ideologists who have been the pivot element of American power since the end of the Cold War."

"They believe that the disappearance of (America's) main rival meant that the US became the first and only world power and that [its might] should be used for effectively protecting American interests across the world," Charmelot said.

In his opinion, "the philosophy of dominance" related to the US's fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons which resulted in the protracted war.

"The US decided to fight countries that were involved with nuclear technology, in what would finally lead to a confrontation with Iraq or with Iran, which are seen as enemies. This fight against nuclear proliferation along with the US fight against terrorism which started in 2011 helped the neoconservatives to draw the country into a permanent war," according to him.

"As far as the US's interference in Iraq is concerned, it contributed considerably to the emergence of the extremist militants, called the Islamic State today and al-Qaeda yesterday. These extremists will long be the main actors in the Middle East's geopolitical game," he concluded.

Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has said that Washington is deploying an additional 615 soldiers to allegedly support Iraq's military in retaking the Daesh-held northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

Six Years Later: Is Iraq Free From US Campaign of Endless War?
According to Carter, the soldiers in the new deployment will serve in roles the US Defense Department describes as advice, assist, logistics and intelligence.
In July, Carter sent 560 US soldiers, mostly engineers and support personnel, to rebuild Iraq's al-Asad Airbase and the Qayyarah Airbase, which were heavily damaged by US-led coalition artillery and aircraft fire during operations to dislodge Daesh terrorists.

The United States currently has about 5,200 military personnel in Iraq.

Mosul, one of the largest cities in Iraq, along with a number of other northern and western Iraqi towns and cities, were seized in 2014 during a Daesh offensive which saw the execution of hundreds of captured Iraqi soldiers. Daesh has been condemned by Russia, the United States and other nations.

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

The Antichrist and Shiism (Revelation 13:18)

Iraq and the dead-end road to political resolution

Over the past two years the core foundation of the Iraqi Shiite camp was shaken more than once following the impact of events and alterations occurring in the political scene and balance of power among political players, diminishing the role of some and opening the door to newcomers to the scene. At the time, the results that granted the former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the parliamentary majority and the constitutional right to form the government were considered a victory for the new Shiite political forces in face of the traditional religious authorities.

However, the anti-coalition formed by the remaining political and religious parties and who pushed toward depriving al-Maliki from a third term, partly succeeded in its goals by excluding al-Maliki from the prime minister position, and thus re-shuffled the cards inside the Shiite camp, and sparked a crisis whose chapters continued to follow. Also, the representation of Shiite political forces inside the Iraqi parliament following that election established a situation of malfunction and imbalance in the political system, at least inside the Shiite camp, caused by the difference between the real weights of the political forces in the street and their representative quotas in the parliament. And perhaps, this introduction can play the role of a starting point to keep track of the political movement that stands behind the recent protests, in particular Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers.

The Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr declared himself after the election results the spearhead of the attack on al-Maliki, in a turn against the ambiguous alliance between them, whose signs started to show before the election. al-Sadr entering the line and fiercely taking the lead of the battle to exclude al-Maliki necessitated a quick Iranian intervention to contain the repercussions of the crisis and to prevent any further rifts inside the Shiite campaign, thus sacrificing the constitutional right that grants its first Iraqi ally Nouri al-Maliki the right to form a government, and declaring its support for the fragile coalition leading to the nomination of Haider al-Abadi, the nominee of the Islamic Da’wa party for the prime minister position. However the anti-Maliki Shiite coalition led by al-Sadr, considered that the priority was to dismantle the Pro-Maliki system from the Iraqi official bodies since it embodies the corruption and mismanagement in the state, a system which al-Maliki set and developed since he first became the Iraqi prime minister in 2006, by allocating position of power and privileges in different sections of the state apparatus for his allies and those close to him. Moreover, the significant decline in oil prices, that represents almost the only source of income in the country, the resulting aggravation of the economic problems, a budget deficit reaching 25%, and the fall of Mosul in the hand of the Islamic state in a shocking scene fanned the flame of the official and popular anger toward all what was happening, increased the tension among the different parties, and contributed to the charged atmosphere which led to the recent protests earlier this year. Before the February 2016 protests, the Prime-Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi adopted a neutral stance toward the polarized state between al-Maliki and his allies on one hand, and the opponents camp led by al-Sadr on the other. However, under the pretext of responding to the protests in the streets, his position became closer to that of al-Sadr camp, the thing that helped reaching consensus over the formation of a government of technocrats from the competent elite in charge of pulling the country out of the crisis.

