Middle East Culpability

wahhabi-idiot-terrorist
On the Middle East. Much of the violence in the Middle East can be directly traced to actions of outside interlopers since World War 1.

The Brits worked to place the Saudis in power after World War 1. America acted in concert with others to empower the House of Saud during and after World War II.

The Saudis are Wahhabis. The State Religion of Saudi Arabia is Wahhabist Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is a Wahhabist Movement. Al Qaeda, al Jihad, ISIS and every other extremist Sunni Islamic organizations traces it’s origins to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or directly to the preachings of al Wahhab.

We created the beast which spawned the demons whom we fight in the War on Terror.

In the 50s, Kermit Roosevelt was sent by Ike and the Dulles Bros, at the behest of Britain and Anthony Eden, to depose Mossadegh who was Prime Minister of Iran. Mossadegh was deposed. The Shah was placed on the Peacock Throne of Iran by Kermit Roosevelt.

The Shah used his Savak to terrorize the people of Iran. He exiled Khomeini.

Carter weakened the Shah some 25 or 30 years later by speaking to Human Rights and withdrawing support.

Khomeini returns.

Khomeini and his revolution are the progenitors of all Shi’a extremism. Khomeini and his Iranian Revolutionary Guards created Hezbollah.

No Kermit, no Shah. No Shah, no Khomeini. No Khomeini, no IRG. No IRG, no Hezbollah.

Vietnam plays a role here as well. Prior to Vietnam (and Iran), the US was seen as a champion of the downtrodden and a revolutionary victor over Colonialism.

After Vietnam, we became a colonial oppressor.

Cuba plays a role here as well. We attempted to deny Cuba self determination.

The US is no longer a champion of the oppressed people’s of Colonialism by our own actions. Instead, we are merely actors for Big Banks and Big Corporations.

This is how we are seen, with great justification, by much of the world.

Much of the terrorism aimed at us is directly attributable to our support of dictators and despots throughout the Middle East and Asia.

ISIS, al Qaeda and other Islamic Organizations feel that in order to take power from the House of Saud and other despotic regimes that they must attack us. We are the primary support for the Saudis and other despots. We have supported nearly every Sunni despot extant.

We supported Saddam before we deposed him. We gave him his initial batch of nerve agents and gave him the means to develop more. Then we used possession of these as rationale for attacking him.

We did the same thing to Noriega. As long as he was our man, we turned a blind eye to his drug trafficking. As soon as he decided that he wanted to go his own way, we defamed him and attacked him. I’ve read widely that the CIA actually assisted in his drug trafficking and money laundering before we turned on him.

The Middle East is a mess partially because the West disbanded the Ottoman Empire, partially because of the idiot Sukes-Picot agreement, partially because of oil profits, and partially because of the Sunni-Shi’a divide.

America has always pushed a divide and conquer agenda on the Middle East.

Now, we complain that they are divided and can’t or won’t come together.

We’re hilarious.

If the Middle East were to come together as in the old days of the Qaliphate, does anyone think that they would do otherwise than what ISIS claims as a goal?

Saudi_Arabia_svg2

Naval Clash 1988 US Navy vs Iran Naval Coast Guard

02814_olivier_rebbot_reporter.jpg

A HISTORY LESSON STILL UNLEARNED
by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
April 18, 2007

With war drums beating louder, senior military commanders in Tehran miss few opportunities to warn the government against plunging the country into an unequal fight with the United States and its allies.

One such warning came last month from the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRCG) General Rahim Safavi.

In an unusually frank assessment of the situation, he told an audience of guardsmen that the country lacked the necessary means to defend its extensive land and sea borders. He insisted that everything be done to avoid an “unhappy episode”.

In Tehran’s military circles, the phrase “unhappy episode” is a codeword for the only direct military clash that has so far taken place between the Islamic Republic and the United States.

The clash came on April 18, 1988, exactly 19 years ago today.

At the time, the Islamic Republic censored all news of the event so that most Iranians do not even know that it happened at all. For their part, the Americans also “managed” the flow of information about the clash to prevent its strategic importance from becoming apparent at the time.

