British Basra Withdrawal: You Never Know Unless You Go

By Liam Bailey*

September third saw the hand over of Basra Palace from British to Iraqi control. The 550 British troops previously stationed there have gone to join the last remaining 5000 British troops in the airport base on the city's outskirts. The handover brought mixed responses from Iraqis and from the press.

Gordon Brown insisted that the move was planned as part of the British withdrawal strategy and was not a defeat, stating that in an over-watch role the troops could re-intervene on the request of the Iraqis and promised we would still: "discharge our duties to the Iraqi people and the international community". Most press reports however draw attention to the lack of security, gang-warfare and high militia presence in the city, calling the withdrawal a defeat.

One headline in the Guardian: British leave with the job not done. And I think that about sums it up. The British Labour government's priority is to bring the troops home as quickly as possible, with an election coming up and the lack of popularity in Britain for the war and our troops continued presence in it. Not that I'm knocking it.

As I have always believed, teamed with (Islam's enemy no.1) the U.S., Britain was never going to bring security to the south -- just as the same is true for the U.S. in the north. In fact I have always thought (and 69% of Iraqis think) they are causing as much violence as they are quelling. That is not surprising given the backdrop to the war: the build up of years of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, Bush Snr's lying to the Shiites and Kurds causing thousands of their deaths in 1991, the hollow precursor for the war and heavyweight belief that it was all for the oil.

Coalition atrocities that have since heightened resentment and hatred for the occupiers, combined with constant threats to Iran that have backed-up the cynicism of a war on Muslims, and the fact that almost every aspect of Iraqi life has gotten worse under the occupation have continually worsened and intensified the insurgency. All the above cut the British troop's work out for them, and that's before we even get onto the sectarian violence caused by Saddam favoring the Sunnis and oppressing the Shiites and Kurds -- but also kept a lid on by his fierce rule.

Sectarian violence has been worsened by outside influences and actors. It is widely thought that the Arab states, like Saudi Arabia are supporting Sunni groups, and according to official U.S. sources Iran is supporting and arming Shia militias.

The Shia militias are predominant in the British controlled south, where Iran has direct border access, meaning if they are arming and funding militias it is easier than it is for the Arab states to support the Sunni groups. To make matters worse Iran has the added motive of the ever-present danger of a U.S. attack, making Iran determined to make the U.S.' life difficult in Iraq. Unfortunately Britain suffers first and worst from any of Iran's pre-emptive defense measures.

So, having said all that, the fact that British troops have been able to hand-over power to the Iraqi forces in all but one of the southern provinces they controlled without any severe consequences says a lot about the abilities and strengths of the British army.

It also says that the MoD has realized the point I have made in this article: British troops can only maintain a certain level of security; the attacks levelled at them prevent them from bringing total security and peace. Therefore, when they have trained the Iraqi police and army in that province sufficiently it is right for them to hand-over control. After all, we will never know if they can do it unless we let them try.

I'll finish by saying that I don't know enough about the situation in the south -- figures, polls, etc -- to really say whether it is a defeat or not. But pulling out to a safe distance, removing a target that creates its share of violence, avoiding the loss of anymore British troops while continuing to train Iraqi forces, monitor the situation and be on-call if needed, sounds like the best solution all round. As the saying goes: you'll never know unless you go.

The World After Bush Part I: Iraq

By Liam Bailey

I said in my last article that the U.S. arms sale to the gulf is a possible sign that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might be closer than Bush wants to admit. With all my conviction I say: there will be no U.S. victory in Iraq and eventually they will have to pullout, if not before Bush leaves office then sometime soon after.

When reading an article about the continued violence in Somalia with my last article still fresh in my mind, I asked myself the question, where will the world be after the Bush administration? Further, will things calm down, or have the Neocons caused so much friction and meddled so much that the explosion of violence in so many places around the world will continue to worsen?

I will attempt to answer my questions in a series of articles, and through the course will also inadvertently show why electing the son of a U.S. President, as President is perhaps a mistake, that should not be repeated.

In most of the worlds current conflict zones the U.S. has had some involvement, but never has their involvement been as catastrophic as under (the infantile megalomaniac) President Bush Jnr.

