For those who thought Iran was not under the will of America

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/11/for-those-who-thought-iran-was-not-under-the-will-of-america/

﷽

There are many who believe Iran have held firmly against the tide of American dominance in the Middle East. They believe Iran to be an underdog who will soon compete on a global scale with America alongside Russia and China. They claim their will is independent and Islamic. It is now starkly clear that their hopes have been dashed and the reality has settled to whom Iran serves. This article hopes to highlight recent actions by Iran after the JCPOA and to whom these actions benefit the most.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)[1] is an agreement between Iran and US, UK, China, Germany and France to disarm Iran of any nuclear capability that could be used for military purposes. It is seen as one of Obama's biggest achievements.

It states under the JCPOA that:

Iran welcome this historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which will ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful, and mark a fundamental shift in their approach to this issue. They anticipate that full implementation of this JCPOA will positively contribute to regional and international peace and security. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

This cooperation between Washington and Tehran raised many eyebrows in Iran where the population have historically been anti-American. Many knew from the onset that a deal with America would never be favourable for Iran. In fact, Rouhani publicly praised the lifting of the sanctions [2] and regularly mentioned that Iran had the better deal out of the two, in order to quell any concerns from the Iranian public. Officials in the U.S. as well as the Israeli's were quick to notice this and hounded Obama for the first couple of weeks [3], suggesting that he hastened into a deal and that Iran would continue with their nuclear aspirations.

It's not about the nuclear weapons...

The world was duped into thinking the JCPOA is just about halting nuclear proliferation but they failed to understand the bigger picture behind the agreements. Yes, the JCPOA will indeed hamper Iran's nuclear capability and remove yet another Middle Eastern and more importantly Muslim country from the list of nuclear weapon holders, but the main purpose behind it is to relieve Iran economically and allow Her to follow America's demands subserviently, namely to become the face of Shi'itism in order to spread deathly sectarianism across the Muslim world, leading to the Muslims utter destruction and demise.

US Officials promised that they would hold Tehran accountable if they continued to support terrorism yet it was conveniently left out of the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism as an action that could reintroduce the sanctions. John Kerry said:

"If we catch them funding terrorism, they're going to have a problem with the United States Congress and with other people, obviously." [4]

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said :

"Iran, the foremost state sponser of terrorism -- continues to exert its influence in regional crises in the Middle East through the International Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its terrorist partner Lebanese Hezbollah, and proxy groups...Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partners worldwide." [5]

How does it benefit the West if Iran continue to support terrorist activities? And where is the proof that they are doing such?

Tehran has made it clear that they are supporting groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Palestine. In the November report issued by Congressional Research Service "Iran has apparently sought to rebuild the relationship with Hamas by providing missile technology that Hamas used to construct its own rockets, and by helping it rebuild tunnels destroyed in the [2014] conflict with Israel." [6]

Counter air-strikes by "Israel" have frequently hit Hezbollah or IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) members, such as IRGC Gen. Mohammad Ali Allahdadi in the January 2015 Mazraat Amal Incident. Last month, the group's secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, bluntly declared that "Hezbollah gets its money and arms from Iran, and as long as Iran has money, so does Hezbollah."[7]

As mentioned before, Iran's role as the Shi'ites protector and leader is to further sectarianism in the Muslim lands, and it is evident from their explicit support for the Houthi's in Yemen, Shi'ite militia's in Iraq and Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

It comes as no surprise when CENTCOM Chief Gen. Joseph Votel said

Iran has become "more aggressive in the days since the agreement". [8]

If Iran indeed had its own will then it would have turned the game plan of the U.S. upside down by supporting Palestine militarily and removing the occupation rather than meagre token gestures of underhand arms deals with Hamas and PIJ. As the Head of the Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Division Ali Hajizadeh said "Israel is surrounded by Islamic countries and it will not last long in a war" [9]. They would stop all funding of armed Shi'a militias that are going around slaughtering Muslims. They would disobey their masters in Washington and unite the Muslims under Islam and not an "infallible" spiritual leader.