Nevertheless, the clash between the navy of the Islamic Republic and a US naval task force led by the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, was subsequently classed as one of the five naval battles of historic importance that established American sup-remacy at sea.

Clash

The background to the clash was rather complicated.

At the time, the Islamic Republic was at war against Iraq under Saddam Hussain, rejecting United Nations pleas for a ceasefire.

Towards the end of 1987, the Islamic Republic started firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the Gulf on the grounds that Arab oil money fuelled Saddam’s war machine. Weeks of efforts by the UN, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the nonaligned bloc to persuade Tehran to stop attacking Kuwaiti tankers produced no results.

It was then that President Ronald Reagan decided to put the Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag and escort them through the waterway.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by mining some of the shipping lanes in the waterway. On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and was seriously damaged. It was towed to Dubai where it arrived two days later.

The following day experts established that the mine had been made in Iran and placed by the IRCG.

Within hours, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US task force to retaliate. The IRCG responded by firing missiles at US vessels without inflicting any harm.

The US task force seized the opportunity to unleash its superior firepower to virtually break the Iranian navy.

The Americans lost two men, the crew of a helicopter that came down in an accident far from the battle.

The IRCG lost 87 men and over 300 wounded. Later, the Islamic Republic filed a suit against the US at the International Court at The Hague claiming losses amounting to several billion dollars. (The court rejected Tehran’s suit in November 2003.)

The battle’s effect in Tehran was immediate.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the leader of the Islamic Republic, was initially inclined to retaliate by ordering Hezbollah to carry out suicide attacks against American and other Western interests.

However, he was persuaded by Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the ayatollah’s closest aide, to take a deep breath and maintain a low profile. There was to be no retaliation. The remaining vessels of the Iranian navy were ordered to clear their movements with the US task force in advance to avoid any misunderstanding.

The battle

The battle, nicknamed by the US “Operation Praying Mantis”, was followed in July by a tragic accident when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air jetliner by mistake, killing all 290 passengers and crew.

Khomeini interpreted the accident as a deliberate escalation by the US and feared that his regime was in danger. Rafsanjani and other advisers used that fear to persuade the ayatollah to end the war with Iraq, something he had adamantly refused for eight years.

A broken Khomeini appeared on TV to announce that he was “drinking the chalice of poison” by accepting a UN-ordered ceasefire. He was no longer going to Karbala on his way to Jerusalem.

In his memoirs, Rafsanjani makes it clear that without the disastrous naval battle and the downing of the Iran Air jet, Khomeini would not have agreed to end a war that had already claimed a million Iranian and Iraqi lives.

The reason was that Khomeini was leader of a regime that lacked adequate mechanisms for self-restraint. He was the driver of a vehicle with no clutch or reverse-gear, let alone a brake, and thus was doomed to speed ahead until it hit something hard.

Interestingly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a similar image recently when he committed the regime to a no-compromise position on the nuclear issue. “This train has no reverse-gear and no brakes,” he said.

Khomeini could have ended the war with Iraq years earlier, obtaining decent terms for Iran. He did not because the extremist nature of his regime made it impossible to even contemplate the fact that realism, prudence and compromise are key elements of good leadership.

Khomeini could not have ended the war. He needed Reagan to do it for him. If the Islamic Republic is a train without a reverse-gear and brakes, it does not need a conductor. It could race ahead until it hits something hard on its way.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe

___________________________________________________________________________

I was not aware that this had occurred. Interesting to note. If we were to retaliate against Iran in the near future, I think this is the way to go. Get in. Destroy the regime. Leave it behind. Let the Iranian people pick up the pieces on their own.

Lastly, leave a promise in the air. Act well or We Shall Return.

gfon127l.jpg

This is the only kind of deal you are likely to get from the Iranian Government.   Yet, Barack Obama wants “dialogue.”

Dec 2011 ~  Iran playing games again in the Straits of Hormuz.  Will there be a repeat?

Obama has failed in every endeavor as regards Iran.