Part I: Iraq

In Iraq for decades the U.S. has made mistake after mistake, funding, arming and otherwise cosying up to the maniac Saddam Hussein throughout the 80's and early 90's -- under the same policy that the U.S. follows time after time, always to the world's detriment: my enemy's enemy is my friend. Bush Jnr's predecessors learned from their mistakes when Saddam invaded Kuwait late 1990, therein doing the very thing his U.S. funding was supposed to stop Iran (their common enemy), doing: threatening the vital oil supplies of the Middle East.

Bush Snr was in charge when the U.S. teamed up with the U.N. to go and drive Saddam's forces back out of Kuwait. In doing so he decided to start uprisings in Iraq's oppressed Shiite and Kurdish communities, in television addresses promising their uprisings would receive U.S. support to topple Saddam. Help never came, Saddam's forces fled Kuwait and crushed the revolts -- thousands were killed in reprisals.

The reason Bush Snr didn't send forces on into Iraq is likely the same reason that the current occupation is a disaster: Saddam's oppression keeping the lid on a sectarian powder keg.

Though I personally believe if Bush Snr had ordered U.S. troops to chase Saddam's fleeing forces into Iraq and finish the job -- even a U.S. force alone -- chasing Saddam's men into the Shiite uprising and a war on two fronts, with the Kurdish uprising causing a third front, would have made for an easy victory.

An easy victory unlike that of the 2003 war, because the Shiite's and Kurds wouldn't have hated and mistrusted the U.S. for the thousands killed when they revolted on Bush Snr's word. That also being the reason why 2003's battle for hearts and minds was lost before it begun.

Bush Jnr went ahead and invaded Iraq either because he wanted to prove he had more bottle than his daddy and thought like many sons do, that anything their dad can do they can do better. Or he knew Iraq would turn out like it has but decided to go in for their oil anyway. I'll let you decide.

Either way, the tyrant successfully toppled in the U.S. invasion has been replaced with hundreds of tyrants -- each as maniacal and vindictive but with nobody at all to answer to. At least with Saddam we could impose sanctions and threaten to invade. Now we've invaded, what is left to do about the sectarian death squads.

Few deny that the forces in Iraq are doing very little to stop the violence, in fact some say they are making it worse, but what is the alternative...

A U.S. withdrawal will only see the sectarian violence worsen. Iraq will descend into a civil war field, fuelled by the continuing proxy war already being fought between the Arab states and Iran using their sectarian soldiers in Iraq. The latter is another war that will worsen after a U.S. withdrawal, and one that won't be helped by the billions of dollars worth of arms being sold to the Arabs -- by guess who, the Bush administration.

So, whether the Iraq withdrawal happens before Bush leaves office or after, there is absolutely no chance that the situation in Iraq will calm down after the Bush administration leaves office and the U.S. pulls out of Iraq.

Part II will look at what is likely to happen in Somalia after the Bush administration leaves office, will the funding of the Ethiopian occupation force continue? Will U.S contractors still be at large there?

Bush Vs Putin – Cold-war or Hot-Air?

The real battle is for control of natural resources, I doubt we will see another cold-war.

By Liam Bailey

This week has seen tensions between Russia and the U.S. continue to escalate, over the proposed U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. As Bush, Putin and the other leaders of the world's (G8) eight largest economies meet in Germany to focus on climate change, I wonder if they can cool the rising temperature of trans-Atlantic rhetoric.

The current bout of rhetoric between the two former cold-war foes and world super-powers has descended into a clash of the immature sociopathic titans, but is there any real danger?

For instance, Jun. 3 when Putin threatened to retarget his missiles at Europe should the defense shield go ahead, he said:

"We disclaim responsibility for our retaliatory steps, because (he started it) it is not we who are the initiators of the new arms race, which is undoubtedly brewing in Europe."

Bush responded, firstly by disregarding Putin's threat, saying: "Russia's not going to attack Europe." he also said that Putin had "derailed" democratic reforms in Russia, -- no doubt further inflaming Putin's anger -- before attempting to make Russia look like the (bad-guys) ones who are out to escalate the situation, by saying that the U.S. would not respond militarily to Putin's threat:

"Russia is not an enemy. There needs to be no military response because we're not at war with Russia. ... Russia is not a threat. Nor is the missile defense we're proposing a threat to Russia."

To be fair Putin is right, Russia did not start the current chain of events, but they have played their part in its coming to this point.