Although this government received the support and the endorsement of several religious and political parties, most notably the Shiite Islamic Marja’ Ali al-Sistani, al-Maliki, and Moqtada al-Sadr, the Sadrist movement leader, who ended the two-weeks-strike carried by his supporters front of the gates of the Green Zone, however it has angered other parties of the front that backed al-Abadi for the Prime Minister position, especially the Islamic Supreme Council headed by Ammar al-Hakim, who own a large parliamentary bloc in the current Iraqi parliament.

The rift within the Shiite camp deepened after al-Abadi failed to pass the technocrat government, both in its first form or after the subsequent modifications which made it a multiparty technocrat government as an answer to al-Hakim demands. The religious authority in Najaf, in what many observers interpreted as a reflection of its frustration and a retreat from endorsing al-Abadi, announced that it will no longer give its weekly political statement regarding current affairs. Also, al-Abadi’s hesitation and his failed attempt to satisfy all parties has backfired.

As for al-Sadr, and in attempt to dominate the Shiite popular street and proclaiming himself its ultimate leader, he appeased the demands of the recent protest movement to the point of hyperbole populism and extremism which does not leave any space for political action, and it is impossible for al-Abadi to adopt or keep up with.

Moreover al-Sadr was able to attract a good portion of secular and nationalist Iraqis, now that his differences with Iran has surfaced, coupled with his history in resisting the American occupation, especially since he worked hard in the last two years on presenting himself as an Iraqi nationalist leader who went past the sectarian limits, In spite of all the show-off enormity in his quest to lead the protest movement. Besides, the course of events shows a possible imminent convergence between al-Maliki and al-Hakim, which could lead to an agreement pushing toward removing al-Abadi and replacing him with another candidates whose political problem is limited to the preparation for the 2018 elections, and so al-Abadi and his Allies’ struggling attempt, which many parties felt threaten by in the past two years, will be buried once and for all.

In addition to all this, the preparations for the liberation of Fallujah, which aimed to dismantle the most important stronghold of Sunni Jihadist in Iraq, has turned into a symbol for Shiite and national alignment, giving the new Shiite militias entering the Iraqi scene to reap more popularity and legitimacy for its political and military role, which means new Iranian power in the Iraqi scene due to this groups direct subordination to Iran, whether by strengthening the presence of these militias in the scene, or by Iranian pro-forces taking over various states agencies, especially since the Popular Mobilization Forces, which was formed from Shiite militant factions has been adopted as a reserve Military force under the government’s command.

The political Shiite class, in the first years that followed the US invasion of Iraq, took advantage of the international support it has gained, in addition to the financial receipts that flowed from Oil sales, and was able to provide through the new political system, mechanisms to contain and absorb wide Shiite social sectors, however, under the weight of international changes, new players storming the Iraqi scene, the escalating financial crisis, and the popular fidgetiness caused by the performance of this class. These mechanisms became weakened and unable to perform its previous role. Now, the new Iraqi generations which were not around in the years when the profits were distributed have stormed the squares, the streets and even the “Green Zone” in an effort to secure their own destinies in a country is begging for its own fate to be secured.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

The Antichrist Appeals to the Iraqi Masses

Iraq rejects proposal to register Shia militia as party

Country’s official electoral commission rejects calls to allow Hashd al-Shaabi to register as party in advance of polls

By Ali Jawad
BAGHDAD

Iraq’s official electoral commission on Sunday rejected proposals to allow the Hashd al-Shaabi, an umbrella group of pro-government Shia militias, to register itself as a political party in advance of elections slated for next year.

The decision came one day after prominent Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared that the country’s next government would be a “government of militias” if the Hashd al-Shaabi were allowed to field candidates in provincial council and parliamentary polls slated for 2017 and 2018 respectively.
In a Sunday statement, the commission said it had based its decision on the fact that the Hashd al-Shaabi constituted a “military organization with links to the [Iraqi] security agencies”.

Iraq’s Political Parties Law, it went on to explain, which was ratified by parliament last year, prohibited the registration of “military or paramilitary organizations” as political parties.

On July 20, the electoral commission began the registration process for political parties that planned to participate in the upcoming elections.

According to Hashd al-Shaabi spokesman Karim al-Nouri, the militia group’s primary responsibility at present was to pursue the fight against the Daesh terrorist organization, which continues to hold large swathes of territory in war-torn Iraq.

“Our presence in the battlefield today is to confront Daesh,” al-Nouri told Anadolu Agency on Sunday.

“We didn’t want to arm ourselves, but the country’s dire security situation forced us to go from a civilian organization to a military one,” he said.

He added: “Several Hashd al-Shaabi leaders, including Hadi al-Amiri [a former Iraqi transport minister and current commander of the Hashd-affiliated Al-Badr Organization] is basically a politician, not a military figure.”

“Our main concern now is pursuing the fight against Daesh,” al-Nouri asserted.

