| Today's exclusive Story :
Optional Scenarios if the USA does not
exterminate the Mullah Jihadis of Iran now
- Loss of face in front of
the world.
- Impression amongst Allies that the US is not going
to be consistent and decisive in the war against terror.
- Al
Qaeda and other Terrorist organisations will be emboldened to strike
the US in a way that would be even more devastating than 9/11.
-
The Mullah Jihadis will gloat over their second survival after the
first one when they attacked the US embassy in Tehran and held the
diplomats hostage for years
- They will go full steam ahead with
their nuclear program.
After developing nuclear weapons the
Mullah Jihadis will extend their co-ordination with Islamic terrorist
organizations.
- They will be emboldened to be less circumspect
with their, so far tacit, links with Al Qaeda (remember their giving
refuge to Mohammed bin laden (Osama's son) and other Al Qaeda thugs) .
- They
will be emboldened to finance terrorist strikes more openly across
the globe (remember their financing of the Hezbollah in Lebanon).
- They will be emboldened to strike the US surreptitiously with
more chemical weapons (remember the Anthrax attacks in 2001).
-
Other Islamic terror sponsoring states like Sudan and Syria, will
also be emboldened to defy and strike at the US and the West.
-
It would be a psychological defeat for the West in general, and for
the USA in particular, and a psychological victory for terrorism.
So folks, make your choice.
Since taking office, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has wasted little time in molding the Iranian government in his own extremist image, a process which started with the appointment of Ali Larijani as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator. Larijani, a former commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and a close advisor to Ahmadinejad, possesses impeccable extremist credentials and is a favorite of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Supposedly a diplomat, Larijani is evidently not a fan of tactful parlance, recently declaring, 'We have bloodthirsty foes like the United States and Israel who could attack us with all they have. So, why should we deny ourselves any category of weapons just to please the savage European powers?' This much for Iran's peaceful intentions for its nuclear project! And so in the light of Iran's open
pursuit of nuclear technology and declaration of belligerent intent, President George Bush has issued a
strident new warning to Iran hinting at the consequences. "This behavior is
completely unacceptable," he said during a press conference at
his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Mr Bush said that Iran was
undermining the push for peace in the Middle East, which is
delicately poised after promising overtures last month.
Iran's nuclear ambitions are looming particularly large over the
region. Israel warned yesterday that Iran "is trying everything" to
get a nuclear weapon, and that if it succeeded it would threaten a
far wider theatre than just the Middle East.
The Mullah Jihadis are also quietly
and meticulously planning a fifth column in the Western World, as
another front of their asymmetric warfare. It is high time the US and
the West opened its eyes to the happenings around them and give up
the delusion they would not have to fight their forthcoming war
against Islamic Iran. The Mullah Jihadis are getting ready for it.
The world needs to learn that whenever they had their way the Jihadis
have moved through an unsuspecting and ill-prepared victim nation
like a hot knife through butter; now if human civilization is to be
saved, then it is high time for that butter to turn into lava so as
to melt the knife of the Islamic Jihad. A knife whose edge is today
being given a nuclear edge at Isfahan, Bushehr and
Natanz. Story Credits: WaronJihad Team
_____________________________
Bush's speech on Iraq - Beginning of the Endgame in Iraq? So more bucketfuls of American blood will be shed to defend the back alleys of Baghdad! That's the sum and substance of what the President has said. Here we try to get inside the President's mind and read the mindset of our head honcho and his bunch of advisers. Do tell us if we are wrong. Ping or mail us at newsonterror@yahoo.com.sg Can twenty one thousand additional rookies succeed as referees of a bloodied civil war? The joint Iraqi-American action on Haifa Street shows that our boys will end up fighting the Sunnis alongside the Shiite dominated Iraqi army. The Shiite dominated Maliki administration will see to it that we do not bring Moqtada Al Sadr's Shiite Mehdi Army within our crosshairs. Yes, the result of our actions will be weaken the insurgency, but only the Sunni part of it. What of the Shiite part of it? The Shiite Maliki regime will do nothing really about it, and they will prevent us from doing anything to weaken the mailed fist of the Shiites - the Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigades - many of whose members are enrolled in to the formal Iraqi Army and Police. Maliki's Smart Move to use our Marines as the Cat's Paw against the Sunnis Nouri