Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The birth of the Shi'ite Empire

Expand Messages
  • World View
    The birth of the Shi ite Empire Xymphora July 31, 2005 xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/birth-of-shiite-empire.html There is an article (or here) by Clayton
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The birth of the Shi'ite Empire
      Xymphora
      July 31, 2005
      xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/birth-of-shiite-empire.html


      There is an article (or here) by Clayton Hallmark in which he ties
      together Karl Rove, Michael Ledeen, the Niger uranium scandal, and
      even Robert Lady, the Milan-based CIA agent who is wanted in Italy for
      the kidnapping, rendition and torture of Abu Omar (the Italians gave
      everybody a heads-up that they were going to arrest a bunch of CIA
      agents, allowing the agents, including Lady, to flee the
      jurisdiction). Lady possibly used to be in charge of a covert American
      unit in Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua which infiltrated
      anti-American groups. I don't know the timing of this, but if it goes
      back twenty years ago - Lady is supposed to be 51 - it might tie into
      Iran-Contra, and through Iran-Contra to Ledeen. That would make for a
      huge Unified Theory of American Political Corruption, tying everything
      from Iran-Contra to the Niger forgeries (did Ledeen actually get
      Jonathon Pollard his job in the Navy?), to the rendition of Abu Omar,
      all back to Michael Ledeen, making him the most powerful living
      American! This is all very interesting, but I was struck by a comment
      made on this article by Jebelia at the Portland Indy Media site, and I
      reprint it in full:

      "Ledeen may say he wants the US to attack Iran, but when you are as
      corrupt as Michael Ledeen, words are meaningless. Watch what the
      neocons do; don't put too much faith in what they say. And keep in
      mind that when Ledeen was on Reagan's National Security Council his
      major responsibility was to supply US arms to Iran through Israel.

      Bush and his collective brain used the pretext of an attack on the US
      by Islamic extremists to overthrow a secular Arab government - that of
      Iraq. The entirely predictable result of the Iraq invasion is that the
      Arab consensus which was always the source of whatever integrity and
      stability Iraq possessed has broken down. This breakdown inevitably
      resulted in a civil war between the Arab Shi'ite and Sunnite
      communities in Iraq which will negatively affect all of Iraq's Arab
      neighbors. (Actually a civil war was not the inevitable consequence of
      the fall of Saddam's government. If the US had not disbanded the Iraqi
      military, or if it had quickly organized a large peacekeeping force
      from surrounding Arab countries as Dilip Hiro urged, the disaster we
      are seeing could have been avoided, but either of those options were
      anathema to the neocons.) For decades the main goal of Israeli foreign
      policy has been to prevent the Arabs from getting together
      economically politically, and secular Arab nationalism has been seen
      as the greatest threat to Israel.

      The Shi'ite clerical hierarchy that has controled Iran for 26 years
      now controls Iraq as well, thanks to the US of A. I foresaw this
      result before the invasion, and I am not psychic, terribly bright or
      especially well-informed. It is therefore difficult for me to believe
      that the experts at the Pentagon and Herzliya who planned this
      operation did not foresee it as well. It must be that either 1) there
      was a deal made between Iran, Israel and the Bushies in advance of the
      invasion of Iraq (even in advance of 911?), or 2) that the Israelis
      and neocons believed that the chaos caused to the Arab world would be
      worth the danger of empowering the Shi'ite theocrats without striking
      a deal.

      So maybe the end game of the War on Terror/Clash of Civilizations will
      include a nuclear attack on Iran, but we're now just in the early
      stages. The next target is the only country in the region that has not
      surrendered to the US or Israel and has remained true to non-sectarian
      Arab nationalism - Syria."