Iraq has suffered a devastating security vacuum since mid-2014, when Daesh captured the northern city of Mosul along with vast swathes of territory in the country’s northern and western regions.
In recent months, the Iraqi army — backed by U.S.-led airstrikes and its allies on the ground, including the Hashd al-Shaabi — has since managed to retake much of the territory lost earlier to Daesh.

Nevertheless, the terrorist group remains in firm control of several parts of the country, including Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city.

Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS), and in summarized form. Please contact us for subscription options.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Antichrist Ousts Defense Minister

Iraqi parliament dismisses defense minister

PressTV

The Iraqi parliament has dismissed Defense Minister Khalid al-Obeidi, who was recently embroiled in a corruption case.

Two unnamed lawmakers told AFP that the Iraqi parliamentarians voted on Thursday to withdraw their confidence from Obeidi by 142 votes to 102 in a secret ballot, while 18 abstained in the 328-seat legislature.

The no-confidence vote came weeks after a bitter feud that erupted between Obeidi and parliament speaker Salim al-Juburi over graft allegations.

On August 1, Obeidi went to the legislature to answer allegations of wasting billions of dollars in public funds and weakening the country’s armed forces in their fight against the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group.

During the questioning, however, he accused Juburi and several lawmakers of corruption.

Obeidi insisted that he was being challenged in retribution for his rejection of corruption, accusing the parliamentarians of seeking to blackmail him in order to pass corrupt deals, including a $1-billion catering contract, a $2.8-billion accord for armored vehicles, and a $421-million pact for US military Humvee vehicles.

On August 9, the Iraqi judiciary closed a corruption case against Juburi, citing a lack of evidence to proceed further.

The developments come as Iraqi Prime Minster Haider al-Abadi has faced calls to reform the country’s political structure in a bid to tackle corruption.

Earlier this year, the parliament was deadlocked for weeks over the premier’s efforts to reshuffle the cabinet.

Iraqi citizens also held sit-ins, called by firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, inside Baghdad’s highly fortified Green Zone aimed at keeping up pressure on the government to change ministers.

This is while the Iraqi army troops and allied volunteer forces are conducting large-scale military operations against the Daesh militants, who have been controlling swathes of land in the northern and western parts of the country since 2014.

The Iraqi army is gearing up for a major offensive in late September to purge Daesh from Mosul, the country’s second city. Iraqi forces have managed to wrest control of several areas in the southern parts of the city, among them the town of Qayyarah.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Antichrist and His Sectarian Army (Rev 13:18)

Sunni fear grows as PMU participation in Mosul battle confirmed

Al Monitor

BAGHDAD — The crisis over the participation of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in the battle for the liberation of Mosul, which will begin soon, has resurfaced. But this time the National Security Council officially agreed July 31 on the PMU participation in this battle. Iran and the United States also support the Iraqi government’s decision to include the PMU in the Mosul battle. US Ambassador to Iraq Stuart E. Jones said Aug. 22 that the participation of the PMU in the Mosul battle is solely an Iraqi decision. Iran’s secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, also supported the participation of the PMU in his meeting with the Iraqi parliament speaker, Salim al-Jabouri, on Aug. 21.

Sunni politicians objected to this approval because they do not want the units to take part. On Aug. 8, the press office of the head of the Mutahidoun bloc, Osama al-Nujaifi, issued a press statement talking about a meeting in Nujaifi’s office between the Sunni coalition and Jones on the same day and discussing several issues, mainly the Sunni stance regarding the PMU participation in the Mosul liberation battle.

The convening leaders of the Sunni blocs asserted that they disapprove of the PMU participation in the battle, claiming that the citizens of Mosul refuse this participation due to the violations committed by factions from the PMU during the liberation of other regions, such as Salahuddin and Fallujah.
The leaders believe that “this participation will send out bad messages to the citizens of Ninevah province and might be considered propaganda for the Islamic State [IS].” Nujaifi repeated his objection to the PMU participation in the Mosul battle in his meeting Aug. 21 with the Kuwait ambassador to Iraq.

Despite the objections to the PMU participation and the accusations against them, the leaders of these forces still insist on participating and could care less about the objectors.

In a quick response to the stance of the Mutahidoun bloc in this regard, member of the PMU Opinion Committee Karim al-Nuri described the meeting between the Sunni politicians and Jones as “shameful,” and said, “The PMU are essential forces that will certainly participate in the Mosul battle.”

In a press statement published Aug. 8 on the official website of the PMU, Nuri said, “The commander in chief of the armed forces, Haider al-Abadi, has decided on the PMU participation in the Mosul liberation battle as it is a military formation affiliated with the Iraqi security institution, and no foreign parties should intervene in the country’s internal affairs. The United States and any other parties cannot forbid the PMU from participating in the battle.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW) had called on the Iraqi army commanders July 31 to forbid militias, i.e., the PMU, that have a dangerous record of violations from participating in military battles in Mosul. HRW wrote, “In order for the government to abide by all possible measures to protect civilians and ensure the respect of the rules of war, it must stop these militias from participating in the Mosul battle.”