This article featured on http://voiceoftheummah.com

[1] JCPOA - https://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf
[2] President Rouhani hails lifting of Iran sanctions - http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/president-rouhani-hails-lifting-iran-sanctions-160117104307664.html
[3] A Bad Deal Off to a Worse Start - http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start
[4] Iran's Support for Terrorism Under the JCPOA - http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-support-for-terrorism-under-the-jcpoa
[5] Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community - http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20160225/104550/HHRG-114-IG00-Wstate-ClapperJ-20160225.pdf
[6] CRS - Iran’s Foreign Policy - https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R44017.pdf
[7] Terrorist Chief: ‘As Long as Iran Has Money, We Will Have Money’ - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/hezbollah-chief-our-budget-income-weapons-all-come-iran
[8] COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE - http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/16-26_3-09-16.pdf
[9] Iran test fires missiles branded with words 'Israel must be wiped out' - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/12188431/Iran-test-fires-missiles-branded-with-words-Israel-must-be-wiped-out.html

Iraq Invasion - Stopping Saddam or Stopping the Islamic Revival?

Read this on my new website: http://www.kamkashem.com/2016/07/08/iraq-invasion-stopping-saddam-or-stopping-the-islamic-revival/

﷽

We will without doubt be hearing how the Iraq Invasion in 2003 was a failure and mismanagement by Tony Blair now that the Chilcot Report has affirmed what we already knew was an unfounded case for WMD's. However, this article will give you an entirely different narrative to what you may find on the mainstream news channels and papers.

The Iraq Invasion was a failure only in terms of establishing Iraq as the model democratic nation in the Middle East for the rest of the nearby Muslim countries to follow suit, and this was undoubtedly "Plan A" for Iraq under the Greater Middle East Initiative of 2004. However, this does not mean there was not a "Plan B". In fact when John Kerry mentioned Plan B for Syria he was not only speaking of Syria but rather a Plan B in moving towards Plan A, democratisation and secularisation of the Middle East.

The Islamic sentiment during the latter years of Saddam's reign was strong and this is evident from the fact that he used this sentiment a number of times, whether that be falsely claiming that he is a descendent of the Prophet ﷺ or filling his speeches with references to the Qur'an. The only reason one would feel obliged to ride the Islamic wave would be due to the fact the people held Islam as more than just a mere religion. Especially when we know that the Ba'ath party was not born on religious grounds but on a secular one.

If Saddam had stepped down without a fight and left U.S. and Britain to install a new leader, they would have undeniably had to replace him with a leader that called for Islam. This is due to the fact the peoples thoughts and emotions were leaning towards Islam at this time.

This is definitely apparent when we look at the way in which Saddam held to power. He used government money to promote mandatory Qur'an studies in school. He built training centres for Imams including Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Radio stations were being dedicated to airing Qur'anic lessons and alcohol banned in restaurants. Ba'ath party members were made to take courses in Qur'an and Saddam was being shown in prayer in the media. There was a rise in mosque attendance and more women began to dress more modestly - especially  considering the fact that Baghdad was the most secular of all the surrounding areas before. With all of these actions he felt that the population would support him from any incoming foreign invasion or occupation.

Plan B is in fact the steps preceding Plan A. Plan B is to engulf the Middle East in bloody sectarian conflict whereby a Muslim is recognised based on their affiliations to a certain sect (Shia, Sunni) rather than their religion. It is to partition the Middle East with more than just a mere line in the sand, but rather a deep bloody scar that will not heal with time.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that:

“what we’re seeing here in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one." 

They wish for a New Middle East that will not see Islam as its solution because Islam will be seen as something barbaric and unable to govern, as is the case with post-Iraq ISIS.  They wish to show that political parties that have any connection to Islam are simply incapable of handling the power and with one fell swoop can be destroyed.

It is through destruction and chaos that the West will start to prop-up and fund secular democratic groups as an alternative to the mayhem that they have endured. They hope that the majority would seek stability and safety rather than revolutions and uprisings.

It was not a failure for the West in Iraq but a pre-requisite to entering the Middle East, inserting their influence and averting the Islamic revival which would unmistakably challenge their dominance at a world stage.

The Chilcot Inquiry will later be seen as a waste of public money and a way to appease the mass that were against the war from the very beginning. They wish to pull the wool over the peoples eyes, so that the real motive is left unrevealed. It is surely easier to lay the blame on one individual rather than the ideology itself.

US CENTCOM Commander General John P.Abizaid Urges Sykes-Picot 2

The Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) have recently published an interview with the ex US CENTCOM commander John P.Abizaid on the topic of the Middle East.