To most, the War on Terror has now become clear as a war for the world's dwindling but increasingly valuable resources. The U.S. was first to seize the moment and begin attempting to take control of the world's largest oil reserves. Let's not forget that Russia has its own oil and gas reserves, whereas the U.S. has comparatively little.

In seeking to rectify this the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, partly to force Al Qaeda from their Taliban ruled haven, but also partly to ensure that the U.S. would harness Afghanistan's potential for a massively profitable pipeline between the vast resources of the Caucasus and financially wealthy but resource hungry Asia. No doubt Russia's intention when the U.S. was instrumental in their Afghan invasion failing in the 80's.

So, the U.S. succeeded where Russia failed: they took control of Afghanistan's massive resource revenue potential, and they did so without Russia noticing -- under the cover of destroying the perpetrators of 9/11. Russia awoke when the Afghan invasion was quickly followed by the U.S. taking control of some of the world's largest oil reserves in Iraq.

So, when it seemed like America was going to use Iran's fledgling nuclear program as justification to take control of their massive reserves next, and with it monopolize the world's remaining resources, Russia decided to take their stand by supporting Iran.

They did this firstly by vetoing U.N. resolutions against Iran, supported on this path by China. When the U.S. was hiking up the rhetoric about Iran needing to stop Uranium enrichment or an attack was on the table, Russia began building them a nuclear reactor. And when talk of U.S. or Israeli air-strikes against Iran being imminent was circling the globe, Russia sold Tor-M1 missile defense systems to Iran. Systems specifically designed to target and destroy American missiles -- bought and used by Israel -- before they reach their target.

When the U.S. slapped its own sanctions on Russia over the arm sales to Iran, economically fragile Russia was forced to become a little more cooperative, and we saw the first U.N. sanctions against Iran.

But by that time the deliveries had been made. Russia had equipped Iran with advanced technology and crippled the effectiveness of any potential U.S. air campaign against Iran.

In the western world, readers of the mainstream media still thought that the U.S and Russia were allies, with differences over Iran. Away from the mainstream media in strategic planning rooms in the White House and the Pentagon, in supporting Iran, Putin had shown that Russia knew the inevitable war for resources had begun and was ready and willing to fight for its share.

Next came the proposal for a U.S. missile defense shield right on Russia's doorstep. With satellites in space and radar systems in the Czech Republic to detect and target incoming missiles, and interceptor missiles in Poland to destroy them.

The project is being presented as a protection against a missile attack from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. But Iran is far from having missiles capable of reaching Israel, let alone America, and North Korea would almost certainly attack over the shorter Pacific route. So there is no need for a shield for the given reasons.

The U.S. asked Russia to take part in the project, and maintain that it is not designed to threaten Russia. But in the behind-the-scenes climate of the resource war, with U.S. knowledge that Russia is unhappy to relinquish its hold on the former Soviet satellite states, and Russia's understandable doubts about the given reasons for the shield, there is no way Russia will let the project go ahead without a fight.

The real question is: with rhetoric returning to cold-war levels, should we stock up on supplies and start building our fall-out shelters? My answer is no.

The cold-war was an uncomfortable and deeply frightening time for all involved. Every country with nuclear capabilities on both sides knew that if an attack was launched, not much would be left of any of their countries by the time the radioactive dust settled. Everyone was on constantly heightened alert, nerves shattered and trigger fingers shaking on every dispute -- false alarms and a general fear that Armageddon could be just around the corner. Neither side wanting a war but fearing the other could attack at any minute.

The same grounding remains, both sides know the consequences of an all out nuclear war between them, and it is still safe to say that neither side wants such a war. So it is also safe to say that neither country wants to return to cold-war status, constant pointless and nervous, but necessary preparations, putting everyone on edge about a war that no one wants.

But neither will Putin nor any Russian premier allow such a U.S. defense shield in two former Soviet states. So, under -- a megalomaniac with the mind of a child -- Bush, who seems unwilling to give up on his imperialistic dreams of the New American Century, the U.S. will continue on this path towards calling Russia's bluff -- installing missiles on their doorstep and allowing the U.S. to return to the real job of gaining control of the world's resources.

The reason why I am not building my shelter just yet, is that it is unlikely that Bush will be in the White House for long enough for this conflagration to reach critical levels. And it is likely whoever replaces Bush will be forced to take a more liberal approach in order to restore the U.S' image in the eyes of the world, which is important to most Americans and most U.S. Presidents.