In this framework, Joe Stork, the deputy head of the Middle East Department at HRW, said in the same report, “Militias which constitute part of the PMU have committed heinous violations several times on a large scale sometimes, most recently in Fallujah. There were no consequences to their actions despite the government’s promises to launch an investigation. Iraqi leaders must spare civilians in Mosul the huge danger of militias that have a record of violations.”

The PMU participation in the Mosul liberation battle is not the only thing angering Sunnis, who were even more distressed to find out that leader of the Iranian Quds Force Qasem Soleimani might also participate in the battle. Mosul citizens are increasingly concerned about possible violations against them.

PMU spokesman Ahmad al-Asadi said in a statement July 30 that he hopes Soleimani would be present in the Mosul liberation battle because he has largely contributed to the battles against IS. He added that the PMU is so eager to have Soleimani participate that their desire might outweigh the will of the Iraqi government and the citizens of Mosul in regard to the presence of an Iranian official in the battles.

Apparently, Sadrist movement leader Muqtada al-Sadr also refused the participation of the PMU and said Aug. 8, in response to a question by one of his followers, “The Mosul liberation battle must be fully in the hands of the Iraqi security forces. We will not accept for the occupiers [United States] or any other party [PMU] to interfere.”

Sunni politicians and civilians in regions under IS control will not rest as long as there are forces that they think are out there to get them rather than free them, and as long as some armed factions are taking action without the knowledge of the Iraqi government. The latter will not be able to control all activities or forbid all human rights violations.

In case the PMU do participate in the Mosul liberation battle, it is very likely to result in human rights violations and clashes between the Shiite units and the Sunni National Forces that are led by Ninevah province’s former governor, Atheel al-Nujaifi. These factors are enough to obstruct the course of the battle.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

The Sectarian Antichrist (Revelation 13:18)

No freedom if sectarianism alive

The Jordanian Times

Iraqis in Jordan are worried about the fall of Mosul, within the next few weeks, as announced by Baghdad.

The majority of Iraqis here are Shiites; they heard about the atrocities committed by Shiite militias against Sunni families in Fallujah and Tikrit following the liberation of villages from Daesh.
Living in a Sunni ambience in Jordan, Iraqi Shiites issued statements on May 23, 2016, against the rape and pillaging of Fallujah Sunni women by one Shiite militia called Saraya Ansar Al Aqeeda (Supporters of the Creed), led by Jalal All Din Al Saghir, who is member of Hashd Shaabi, or Popular Mobilisation Units, allowed by the Iraqi prime minister to be led by Qassem Suleimani, the notorious Iranian general who commands the Quds Brigades within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.
The Mosul liberation battle will create nearly 1 million refugees, as well as new cases of rape and pillage by the Hashd Shaabi, which does not abide by the discipline of regular army officers.
The ghost of the atrocities in Fallujah against Sunnis haunts these days the Iraqis in Amman who will feel the stigma of shame talking to their Sunni hosts.

Following the fall of Mosul to Daesh in June 2014, and the sudden surrender of four Iraqi army divisions, the supreme spiritual leader of Iraqi Shiites in Najaf, Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, endorsed the formation of militias to guard holy places and protect Karbala shrines.

They total roughly 60,000 fighters distributed among Hizbollah-Iraq, Liwa Al Muntazar, Saraya Ashuraa and Saraya Ansar Al Aqeeda, which is the most vicious of all militias.

Its leader disobeyed Ayatollah Sistani and sent some of his fighters to the civil war in Syria to support Lebanon’s Hizbollah there.

As a mosque preacher, Saghir managed to issue many religious edicts (fatwa) to his followers to challenge the traditional hierarchy of clerics like Muqtada Al Sadr or Ammar Al Hikim of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

A defeat of Daesh in Mosul will be welcome news for many Jordanians and Iraqis. This stigma had marred our religion for centuries to come.

But rabid sectarianism will dominate Iraq and adjacent regions if a repeat of what was committed in Fallujah against Sunnis last year at the hands of the Popular Mobilisation Units militias is allowed to happen now by the revenge-hungry Ansar Al Aqeeda, who want to have a second foray of pillage, plunder and torture of Sunnis.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Khamenei Is Correct: We Created ISIL

Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei Tweets: U.S. Created the Islamic State

Associated Press

Receiving a secret planeload of cash from President Barack Obama does not seem to have improved the mood of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His English-language Twitter account on Wednesday accused the United States of creating and supporting the Islamic State, as part of a scheme to “defame true Islam” and promote the Sunni Wahabbi creed.