Al Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister has smartly played his cards. Some days back before he met President Bush at Amman, Jordan, Maliki declared that he does not support the American timetable for withdrawal. He wanted us to go out faster than we planned to! So what's on his mind? If we have got him right, he wants us out, so that he can give a free hand for the Shiite dominated Iraqi Army and Police to decimate the Sunnis in and around Baghdad and push them west of Baghdad, deeper in to the sandy wastes of the Sunni dominated Anbar Province. This would deliver the fruit of the Iraqi Civil War - Baghdad, to the Shiites, who would then claim sovereignty over the whole of Iraq by the right of control over the capital! If Maliki wanted us to get out faster, just a few days back, then why has he reversed his stand and supported the idea of the influx of more Marines in to hellhole Baghdad? Any guesses? While supporting the influx of our Marines in to the divided city of Baghdad - the bone of contention between the Sunnis and Shiites, Maliki has also insisted that he wants our Marines to take orders from his Shiite dominated Iraqi Army. So we end up doing the bidding of the Shiites against the Sunnis! So the twenty one thousand additional Marines that President Bush is sending in to the cauldron of Baghdad, are to fight for the Shiites against the Sunnis, if Maliki has his way! And we effectively although unwillingly end up taking sides in a Shiites-Sunni civil war. Where does Moqtada Al Sadr fit in to all this? He is the mind influencing the already anti-Sunni jaundiced mind of Nouri Al Maliki. The Shiite Ayatollahs: Sadr, Sistani, Al Hakim and company, see a full blown Shiite Sunni civil war coming, and in that, they want to use their front-man Maliki to make our Marines into their storm-troopers who will flush out the Sunnis from Baghdad and after that from Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit, ad other Sunni strongholds. How far the Shiite kingpins will succeed in doing this remains to be seen. The New Shiite-Sunni and Persian-Arab Re-alignments to emerge in the Middle East What we are about to say will sound like beltway buzz to many readers, but we still make our point. The next few months are going to see realignments in both the Shiite and Sunni camps. Today the Persian-Arab ethnic schism cuts across the Shiite-Sunni religious schism. Both the schisms have hoary histories going back to the very first days of Islam in the year 637, when the Muslim Arabs first invaded pre-Muslim Persia. From the days when the Persians were overrun and defeated and forcibly converted to Islam by the truculent Arabs, the Persians have nursed a grudge against their tormentors (Arabs) in spite of their conversion to Islam. This hostility is reflected in many aspects of Persian life. One of them is the usage of the pre-Muslim Zoroastrian-Persian name for god "Hormazd" in many Iranian names - including that of Ahmedinejad, Zalmay Khalilzad (Afghan of Persian extraction), etc. The conjugation of the name Ahmed-i-hormazd is Ahmedinejad, which literally translates as "Ahmed of god" or God's Ahmed. "Hormazd" derived from "Ahura-Mazda" is the pre-Muslim Zoroastrian name for god. Another example is that of the last Zoroastrian general who unsuccessfully tried to fight off the invading Arab Muslims at the battle of Qadisiyya. His name was Farrokhzad (from Farrokh-Hormazd which translates as God's Farrokh). The anti-Arab element of the Persian (Iranian) psyche All this would sound pedantic and irrelevant, but it underlines the underlying anti-Arab element of the Persian (Iranian) psyche. It is this anti-Arab element of the Persian (Iranian) psyche that will see the Sunni Kurds go over to the Shiite fold. Although the Kurds are of Persian descent and practise Sunni Islam, the Shiite Arabs and Persians of Southern Iraq nevertheless find them trustworthy enough to inject the Sunni Kurdish Peshmergas into the battle for Baghdad to decimate the Arab Sunnis there. Evidently the Shiites of southern Iraq can trust the Sunni Kurds to fight the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad! This is so as the Kurds, although Sunnis have never flaunted their religious identity. They want a separate homeland, based on their ethnicity - which is Persian. The Kurds speak a dialect of Farsi (the Persian language) and share a common pre-Islamic history with the Iranians, not with the Arabs! Some of the Kurds (known as Yezidis) still practise Zoroastrianism in the guise of Islam! Not many realize that this common ancestry with the Shiite Persians, makes the Kurds a trustworthy ally for the Iraqi Shiites many of whom have mixed Persian-Arab ancestry, in their fight with the Sunni Arabs. It is for this Persian ethnicity of the Kurds that might see the Kurds gradually aligning themselves with the Shiites in Iraq and also in Iran. Did we note the warm embrace that the Iraqi President of Kurdish ethnicity Talebani received from Ahmedinejad? And did we notice that it was Talebani who was annoyed when we detained the Iranian Intelligence officer who were his guests in Baghdad? These events tell a