If, god forbid, whoever becomes the next U.S. President continues on the same path as Bush, we might all need to begin preparing for the next cold-war.

International Community: Divide and Function Part III

By Liam Bailey

For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part III: Starving the Palestinians or doing the right thing?

It is particularly neccesary for the "international community" to separate its approach from that of the U.S, in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Evidence lies in the way the "international community" has followed Israel and the U.S' policies for dealing with Hamas as the newly elected Palestinian Authority government. The fair and democratic election was another demand, inferred to go before the ever-dangling carrot of a Palestinian state. But, when the Palestinian Authority did as was asked of them, in electing Hamas they did not do what Israel and the U.S. expected.

Hamas is classed as a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S -- a classification followed by most of the "international community". Some believe that Hamas' aims and means are legitimate in the face of Israel's unrelenting occupation and constant refusal to grant the Palestinians an independent state. Many, however can understand why Hamas' suicide bombings and failure to make the distinction between civilian and military puts them on the same "international" list as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Hamas however, only attacks elements of the occupation; not "international" targets.

Hamas' entry into democracy had come at the tail of months of slowly changing Hamas rhetoric, including offering Israel a "Hudna" (long running ceasefire) in return for a temporary end to the occupation and Palestinian borders, pending further negotiations. But instead of treating the changing Hamas as an opportunity to bring the popular front of the Palestinians into the "peace process" the "international community" followed the lead of Israel, and their U.S. loudspeaker and set about trying to destabilize the P.A. and bring down the newly elected government.

Israel began witholding millions in monthly tax revenues and, backed by the U.S. initiated a financial blockade of the P.A. The E.U. and the rest of the "international community" following suit shows just how much influence the U.S. has.

Not many people would relish living under the occupation and totalitarianism of a regime that your brethren in neigbouring countries had gone to war with several times. Made worse recently by the tightened border and checkpoint controls since the Second Intifada and Israel's disengagement from Gaza -- costing Palestinians their jobs in Israel. Things were bad enough for the Palestinian people. Blocking all international aid to the Hamas government made matters ten times worse.

Hamas being elected gave Israel an excuse to do what it has always been doing, putting more pressure on the Palestinian people to meet impossible demands; driving them into actions that will ensure they are continually perceived as terrorists and a threat. Of the demands that must be met to end the Palestinian blockade, the two most difficult are:

Renouncing all forms of violence:

Over the years Israel as defied the international community in failing to take down settlements, expaning settlements, and, even the U.S. demand to stop building new ones. Put simply they have continued to annex more Palestinian land despite it hindering often fervorous attempts at bringing peace. The Palestinians believe that Israel will not give up its hold on the land without a fight and that if there was no resistance Israel would simply continue its annexation. Therefore, Palestinians, including Hamas and Fatah will not renounce violence until Israel meets their demands:

Returning the land taken in the 1967 war or equivalent in land swaps, creating a Palestinian state therein with east Jerusalem as its capital, and allowing the return of all refugees.

Israel will never grant the latter, but I have always suspected that if the Palestinians were given their ownb state and sacred East Jerusalem, they would accept a compromise on the refugee issue: either full or part compensation and/or homes in the new Palestinian state.

And Recognize Israel's right to exist:

To Palestinians this means accepting that Israel had the right to expel their brothers and sisters in the 1948 war, thus relinquishing any chance of the right for their return. Israel doesn't recognize the Palestinians right to exist, what does the "international community" care if the Palestinians recognize Israel's? It doesn't, this demand like all the others are the demands of Israel, amplified by the U.S. and followed by the "international community".

The treatment of the new unity government has reinforced the view of the Palestinians and some prominent Israelis, that Israel doesn't want peace and my view that the U.S. should no longer lead the "international community" in this crisis.

The new unity government, agreed in Mecca was the power-sharing agreement that Palestinians and seekers of peace had been praying for and the two parties trying and failing to achieve. Handing government of the P.A. to Israel and the U.S' pin-up Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party, sharing power with the shunned Hamas -- the latter has slightly more power. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh remained Prime Minister. This sparked fear for the "peace process", but the deal stated Abbas would carry on any negotiations with Israel.