Khamenei tweeted:
US aim of making & backing DAESH is to sow discord in Islamic Ummah, defame true Islam & promote Wahabbi Islam which is far from true Islam.
— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) August 3, 2016

Foreign Desk News notes this is not a new accusation from the Ayatollah:

Last December, Khamenei accused U.S. officials of sowing discord among Muslims by “creating terrorist groups like Daesh (the Arabic word for the ISIL) and other groups that have been created through the funding of the US affiliates and their political aids,” according to Iran’s state-run media outlet, Fars News.

Following prostate surgery in late 2014, he suggested America, Zionism and “the wicked government of Britain” created Al Qaeda and Da’esh (ISIS) as [a] way to contain Iran, but that instead these groups “have turned on them.”

We might cut Khamenei a little slack for being grouchy after his prostate surgery, but there seems to be precious little evidence that Obama’s great opening to Iran is yielding any diplomatic dividends.
The Ayatollah is not only the ultimate ruler of Iran – no matter how many “moderates vs. hardliners” theatrical performances the Obama administration falls for – but he is a religious leader with considerable cachet among Shiite Muslims. Obama’s nuclear deal has substantially increased his prestige, in addition to giving Tehran a great deal of money to spend on its hobbies, which include destabilizing other countries and sponsoring terrorist attacks that kill Americans.

Speaking of those famous Iranian moderates, on the same December weekend when the Ayatollah was claiming that “Shiite or Sunni does not make any difference for the Americans, they are against any Muslim who wants to live in accordance with Islamic rules,” moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani declared:

There is neither a Shiite nor a Sunni crescent. We have an Islamic moon. We, Muslims, are in a world where we must be united. Does the destruction of Syria help strengthen Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates or other countries? Is anyone pleased by Syria’s destruction, apart from Israel?

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Khamenei suggested the United States was behind the coup in Turkey.
“Americans are against Islam and Islamic approach, so it’s possible they want to drive a coup in Turkey which has Islamic approaches. In recent events in Turkey, strong accusations are raised against Americans being behind [the] coup. If proved, it’s a huge scandal for the U.S.,” he said.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Saudi Horn Undermining Iraq Nuclear Deal

Saudis seeking to undermine nuclear deal benefits: Larijani

July 24, 2016

TEHRAN – Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said on Saturday that Saudi Arabia and certain Western countries are taking “obstructive” measures to prevent Iran from benefiting the advantages of the nuclear deal which removes sanctions on Iran.

“Evils of Saudis and certain Western countries have created obstacles so that Iran would not be able to use the post-nuclear deal conditions,” Larijani told a gathering in Qom, the city which he represents in the Majlis.

What Saudis are doing in the region against Iran is “open hostility”, the speaker added.

In a recent interview with Euro News, Adel al-Jubeir accused Iran of hostility, claiming, “35 years of Iranian aggression against Saudi Arabia and its allies is enough and we cannot tolerate that anymore.”
Al-Jubeir accused Iran of activities in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq as well as sending arms to the Houthis in Yemen.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi reacted to Jubeir on Friday by saying, “Jubeir makes ridiculous statements about Iran whenever he is frustrated,” and advised him to think twice about “the repercussions of his statements.”

Jubeir’s statement came a few days after the U.S. government released 28 pages of a congressional report on the September 11 attacks, that detail possible ties between the Saudi Arabian government and the 9/11 hijackers.

The document lists various forms of assistance provided by Saudi agents to the hijackers, including help finding a flight school and various forms of financial support when the hijackers arrived in the United States. Many of the findings in the report have not been fully vetted as several of the Saudi agents named in the 28 pages have refused to cooperate.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Obama Helped Create ISIS and the Libyan Horn (Daniel 8)

President Obama, Hiroshima, and the nuclear mishandle

May 18, 2016

By J. Pharoah Doss

August 1945, the United States destroyed Hiroshima in the world’s first nuclear strike. Afterward, President Harry S. Truman addressed the nation.

Truman stated: I realized the tragic significance of the atomic bomb. Our enemies were searching for it and we knew the disaster which would come if they found it first. We won the race of discovery and used it against those who attacked Pearl Harbor, executed American POWs, and abandoned international laws of warfare.

Truman’s decision has been debated for half a century because his national address wasn’t just an explanation for a single event; it shoved an unready world into the atomic age. This led to the counter-destruction philosophy of nuclear deterrence to deal with America’s nuclear capacity, and America reacted with guilt-driven paranoia that led to the preemptive policing of the world in the name of rationality.

The 2003 American invasion of Iraq is considered an example of this paranoid rationale to prevent an irrational actor from obtaining a nuclear arsenal, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found many have called the invasion of Iraq the biggest blunder of American foreign policy.