tale of the pre-Iranian psyche of the Kurds. The Kurds in Iraq have been pro-American, as it was we who liberated them form the tyranny of the Arab Saddam who was nominally Sunni. But it remains to be seen that when push comes to shove for us to take military action against Iran, will the Iraqi Kurds join the Iranians against us. Or do they influence the Iranians to compromise with us and use their nukes against the Sunni Arab regimes to exact an historic revenge for a deed that the Muslim Arabs committed in the 7th century against the Iranians when they defeated and destroyed the pre-Islamic Zoroastrian Sassanid empire. In this hypothetical scenario, any Iranian action against the Arabs would see the weakening of Islam due to Persian-Arab rivalry. Both possibilities are plausible, it remains to be seen, what card do our Iraqi Kurdish friends play. Do they motivate their Iranian clansmen to use the nuclear weaponry against the Arabs, or do they not. Anyway the Iranians have their time only till before Israel destroys the Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Bushehr. In fact we have reasons to believe that Israel has so far restrained its hand due to American pressure and not destroyed the Iranian nuclear facilities as some Pentagon pundits, as also do many Arab leaders, expect the Iranian nukes to be meant for being exploded at Riyadh, Dubai, Muscat, Sanaa (Yemen), Aden, et al., and not at New York! This is why the Iranian nukes are a horrible nightmare for the Sunni Arabs! May their dreams come true, Inshallah :) Alongside the shift of the allegiance of the Sunni Kurds to the Shiite Iranians, we may see at least some of the Arab Shiites shift their allegiance to the Sunni Arabs (most Arabs are Sunnis). Thus in addition to the Shiite-Sunni cleavage that we have today we may see an Arab-Iranian cleavage emerge in the near future that will cut across the Shiite-Sunni cleavage and complicate Middle Eastern politics further!. Future American Policy vis-a-vis Shiites and Sunnis - Running with the Hare and Hunting with the Hound! In this confusing and explosive scenario of ethnicity, clans, religion and terrorism, what could be American policy with respect to the warring parties. In Iraq, in the short run, we would reluctantly play along with the Shiites and do Nouri Al Maliki's bidding of fighting the Shiite's war against the Sunnis inside Iraq. We may limit ourselves to doing Maliki's bidding while Sadr makes himself scarce and does not get into our way or step on our toes. But outside Iraq we cannot do the bidding of the Shiites, as that would mean supporting Iran and Hezbollah! So outside Iraq, we would oppose Iran and the Hezbollah, while supporting the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan, the Wahabi monarchy in Saudi Arabia, the Mubarak regime of Egypt (all of whom are Sunnis). This would lead to an ironic situation in which we would support the Shiites inside Iraq, by fighting alongside them against the Sunnis. But outside Iraq we would support Sunni regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt against threats from Shiite Iran. The discreetly emerging Al Qaeda-Saudi Entente Another discreet tendency would be the emerging undeclared entente between Al Qaeda and the Sunni regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, etc. For obvious reasons this alliance cannot be openly declared, but the Sunni regimes would support the Al Qaeda, on condition that they do not destabilize the established Sunni regimes, but target the Shiites, be they in Iran, Lebanon Iraq, Bahrain, Pakistan or elsewhere. We could see mind-numbing Muslim-on-Muslim violence between the Sunnis led by Al Qaeda in collaboration with the Sunni regimes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt; and the Shiites led by the Hezbollah, Mehdi Army, Badr Brigades and Iran. Syria's Role in the Shiite-Sunni war? In this scenario, Syria would remain a "Dark Horse", as the Syrian regime is controlled by Sunni-Baathists, and is presided over by a breakaway Shiite faction - the Alawites. The Assad family is Alawite, but are secularized Baathists who represent fanatical pan-Arab nationalism. But the emerging Shiite-Sunni violence across national borders in the Middle East could see dirty explosions in many Sunni capitals; courtesy the Iranian nuclear devices. This could be matched off by a series of car bomb explosions and suicide explosions in Shiite cities in Iraq and across Iran and Lebanon. Where does all this take us? American, and overall Western, interests would be served if the Islamic world implodes, rather than exploding in our faces as it did at London (7/7), Madrid (3/11) and New York, Pentagon (9/11). The time is to wait and watch - the future in the Middle East promises to be full of fireworks. The son-et-lumiere show is about to begin. The wise thing for us to do is to plan for a surge of American Marines - not in to, but out of Iraq and the Middle East; and put our geostationary satellites at work to alert us to send in nuclear tipped missiles, if Middle Eastern affairs reach a boil that could spill over to threaten peace in the Western Hemisphere!
|