Bear in mind that this man served 34 years, the longest serving commander of the US CENTCOM and has been involved in many of the huge foreign policy decisions in the West, this is no ex-army officer talking on Press TV and claiming "Israel" controls the world - i.e. this is no conspiracy theorist. CTC are a huge think-tank organisation who like RAND and the Brookings Institute, shape the policies for the West going forward.

Now, he was posed the question, "In your opinion, what should be our strategic end state in this conflict?" and in his response he said that "It is hard to say what the strategic end state would be because Sunni Islamic extremism is an idea, and it is hard to destroy an idea. It’s an ideology." 

Exactly, and this is a point most Muslims fail to understand. The West themselves know that Islam is an ideology and that it is the IDEA of Islam they are trying to destroy. This is not contrary to what Allah (swt) tells the Muslims in the Holy Qur'an.

Now this isn't the point that spurred me on to write this article. It is the question he was posed after this.... read carefully.

The post-WW1 borders is the Sykes-Picot Agreement was in 1916 as we know that WW1 was in 1914. This is clearly talking about the Sykes-Picot Agreement which saw the Middle East split up into the various states we see today. 

Obviously the West can't conclude that they are the ones stoking up sectarianism in the region to establish new lines in the sand but effectively that is what is happening and as always the crocodile tears, is aimed at the Muslims not being able to live peacefully with each other. 

Now if you have read my other articles in relation to the West collusion with Russia and various factions on the ground whether that be consciously or not - the fact of the matter is, the factions on the ground are allowed to exist due to the support that is given to them by huge state sponsors, i.e. a proxy war. 

This redrawing of the Middle East on sectarian lines which they themselves have harnessed and allowed through arming, funding and fundamentally supporting is the new policy going forward and it is very rarely spoken about so plainly! As you can see his response after making that statement was that "most people will clutch their heart, and do cluth their heart, every time I say something like that..." And rightly so! 

If the Muslims were aware of what the plan was for their lands, they wouldn't be so easily duped and embroiled in sectarian struggles. 

Please make the Ummah aware of Sykes-Picot 2, it divided us once and set us back 100's of years, and it'll set us back another 100 years. 

#SykesPicot2 

Equilibrium Warfare in Syria - U.S. using ISIS as the sectarian spearhead and Russia as the equalizer

In 2015 a document by the U.S. Department of Intelligence (DIA) was leaked with some astonishing details that were not redacted. You don't want to go away without knowing this!

It starts off with the general situation in Iraq and Syria and explains that they are both heading in the sectarian direction, failing to mention this to be a negative aspect of the war. We will conclude at the end of this article whether or not the U.S. seek a sectarian war or not.



Interestingly, this report was drafted in 2012 and released in 2015, way before Russia's involvement in the Syrian crises. At the time of Russia's involvement we heard many American diplomats and opposition politicians bombarding the media with this narrative that Russia are stealing America's thunder and Obama is incapable in his policies in Syria. A lot of people saw this role of Russia in Syria contrary to what America wanted and this narrative is still played out today. The report actually documents that Russia will be involved in this conflict and will side with the Assad regime - they knew this from the very beginning it was planned, drafted and agreed upon.



You can clearly read from that, that the U.S. require an equilibrium in Syria and from the very onset they knew that the Russians were only there to kill off the opposition that the West, Gulf and Turkey have been supporting to maintain an equal playing ground. If the U.S. sought to resolve the Syrian crises then surely it would solve its issues with Russia, China and Iran to stop them from supporting the regime, right?

Who are the opposition you ask? Well from the media we know that the West are supporting the Free Syrian Army and anyone linked to the Syrian National Coalition however it clearly denotes in this document that without the work of AQI (now known as ISIS), they could not play a pivotal role in uniting the Sunni Muslims under the sectarian card to fight the dissenters who they call the Jibha al-Ruwafidh (Forefront of the Shiites)



It goes on to say that the flow of fighters and ammunition comes through the border between Iraq/Syria and it depends on AQI (now ISIS) as it has major pockets and bases on both sides. This spells out that without ISIS, the West could not support the opposition against Assad or keep the equilibrium going to destroy the infrastructure, people and livelihoods of Syria and Iraq.



It mentions that the future holds a safe haven for the Syrian regime, i.e. Assad and the Alawi's. This is reaffirmed by the recent plans drawn up by RAND and the Brookings Institute explaining the greater plan for a federalized Syria into three regions.