      I agree with this ten thousand percent. Ledeen writes a column in the
      National Review each week advocating an American attack on Iran
      ("faster, please"). Do you think he wants an American attack on Iran?
      He was heavily involved in Iran-Contra, which involved illegally
      supplying the leaders of Iran with arms. He hangs out with Manocher
      Ghobanifar, a man connected with the people who run Iran. The
      Americans have now clearly manipulated the situation in Iraq - through
      disbanding the Iraqi army, setting up an election guaranteed to
      disenfranchise Sunnis and create a wider Sunni-Shi'ite rift, provoking
      a civil war through failing to provide security and probably through
      faked terrorist attacks on Shi'ites, and installing a very
      Iran-friendly Iraqi government, including neocon friend Chalabi - to
      lead to a de facto annexation of Iraq by Iran. Are we to believe this
      was an accident or a mistake?



      It's clear that calls by various neocons, including Ledeen, for an
      attack on Iran are not directed at the American people or lawmakers,
      but at the people and leaders of Iran. The talk of war, even nuclear
      attack, coupled with other American actions, including the neocon
      support of the anti-Iranian MEK terrorist group, probable CIA
      incursions into Iran to create havoc by setting off bombs, and the
      recent highly publicized crash of a U-2 obviously spying on Iran, are
      intended to create a strategy of tension in Iran, pushing the country
      into the hands of religious leaders. The results of the recent Iranian
      elections prove the success of this strategy. Why would the Zionist
      neocons want to create an Islamic dictatorship in Iran, led by Shi'ite
      clergy, with effective control over Iraq?



      The Israelis and their agents in the American government tricked the
      Americans into the attack on Iraq, in part through the use of the
      forged Niger documents. The long-term Israeli plan has to answer the
      question of how Israel will build 'Greater Israel' when faced with a
      completely hostile Muslim world. The only answer is based on three
      principles:



      The divide-and-conquer approach as set out by Oded Yinon (and written
      about here many times);

      The 'doctrine of the periphery', the idea that Israeli interests can
      be advanced by making alliances with those non-Arab states like Turkey
      and Iran which are not adjacent to Israel; and

      The Shi'ite-Sunni rift within Islam.


      Israel's obvious enemies are mostly Sunnis. If you're going to be
      fighting Sunnis, the obvious trick is to create a new ally, a Shi'ite
      empire consisting of Iran and Iraq. The minor annoyance of Iranian
      support to Hezbollah is far outweighed by the advantages of creating a
      new and very powerful player in the Middle East, a player who, for
      religious reasons, probably hates your enemies more than it hates you.
      'Greater Israel' can extend all the way to the Euphrates over Sunni
      lands, and your new friend may even help you (it will be a much bigger
      challenge heading towards the Nile!). In connection with this, watch
      the American media to sharpen its distinctions within Islam and
      concentrate on the fact that 'terrorists' are mostly Sunnis.




      Looked at in terms of the necessary arrangements in the Middle East
      for the creation of 'Greater Israel', the neocon plan is rather
      obvious (although it took this constant pushing of the idea of a war
      on Iran coupled with the contradictory action of Americans in Iraq to
      make it obvious to me). Neither Ledeen nor any other neocon has any
      intention of actually attacking Iran. The talk of attacks is merely
      intended to keep Iran in the hands of the radical theologians, who
      have been given a Shi'ite Empire through the handing over of Iraq. You
      need no other proof than the forced presence of the detested Chalabi,
      whose job all along was to forge an alliance with Iran. The new
      Shi'ite Empire will completely mess up the Middle East, and create
      tensions that will keep Israel's enemies busy for years, while Israel
      slowly builds 'Greater Israel'. It is a brilliant plan, which can only
      be foiled if pan-Arab nationalism can win out over fractures within
      Islam. The two countries most in danger of an American attack are
      Syria and, eventually, Egypt, and it is not a coincidence that these
      are the two countries most associated with pan-Arab nationalism.
      Nasser's version of pan-Arab nationalism led to the first American
      support of his enemies in the Egyptian Brotherhood, the most notorious
      manifestation of which is now called al Qaeda, so you can see how the
      world fits together.

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

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.