Rock Creek Free Press
January 27, 2007
By Khalid Rosenbaum
The U.S. government is willing to acknowledge supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan because there was an anti-communist justification. The U.S. openly supports Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, because they are stable and have precious oil. What about all the other countries of the Islamic Crescent?
The U.S. supported Iran’s fundamentalists through the 1980s to help free hostages and after they were released. Robert Dreyfus in his book “Devil’s Game” details U.S. Cold War support for Islamic groups and governments, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. According to US documents, the stated purpose for the support was to counter the influence of the Soviet Union. In Palestine, U.S. support for Hamas was justified to counter the influence of the Fattah movement and Arafat.
Click for audio/video
Most Americans readily accept a confession of government incompetence, because they do not believe supporting fundamentalism would benefit America. But creating a Union of Islamic States (UIS) does benefit the American elites and England’s financial Lords which is why it is being covertly pursued. When pan-Islamicism forms, the standard liberal explanation will be, “U.S. blunders contributed, but it was the natural tendency of the Muslim resurgence that created it.”
What is really the natural tendency of Middle East leadership?
There are three kinds of governments in the Middle East. First, there is the parliamentary secular democracy, almost always with socialist and nationalist leanings, such as the Mossadeq government in Iran before the famous 1953 CIA coup. Second, there is the secular dictatorship or monarchy, usually again with socialist leanings. Examples of these regimes are Saddam Hussein of pre-invasion Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Assad in Syria and the Shah in Iran. The U.S. supported many of these governments enthusiastically while simultaneously supporting the third type, Fundamentalist Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and present day Iran.
We are told that the natural tendency of Muslims is to move towards the third type, Islamic Governments. The proof is in plain sight, we’re told, with the elected Muslim Brothers in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, the Taliban in Afghanistan, emergence of Shiite power in Iraq, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon. But the US has been covertly supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Taliban. Just recently during June of 2005, Condoleezza Rice told the Egyptian President to open Egypt’s elections. Before then, the Brotherhood had been refused parliamentary seats. Now they hold a share of power thanks to Rice. A similar situation happened with Hamas when Bush asked for open elections in Palestine. Is this caused by the natural tendency of Muslims to support religious leaders?
The last time religious leaders ruled across the Middle East was during western colonialism. Before WWII, religious monarchs such as those still in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait occupied almost every nation in the region, and all were pawns of either France or Britain.
The west lost control of the Middle East immediately after WWII when monarchies were overthrown and replaced with secular socialist democracies. The CIA quickly replaced many new democracies with dictatorships, starting with Iran in 1953. For most of these countries, there was no Islamic base after WWII to restore a religious government, so an intermediary dictator was installed. In order to gain cooperation from the people, the regime often had socialist leanings, as in the case of Saddam Hussein from the socialist Baathist party. Health care and universities were almost free in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Saddam’s Iraq. Women generally had access to good jobs and higher education.
Ayatollah Khomeini arrives in Iran
delivered on French Military plane February 1, 1979
In Iraq, the U.S. is in the process of replacing a secular dictator with an Islamic government. This will be attributed to “missteps” and incompetence on the part of the U.S. but the current chaos in Iraq is clearly the result of what the Pentagon called the “Salvador Option.” According to online Newsweek (1/14/2005), “The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq.” The death squad attacks on religious sites and markets should be familiar to our ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, because he was running these same types of operations in Latin America under Reagan.
Finally we come to Iran, the most important player of the US game. A June 24, 2005 London Financial Times article titled, “US hawks rooting for hard-line Iranian candidate” stated that while Dick Cheney is secretly supporting the religious candidate, Bush was publicly supporting the progressive candidate. Bush’s opposition and rhetoric has had the effect of helping Ahmadinejad gain power and influence throughout the Middle East. Now stepping in to save Bush in his Iraq war blunder is James Baker, Robert Gates, Blair, and the Study Group. Their plan involves Iran gaining influence over Iraq. Back in May 2004, it was revealed that Ahmed Chalabi’s loyalties were to Iran, yet we continued to support Chalabi’s installation to leadership in Iraq.
During the Iran-Contra affair, the weapons destined for Iran were funneled through Israel. An August 28, 2002, Yahoo.com headline read, “Germany holds up Israeli military shipment said headed for Iran.” The excuses have run out, but the UIS (Union of Islamic States) is just around the corner.
Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam
Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States