The impression was always given that Israel, the U.S. and the "international community" shared the hope for Palestinian unity and the latter would spring into action to ensure a just peace were it achieved. In reality something quite different has emerged.

The unity deal came shortly after a U.N. report [pdf] warned of a humanitarian disaster in the P.A, especially in Gaza should the "international community" siege not be lifted.

The new unity government has not met the demands, but it went some way to meeting the third demand: adhering to past agreements between the PLO and Israel; the unity government respects past agreements. Because, in this concession the unity government went some way to giving Israel what it externally demands in a partner for peace, while maintaining the popular support to carry through any agreement, the "international community" began talking about lifting the financial blockade.

Israel, backed by the U.S. has held firm: the Palestinian Authority must meet the three demands in full. So far the "international community" has refused to show the strength of doing the right thing at the expense of losing its pairing with the world's strongest U.S.

All the while nothing is being demanded of Israel. Every time the U.N Security Council attempts to make such demands the U.S. uses its veto power. Over 140 examples of the U.S. stopping the U.N.S.C from fulfilling its charter should be enough for the world to realize the U.N. has been rendered useless in the Israel/Palestine conflict. The same goes for the Quartet: the U.N, the E.U, Russia and the U.S. combined should be able to make both sides concede the necessary amount to end this long-running conflict, but any good they could do is tainted by the U.S' support for Israel.

The E.U, Russia and other prominent members and groups of the "international community" acting independently of the U.S is the Palestinians only hope.

International Community: Divide and Function Part II

By Liam Bailey


For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part II: Chemical weapons and broken promises: Iran and Iraq past and present.

My last article displayed how President Reagan having the "international community serving America's interests in Afghanistan was directly responsble for the formation of Al Qaeda, and indirectly for the rise of the Taliban. But Afghanistan wasn't the only place where an extremist's actions coinciding with America's interests turned him into a poorly chosen ally. Or where their allegiance caused problems we must deal with today.

When the Islamic revolution removed the U.S. imposed Shah and swept the Khomeini regime to power in Iran, the taking of hostages in the U.S. embassy turned them from U.S. ally to enemy number one. The feeling was mutual.

It is alleged that Reagan and those behind his Presidential campaign drew out the hostage crisis to take the Presidency. Meanwhile the extremist in question, Saddam Hussein launched a massive invasion of Iran, seeking to capitalize on the chaos of the revolution. When Iran had repelled Saddam's forces and advanced well inside Iraq, the U.S. intervened to stop Iran beaking through Iraqi defences and threatening Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the security of U.S. oil supplies.

The first major move was America's removal of Iraq from the international sponsors of terrorism list as America began its program of support. All the while attempting to secure gaurantees from the Export-Import Bank. When they succeeded aconcentrated campaign by the U.S and the "international community" began to fund, arm and provide Saddam with dual-use technologies that could be used to produce chemical weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, then part of Reagan's cabinet visited Saddam on numerous occasions.

With U.S. support, including detailed intelligence on Iranian troop movements from spy-planes, Iraq was succesful in repelling the Iranian advance.

Even after the Iran-Iraq war, when Reagan had been replaced by Bush Snr, still oil-came before reason, and despite Saddam's use of chemical weapons against minority Kurds in his own country, the U.S. still favoured maintaining a good relationship with Iraq.

In 1991 Saddam's delusions of military strength and unconditional U.S. support lead to his invasion of Kuwait thus threatening Saudi Arabia. Saddam did what the U.S. sponsored him to stop Iran doing, suffice to say good relations were terminated from that day forward.

After brief attempts at diplomacy, U.N. and U.S. forces were deployed to expel Saddam's forces from Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia. The stationing of U.S troops in Saudi Arabia, and its permanence when Saddam was expelled were the main reasons behind Bin Laden's Fatwas; religous rulings calling for the murder, first of American troops in Saudi Arabia (1996), then American's and their allies anywhere in the world (1998). The latter was, in effect, a declaration of war against the "international community". It was also two elements of U.S. foreign policy colliding – a collision still sending shock-waves through Iraq and the world.

Shortly before the U.S/U.N. offensive was launched, Bush Snr called to the Shiite (southern Iraq) and Kurdish (northern Iraq) communities, both badly oppressed by Saddam’s Sunni Regime, to revolt and overthrow their oppressive dictator – arguably inferring direct U.S support in this aim.