But the miscalculation produced the unexpected.

In December 2003 Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi decided to end his country’s weapons program in an attempt to normalize relations with the international community after years of hostility due to his nuclear ambitions.

Gaddafi was criticized in the Arab world. Critics believed his decision was unreasonable because it legitimized the Bush administrations preemptive war doctrine, but western leaders hoped Libya would be a model for disarmament for other nations possessed by nuclear deterrence to follow.
Let’s fast forward to January 2016.

North Korea conducted a nuclear test underground. The detonation was a success. When North Korea’s test was denounced by the international community as “a serious threat to international peace and security” the North Koreans referred to Libya for their reasoning to demonstrate their resolve to maintain their nuclear deterrent.

What happened to the Libyan model for disarmament?

During President Barack Obama’s administration a civil war erupted in Libya.

The United Nations authorized military intervention to enforce a ceasefire and establish no-fly zones to protect civilians. Gaddafi agreed to the ceasefire, but the opposition refused to cease.

Why?

According to one expert, “NATO powers violated the UN resolution, radically, and became the air force for the rebels.” Gaddafi tried using Libya’s voluntary disarmament to convince the Obama administration and other western leaders to stop their operations in Libya but Gaddafi had no security guarantees with them. After that Gaddafi’s son and other Libyan officials regretted their decision to disarm.

In 2011 Muammar Gaddafi was killed by rebels.

When historians examine these events they’ll conclude Iraq was a huge blunder, but Libya was the biggest mishandling of the nuclear age.

Two weeks from now, President Barack Obama will become the first sitting President of the United States to visit Hiroshima. The White house emphatically stressed the president will not apologize for the 1945 attack nor revisit Truman’s decision.

The Japanese Prime Minister stated no apology is expected or is necessary.

President Obama plans to offer a “forward-looking vision” of a peaceful and safe world without nuclear weapons.

This will be the most important speech of Barack Obama’s political career. He has to convince leaders to change their philosophy of nuclear deterrence to nuclear disarmament, but after Libya, why would any nation volunteer for a peace?

(J. Pharoah Doss is a contributor to the New Pittsburgh Courier. He blogs at jpharoahdoss@blogspot.com)

Thursday, February 4, 2016

“Obama Gave Us ISIS” (Ezekiel 17)