Now the key for the next point is in the wording. The U.S. have maintained that they want a peaceful solution to the Syrian crises and they'll take every opportunity to demean Russia's actions in Syria, but make a note of the wording on this next point in the document.



Did you spot it?

Try again....



That's right the development of a proxy war WITH SUPPORT from Russia, China and Iran. This proxy war is undoubtedly and undeniably a proxy war that doesn't see the Americans, Russians, Chinese or even Europeans losing their lives. It is the MUSLIMS who are being targeted and it is the Muslims who are losing their lives for a war that is not even their own.

The report finally goes onto 'prophesies' if I may use that term loosely, that the opposition which the West support will use Iraq as a launch pad and safe haven for the Salafists, i.e. ISIS - whom they fully support and whom without the equilibrium could not be sustained without marring their own faces and sending in their own troops as was the case in the Iraq war.

And just to top all of this off they kindly mention that 'if the situation unravels' in the West's favour there is a 'possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality' - and what is the form of interpretation of Islam ISIS are following? ... how convenient.. it's Salafist.



Finally it decides to redact the part about facilitating the terrorist organisations into entering the Iraqi arena.



If this section were to take the angle that other powers out of America's control were facilitating the terrorist elements to enter the Iraqi arena then it surely wouldn't have redacted this part out. It leads one to believe that this section was in fact talking about how the West can renew the facilitation of rounding up the Jihadi organisations from around the world and push them into Iraq. Exactly what ISIS are doing today with many groups pledging their allegiances to them and flocking to join their ranks.

Now if you still believe ISIS are not their to serve the agenda of the West, then you're truly and utterly naive. This is a sectarian war headed by the U.S with its allies Russia, Iran and China to bring the Muslims to their knees and destroy whatever they have left in their capability, i.e. nuclear, manpower or resources and ultimately their religion that binds them.

Thank you for reading this, share this widely with others.

Jazakamullah Khairan

The Three Types of Sectarianism - Washington Institute

A recent article published by the Washington Institute interestingly separates sectarianism into three types.

1) Institutionalized Sectarianism
2) Incidental Sectarianism
3) Exploitative Sectarianism

Institutionalized Sectarianism
"Some groups and states have integrated sectarian themes into the very fabric of their political, cultural, and educational systems. Sectarianism, in other words, has been institutionalized. "
Institutionalized Sectarianism is by far the most dangerous and most difficult form of sectarianism to counter. Examples of this include the likes of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism and Iran's 'Governance of the Jurists', meaning a regime overseen by scholars. The article goes on to say that this is something ISIS is also seeking to achieve.

Incidental Sectarianism
"...as its name implies, does not involve a deliberate effort to implement a sectarian agenda. Sectarianism does not play a central role in a state or group's objectives, even if there are overtones of it."

Incidental Sectarianism is a form of sectarianism that is evident in conflicts even if that was not the reason for the conflict. The Syrian civil war is an example of this whereby the struggle is not to eradicate the Alawite, but rather the Alawi regime from leadership - but at the same time the opposition uses sectarianism to bolster their ranks. 

Exploitative Sectarianism

"Finally, there is exploitative sectarianism, a category that characterizes the tactics and nature of many of the most violent actors in the region."

The article suggests that most of the larger Jihadi organisations today exploit sectarianism to recruit and to achieve political goals however one could argue that the West not only exploit sectarianism but help in institutionalizing it for their own gains in the Middle East. 

RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

Tension between #Cairo and #Riyadh escalates over #Brotherhood in #Syria and #Yemen - MidEastMonitor

Sources: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/18963-tension-between-cairo-and-riyadh-escalates-over-brotherhood-in-syria-and-yemen

Official sources in Egypt have said that Cairo has conveyed to Riyadh its concern over what it describes as "an exaggeration" in opening up to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world and "attempts to rely on the group in resolving the crisis" in Yemen and containing the situation in Syria. This, claims the Egyptian regime, will definitely lead to adverse consequences for regional stability; once the Brotherhood seizes the reins of government in certain Arab countries with the help of Saudi Arabia it will not stop there but will seek to seize control over all Arab capitals.

"Saudi Arabia itself," said one source, "despite its tight internal security policy, may find itself facing a new predicament associated with the Brotherhood, just like the other Gulf States. In this regard we have been talking to our brothers in the United Arab Emirates in an attempt to raise the issue quietly within the framework of the Gulf Cooperation Council."