Sparked by the demoralized Iraqi troops returning from their defeat in Kuwait, the Shiite’s began a spontaneous uprising in the South, and later a planned Kurdish uprising began in the North. Unfortunately, most of Saddam’s forces escaped the fighting in Kuwait, and when American support never materialized, thousands of Shiite's and Kurds were displaced and killed as Saddam’s Republican guards crushed the revolts, and in the ensuing campaign of reprisals. To Iraq's Shiite's and Kurds this must have seemed like Bush Snr selfishly tricked them into revolting to draw Saddam’s forces from Kuwait – making the job easier and lessening the casualties for U.S/U.N. forces. So, it is understandable that they would miss-trust the U.S. from then on, as well as feeling anger and hatred at the thousands killed.

So, one can imagine their response when Bush Jnr dropped thousands of leaflets making calls for a similar uprising, to "win the battle for hearts and minds" in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. That battle was already lost.

Shiite and Kurd miss-trust of the U.S would have been multiplied by the media hype surrounding Bush’s reasons for wanting to go to war in Iraq: Sexed-up dossiers and 45-minute lies, drawn attention to by a media presenting the true reason for the war as Bush’s desire to control Iraq’s rich oil reserves. This would have turned more Iraqi’s against their liberators.

I believe that even if U.S forces alone had advanced north in March 1991, on the tail of Saddam’s retreating Iraqi forces, the Shiite revolt in the south, and Kurdish in the North would ultimately have lead to Iraq fighting a war on two fronts, and therefore I believe being easily defeated. Furthermore, if this was done and Saddam overthrown then U.S forces would have had to deal with only the Sunni minority mistrust, and resentment. Being followers of Saddam, this would and has happened in any case.

Strong support from two of the three rival groups in Iraq, one Iraq’s predominant ethnic group, would almost certainly have forced the Sunni minority to take part in the new democratic proceedings, (a lot sooner than they did in the current occupation) for fear of being left out of future decisions in the rebuilding of their country.

The only reason I can think of for Bush Snr not finishing the job in 1991 was fear of Iran giving America a taste of its own medicine in response to Reagan's support of Saddam's killing thousands of Iranians (and Kurds) with western supplied chemical weapons.

To this day, a large portion of Iranian society must feel outraged by this, especially those who lost family members in chemical attacks and other battles, and especially Iranian intelligence.

So now, a figurehead of Iranian hatred is occupying the country next-door, Iraq, against the will of increasing numbers of Iraqis. Only a fool would believe Iran's claims that it isn't assisting Iraq's ever-violent insurgency.

As for their nuclear belligerency, Iran is already enriching Uranium and advancing at an alarming rate, why should they stop the program as a precondition for talks on stopping the program?

To maintain such a precondition one could suggest the U.S. doesn't want Iran to stop, it wants to go to war. The "international community" must begin forging its own path to avoid such an un-mitigating catastrophe as another major Middle East conflict.

International Community: Divide and Function

The U.S. is setting the world's foreign policy agenda based on its own interests.

By Liam Bailey

For far too long the U.S. has set the foreign policy agenda, and the "international community" blindly and unquestioningly follows. But with decades of evidence that U.S. foreign policy serves nothing further than their own interests, it is time we opened our eyes and made up our own minds.

Furthermore, major organizations like the U.N, N.A.T.O, the E.U., and the Quartet are all failing miserably as peace-makers. Why? Because the U.S is impeding them from the front, determining efforts at conflict resolution based on its own interests. The "international community" backs their efforts and echoes their words. Really they should know better; the U.S using its influence to have the international community serving its interests is the root cause of most of the world's current conflicts, and one of the main reasons some of the longer-running conflicts haven't been resolved. When is it going to stop?

Part 1: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and...

The War on Terror:

The two biggest wars of our generation have been started by the U.S. under the umbrella of the War on Terror, but they are not actually lessening terror around the world — in fact if anything they are increasing it. Just last year, a report by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said that Iraq has become a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism and is providing a training and exercise ground for Jihadis from around the globe. Afghanistan is serving the same purpose, though perhaps on a smaller scale.