Longest-Serving U.S. Diplomat In Iraq: Obama Gave Us ISIS

3:37 PM EST
HBO on Sunday night ran “VICE Special Report: Fighting ISIS,” in which BBC reporter Ben Anderson, a frequent visitor to all sorts of war zones, explored Iraq’s three fronts in the war against the Islamic State.
The intrepid Anderson doesn’t fully wear his mindset on his sleeve in the fascinating documentary, but its misleading scene of George W. Bush speaking on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier with the “Mission Accomplished” sign behind him (referring not to the Iraq war, let’s not forget, but to the carrier’s 10-month deployment, the longest since Vietnam), and Anderson’s jokes with Sunni tribal fighters about their scavenged Iraqi Army artillery being “weapons of mass destruction,” make it clear who he thinks is ultimately responsible for ISIS emerging.
Bush looms so large in his film, you would never think another man had been U.S. president for over five years when the ISIS “jayvee squad” gained worldwide infamy for its videotaped atrocities and swift conquest of vast territories in Iraq and Syria.
Thankfully, the production features an interview with Ali Khedery, the longest continuously serving American official in Iraq, who was a senior aide to five U.S. ambassadors and to CENTCOM chiefs, including Gen. David Petraeus during President Obama’s first term.
Khedery assessed the aftermath of the 2010 elections that gave non-sectarian Ayad Allawi more seats in parliament than incumbent Shiite prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who never seemed inclined toward national reconciliation. “We were, I believe, this close to strategic victory,” Khedery told Anderson as he held thumb and forefinger an inch apart, “or at least avoiding strategic defeat. The Obama White House chose to ignore the election’s results. Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister for a second term and drove the country over the cliff.”
Khedery added: “So Bush’s original sin was invading in 2003 and Obama’s original sin was not respecting the Iraqi election’s results or the constitutional process in 2010, without any shadow of a doubt.” Although it’s highly unlikely Khedery strongly believed Bush was misguided in invading Iraq at the time it was happening and thereafter, since he was helping manage the diplomatic dimension of the whole Iraq liberation enterprise.
Maliki’s government printed 35% more ballots than were needed for the number of voters, millions of extra ones, which led to accusations of vote fraud.
Now, as Khedery told Anderson, “Iraq is more polarized than ever and Baghdad is falling under an Iranian orbit, which is furthering polarization of the society, which is strengthening ISIS and radical militant Shiite groups like the Iraqi militias.”
He pointed out that “the Iraqi government is fully penetrated by these Iranian-sponsored groups, and many of them are now in charge of the security services, they’re on the front lines with these militias, they’re receiving American weapons, they’re receiving American tanks, they have American air support, they have American diplomatic cover. So in this case we are backing the Iranian-commanded Shia militias to defeat ISIS. But the Iraqi security forces and the Iranian-backed militias are guilty of the same atrocities and war crimes that ISIS is known for. They are beheading individuals, they are torturing, and evidence of this emerges every day. And yet they are receiving billions of dollars of advanced military equipment from the United States.”
Oddly, the same Obama administration that was so adamant about ending the CIA’s limited program of enhanced interrogation of terrorists with knowledge of plots against the U.S. homeland doesn’t mind arming torturers with expensive high-tech gear when they’re backed by the regime with which Obama made a nuclear deal in Tehran.
“A critical mass of the government in Baghdad is a strategic threat to American interests and Allied interests,” Khedery warned. “If you are leveraging one radical, militant Islamist group to defeat another radical, militant Islamist group then what you’re gonna still end up with is a radical, militant Islamist group. We are creating monsters and these monsters will come back to haunt us.”
Khedery was arguing much the same thing in an August 2014 New York Times op-ed. “America sat back and watched in 2010 as Mr. Maliki’s cabinet was formed by Iranian generals in Tehran, thereby assuring its strategic defeat in Iraq. ISIS is a direct outgrowth of that defeat,” Khedery wrote, pointing a finger straight at Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Sensing an American vacuum, both Mr. Maliki and his Iranian patrons sought to consolidate their gains by economically, politically and physically crushing their Sunni and Kurdish rivals,” Khedery noted. “Consequently, today’s ‘Iraqi security forces’ are almost exclusively Shiite, reinforced by militias financed, trained, armed and directed by Iran. Given Mr. Maliki’s blatant sectarianism and his complicity in Bashar al-Assad’s campaign of genocide against Syria’s Sunnis, Sunni radicalization and the spread of ISIS across the region were predictable.”
Obama’s ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, explained why he opposed the election winner Allawi, complaining he “did not make the slightest effort to gain Shia votes. … I concluded we needed to focus on making a better Maliki than he had been in his first four-year term, rather than engage in a quixotic effort to try to oust him.”
Anderson’s HBO documentary also showed Russian ruler Vladimir Putin in his speech to the United Nations last September, pointing to the same U.S. power vacuum Khedery described. Comparing the liberation of Iraq to Soviet “social experiments for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences,” Putin declared, “I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you’ve done?” and he justified Russia filling “the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas, which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.”
Khedery’s term of choice – “America sat back” – encapsulates Obama’s Iraq failures. The Bush invasion was the opposite of America sitting back, as was the Bush surge under Gen. Petreaus. Obama claimed to support a democratic Iraq, but he not only sat back and allowed it to slip away; he caused conditions that led to the emergence of the most oppressive and dangerous Islamist terrorist threat in the world.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

The Islamic Horns of Prophecy (Daniel)

The Saudi-Iranian Strife

January 30, 2016

Saudi Arabia and Iran are two regional powers in the Middle East, that act as two big divides in the region- as far as the religious ideologies are concerned. Both the states are backing their allies in their respective neighboring countries. This funding has led to many armed conflicts where these states are not direct participants though: Iran is largely being supported by Russia, while KSA is the American friend.

The Iranian nuclear program is being perceived as threat by the Saudis, where Riyadh has reportedly considered the option of launching its own nuclear program, as its ‘enemy’ is pursuing it.

KSA and Iran are divided by longstanding structural tensions. Each has inspirations for Islamic leadership and each possesse different visions of regional order. Tehran regards Riyadh as America’s proxy and a buffer against Iran’s rightful primacy in the Gulf, while Saudi Arabia worries about Iran’s asymmetric power and regional ambitions, especially its expanding influence in the post-Saddam Iraq and its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapon program. A particular concern in Riyadh is Iran’s ability to challenge the legitimacy of the al-Saud before regional and domestic audience by upstaging them on pan-Arab issues such as Palestine.

The ties worsened after the Shia cleric Sheikh Baqir al Nimr was beheaded along with other 47 persons in Saudi Arabia. The Iranian response resulted in the attack on Saudi embassy in Tehran was attacked by violent mob and the furniture was set on fire. This led to Saudi Arabia severing the diplomatic ties with Iran. Several other countries like Bahrain and Sudan also cut diplomatic ties. This led to more tensions in the region. Pakistan’s civil-military leadership visited Saudi Arabia and then Tehran so that the tension between the two countries could be resolved and a middle way sorted out.