There is widespread dismay within the folds of the Syrian opposition, he added, because of the enhanced communication between Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood there in parallel with Turkish military support for Syrian factions affiliated with the movement in one way or another. European diplomatic sources have told Al-Shorouk that the countries they represent have informed Cairo, directly or indirectly, that any vision of the political future of Syria after Assad cannot exclude the Brotherhood in the way that Egypt wants.

According to the same Europeans, it is not possible to expect Saudi Arabia to counter the increasing involvement of Lebanon's Hezbollah in support of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria without Riyadh taking action in order to mobilise what it considers to be the "likely Sunni" alternative. This is a reference to the Sunni forces that are not part of the ISIS umbrella; the Saudis consider the moves by Hezbollah to be a Shia dynamic supported by Iran, Riyadh's arch enemy.

In the meantime, officials in Cairo say that the Egyptian regime has received an unequivocal message about the rise in the level of discomfort among Yemeni factions opposed to the Houthi expansion as a result of the rise in Saudi support for the Brotherhood in the country. He added that leaders of the Yemeni factions have told Cairo of their displeasure with the political prescription that may come out of the ongoing communication between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic movement. "I think that they do not object to allocating a share for the Brotherhood but they can see that Saudi Arabia is heading towards offering the movement a majority and not just a share."

As for the Saudis themselves, according to Arab and Western diplomatic sources they do not intend to change their strategy or ideas regarding Yemen. "With regards to Yemen," said one European ambassador in the Egyptian capital, "we know very clearly that Riyadh is angry because of what it considers to be balking on the part of Cairo and a failure to provide support. The House of Saud does not intend to listen to what the Egyptians have to say. With Syria, the matter may be slightly different, whereby Riyadh will seek to ensure Egyptian support of some kind. It will proceed with formulating something and then will ask Cairo to support it, but it will not move in conjunction with Cairo."

The Egyptian government has told the Saudis that it understands their concern regarding the Iranian expansion "We share some of that concern," said a diplomatic source. "However, at the same time we do not want to confront religious forces with other religious forces."

He acknowledges that Riyadh is accusing Cairo of hindering its moves that are aimed at grouping together political formulations with a Brotherhood base in both Yemen and Syria. "We cannot support the ascension of the Brotherhood to power in any Arab state, however; for us this is a closed case."

Egyptian officials across various sectors keep reiterating the same phrases about the Turkey-Qatar concord intended to boost the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in as many Arab capitals as possible in what they insist is a move prompted from within some political circles in Washington which want to put Islamists in power. The talk in this regard is focused on the White House and not the State Department.

Iraqi official: Military planes dropped weapons to ISIS fighters by 'mistake'

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/18651-iraqi-official-military-planes-dropped-weapons-to-isis-fighters-by-mistake

AGAIN! What a surprise?

This has happened way too many times for it to be a coincidence. From mass armament of defected rebels to dropping ammunition willy nilly in ISIS strongholds. The U.S. will continue in getting away with fuelling the ongoing bloodshed in the Middle East by proxy militias.

An Iraqi official revealed today that Iraqi air force planes dropped weapons and ammunition to ISIS by mistake. The planes had intended to drop the weapons to security forces that are besieged by ISIS in Baiji oil refinery in northern Iraq.

Iskandar Witwit, a member of parliament's security committee, told the Anadolu Agency that "Iraqi army planes dropped weapons and ammunition to the Iraqi security forces that are besieged by ISIS in Baiji oil refinery, but the dropping operation was mistaken. This enabled ISIS members to seize most of the weapons." He did not specify the date of the incident or the type or number of weapons.

The Islamic State organisation (ISIS) has been seeking for weeks to seize complete control of the Baiji oil refinery, which is considered the biggest refinery in Iraq, although its attempts have been stopped on multiple occasions by forces protecting the refinery and military reinforcements. This has recently driven the government to support the protection of the refinery.

Since ISIS began to seize control of major sites in the northern and western areas of the country last summer, the refinery stopped its operations.

Before it stopped operations, the refinery produced 170,000 barrels of oil derivatives consumed locally.

Witwit explained that ISIS is gaining progress in a number of areas in the country in the eastern area of Fallujah in the Anbar governorate. He noted that the ISIS fighters greatly progressed in the past few hours, towards the Tareq camp where joint forces of the Golden Team (state forces) and the eastern Fallujah army forces are located.