It seems, on the back of the notoriety gained from 9/11 and their endeavours in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with the latter's legitimization of their terrorism as a battlefield war, Al Qaeda has spread terrorism and suicide bombing around the globe. I say this because of the recent spate of suicide bombings in Morocco and Somalia.

Many people believe the War on Terror is a cover for using military force to shore up control of natural resources for America's future. No one doubts that the Bush administration is one of the most conservative we have seen in the White House. The last such conservative President, who put the same weight on oil when making foreign policy decisions, was President Reagan.

Afghanistan:

It was Reagan's determination to stop the Soviet Union and end their control of strategically vital Afghanistan; rather his means of doing so that kick-started the phenomenon of Islamic extremist terror aimed at western interests. Reagan's policies included: funding the extremist of extreme Mujahideen groups, pressuring Saudi Arabia to match their level of funding, and arming the anti-Soviet Afghanistanis with the best weaponry via Pakistani intelligence.

Perhaps the two biggest mistakes were pressuring Saudi Arabia's King Fahd to the point where his intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal hired Bin Laden to recruit fighters and secure funds from rich Arabs for the Afghan Jihad, and having the U.K's Special Air Service give the Mujahideen explosives training, including how to improvise Soviet explosives captured in ambushes and recovered mines. Bin Laden kept a database of fighters recruited for the struggle. Al Qaeda is base in Arabic.

Pakistan also used U.S. dollars to build dozens of religious schools, or seminaries in the border regions. It was the U.S and Pakistan's shared aim, that the seminaries would maintain extremist teachings and provide a steady flow of Muslims to go and fight in the Afghan Jihad. Many of those religious schools remain breeding grounds for Salafist anti-western extremism to this day.

It is because of the policy of fomenting extremism to breed Jihad in Pakistani seminaries working so well that the combined forces of N.A.T.O, the U.S., and the Afghan Northern Alliance haven't fully defeated the Taliban nearly six years after they removed them from power. Piling the pressure on Pakistan's Musharraf to help deal with the problem has led to the balance being tipped, and now Pakistan's border regions are engulfed with Talibanization. The Taliban, meaning seminarian or seeker of knowledge, were raised in the seminaries in the border regions. So their support there has always been high. But now their supporters are angry at what they see as Musharraf picking the U.S. over his own people.

A few years after the Soviet withdrawal in 1994, the Taliban went forth across the border, supported by a Pakistan regime still flush with U.S. dollars and keen to install an Islamic ally in Kabul. When they achieved rapid success and took power in most of Afghanistan by 1996, they allowed the return of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. By this time Al Qaeda was a well-known terror network that had declared war on America and their allies — in effect the "international community".

Al Qaeda:

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden weren't taken seriously by the U.S. until their attacks on U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania in 1998, and U.S.S Cole in Yemen in 2000. But Al Qaeda membership was dwindling, despite the acclaim in the extremist world for those attacks, and the anti-Americanism building in the Islamic world for years. Muslims were and are angry at the years of America supporting Israel's theft of Muslim land and other actions against the Palestinians, as well as the U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after Saddam invaded Kuwait. That deployment and its permanence after the first Gulf war ended were the main causes behind Bin Laden's (Fatwas) declarations of holy war against the U.S. The U.S. was also indirectly to blame for Saddam's invasion, and therefore the Al Qaeda Fatwa's (religious rulings), but part II will cover the Middle East.

9/11 really put Al Qaeda on the world stage. It also gave America the license to fulfill its resource hungry interests. The Taliban was putting the brakes on a massively profitable UNOCAL pipeline, and the U.S. was planning to invade but would have had trouble selling a war of aggression to Congress, the U.S. public, and the "international community". 9/11 provided justification for the invasion, which, in truth was probably necessary as Reagan's policies had turned Afghanistan into a home-base for international terrorism.

Bush declaring a "War on Terror" and then heavily bombarding and invading a Muslim country gave Al Qaeda's now notorious struggle a legitimate battlefield. It also made easier their job of manipulating events to support claims of western aggression against Muslims. This, combined with the conspiracy theories of U.S. and or Israeli complicity in the attacks, which were widely believed in the Arab world, put an end to Al Qaeda's problem with dwindling membership.

Put simply, the United States' self-serving foreign policy is directly responsible for Al Qaeda and indirectly for the Taliban being such thorns in the world's side. So why should the international community follow their lead in dealing with the threat?