The regional dynamics are changing as Iran is improving its ties with the West. After the nuclear deal has been signed Iran expects to receive billions of dollars that were confiscated by the world powers due to sanctions. Saudi Arabia on the other side is not at all happy with the proceeding of the Iranian nuclear deal, as it perceives this as a threat for the region. The rise of Iran would make the region insecure as the power dimensions would be disrupted. This rise would also threaten Israel, which is often being criticized by the Iranian leadership.

Iran supports groups beyond its boundaries. Assad regime in Syria is constantly supported by Iran, where the latter is also assisting the Shia-led government in Iraq and helping them fight ISIS. Al-Quds brigade is operating in Iraq for quite some time. Hamas labeled as a terrorist organization is also being backed by Tehran. Moreover, this network of assistance extends all the way long to Lebanon and Yemen where they are supporting Hizbullah and Huthi tribe. Thus, the Iranian involvement is there in the entire Middle East.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia also does not have its hands clean. KSA has reportedly been supporting al-Qaeda. Bin Laden belonged to Saudi Arabia. Saudis are reportedly supporting the ISIS with its network spread across the Middle East. Saudis had also helped Taliban in making roots in Afghanistan. They were funded by Saudis. They also financially assist the countries who follow their religious doctrine and political dictation.

The US invasion of Iraq played a pivotal role in disturbing the balance of power in the Middle East. One of the most significant effects of the Iraq war is Iran’s seemingly unprecedented influence and freedom of action in regional affairs, presenting new strategic challenges for the US and allies. Although Middle ME governments and the US are in agreement about diagnosing Tehran’s activism as the war’s most alarming consequence, they disagree on how to respond. The conventional US view suggests that a new Arab consensus has been prompted to neutralize and counter Tehran’s rising influence across the region in Gaza, the Gulf, Iraq, and Lebanon. Parallels to Cold War containment are clear. Indeed, whether consciously or unwittingly, US policy has been replicating features of the Cold War model by trying to build a “moderate” Sunni Arab front to bolster US efforts to counter Iranian influence. Despite signals that the Obama administration intends to expand US engagement with Iran, the foundations of containment are deeply rooted and engender bipartisan backing from Congress. Even if the Obama administration desires to shift US policy toward Iran, containment policies will be difficult to overturn quickly; if engagement with Iran fails, reliance on containment will only increase.

The containment strategy seems to be founded on what many US officials and analysts perceive as one of the Iraq war’s few silver linings: the removal of Saddam Hussein as the “eastern flank” of the Arab world laid bare Iran’s longstanding malevolence towards the region and spurred Arab states towards greater activism in line with US strategy. Yet, this premise is dangerously flawed. It is the result of misreading local politics and the nuanced ways Arab states are managing and, in some cases, exploiting the challenge from Iran and the broader effects of Iraq war. The events over the past two years in the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon suggest a different picture. Arab states are certainly alarmed about growing Iranian influence in the region, particularly about alleged Iranian activities within their own states. Gulf states with Shia population, like Bahrain, feel especially vulnerable to Iranian intervention. Moreover, Iranian support for Hamas during crises such as the Gaza war in 2008–2009 burnishes Iran’s pro-Palestinian credentials among Arab publics and challenges the authority and legitimacy of pro-Western Arab states such as Egypt and Jordan.

This alarm, however, does not translate into unequivocal balancing against Iran or a wholesale embrace of US regional containment policy.

Instead, Arab states are more likely to blend confrontational policies towards Tehran with elements of conciliation, engagement and accommodation, thus hedging against sudden swings in the US policy towards Iran while maintaining deeply rooted economic and cultural ties with their neighbour to the east. For some, the threat of US military action against Iran is as worrisome as a potential nuclear threat from Iran itself. There is also little evidence for broad-based support for a single Arab “balancer” against Iran, despite the best efforts of Saudi Arabia and its assertive new diplomacy. Indeed, for some observers, the consequences of Riyadh’s response to Tehran are a cause for greater concern than the Iranian challenge. Finally, some Arab leaders have skillfully exploited Washington’s preoccupation with Iran and its wariness of democracy in the region to further entrench their authoritarian rule and defer much-needed internal reforms.

In this atmosphere, Washington needs to be clear about its priorities if it wants to get anything done with Riyadh. The United States should cooperate on issues where common interests are clear, such as stabilizing Yemen, containing Iran’s regional power, destroying al-Qaeda and its regional affiliates. It should encourage the Saudis to reconsider policies such as isolating the Iraqi government and stoking Shia-Sunni animosities that could harm both US and Saudi interests in the future by making clear that overall cooperation on security issues requires these steps. Finally, US policymakers should make clear that nuclear proliferation by Saudi Arabia would put at risk any future collaboration on security issues.