Featured Post


« Le comble du savoir-faire ne consiste pas à remporter toutes les batailles, mais à soumettre l’armée ennemie sans livrer bataille » (Sun...

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Could there be a motive for Israel to destabilize Iraq right now?

Look at the map!

In spite of the deal Iran has made with Russia and France about it´s nuclear enrichment program, Israel is still threatening an attack.
If Israel wants to attack Iran from it´s own territory it has to fly over Iraq. There is no other way.

We know that many Shiites in Iraq sympathize with Iran. We know, that no truly sovereign Iraqi government would give Israel permission to use Iraqi airspace for attacks on Iran, no matter who would win the upcoming elections.

And now after the reduction of American troops some areas of Iraq are now under full the control of Iran-friendly Shiites, who might possibly assist Iran in monitoring any missiles flying overhead and so increase Iran´s defensive capability.

Another factor might be, that with fewer US troops in Iraq, fewer can be used by Israel as human shields for their own attacks.
When Iran responds to an Israeli attack with attacking Israel, it´s Israel´s business. If Iran would attack American troops in Iraq, America would have to get involved.

In a speech at the Center for Security Policy last week Dick Cheney, one of the main Neocons and, without being Jewish still an Israel-firster, lambasted the Obama government for many things, including withdrawing partly from Iraq and planning further withdrawals:

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years.

Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Former President Bush’s bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

Think about it, Obama promises Maliki to end American occupation in Iraq in the future (a promise he might or might not keep), an event all Iraqis have been waiting for for years, and Cheney spins it as a betrayal of “this young democracy”.

And then, yesterday, we had those devastating car-bomb attacks. And right away the media is talking about the Iraqi security forces being unable to provide security in their own country.
Today´s online edition of the New York Times declares:

BAGHDAD — Two synchronized suicide car bombings struck at the heart of the Iraqi government here on Sunday, severely damaging the Justice Ministry and provincial council complexes, leaving a scene of carnage that raised new questions about the government’s ability to secure its most vital operations.

So in other words, the American troops need “to save” the Iraqis from themselves or from AlQaida or from the Syrian sponsored terrorists or whoever….

In case of an Israeli attack on Iran more American troops would, of course, either provide better chances for American involvement in Israel´s war or, at least, they would secure the air-space for Israel to have a better shooting range.

No comments: