Answer to a Question
Question:
News has circulated in recent days regarding US aircraft conducting airstrikes on some sites of the Islamic State organization in northern Iraq... Statements have appeared from Obama and some US officials claiming that this was done for humanitarian reasons and out of fear of genocide and similar rhetoric. This is despite the fact that massacres occurred in Syria that were far more severe and harsh, yet America did not intervene. Even in Iraq, massacres occurred in Anbar and Fallujah, and America did not intervene, which means that humanitarian reasons are not a convincing cause for the US airstrikes in northern Iraq. This is what can be understood from following the events... My question is: If this understanding is correct, and these are not the reasons for the strikes... then I hope, if possible, for a clarification of the real reason as you see it according to your political analysis of current events. May Allah reward you with goodness.
Answer:
Yes, what you mentioned—that humanitarian reasons are not the cause—is correct. Anyone following America's actions and interventions finds that humanitarian concerns are as far from it as the east is from the west. Its crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan testify to this... as do the ongoing tortures in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons... Its relationship with Myanmar also testifies to this, despite the massacres, tragedies, and genocide that occurred against the Muslims there; yet America did not take any action that we could say harmed, or even annoyed, the Myanmar authorities... On the contrary, it increased its economic relations with them... Enumerating America's crimes in this field would require pages upon pages.
Since its occupation of Iraq in 2003, America has been continuously preparing Iraq for disintegration. The constitution drafted by Bremer was based on sectarian and denominational foundations with quotas for sects and denominations... detailing them for the President of the Republic, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Prime Minister. Because the Prime Minister holds the executive power, and because Bremer made it a sectarian position, it was prone to provocation and agitation for other components... The situation has reached a point where Iraq is effectively divided: the Kurds in the northeast, the Sunnis in the west and north, the Shias in the south, and Baghdad situated between these divisions...
The written constitution itself calls for federal rule consisting of regions, and the powers of the regions are strong. Therefore, America has succeeded in creating the conditions to dismantle Iraq into three regions, where each region solves its own problems and even disputes within itself without the conflict spilling over into another region. America has proceeded on this path; although it prepared a security agreement to regulate the system in Iraq after its military withdrawal in 2011, it defined security in the way it understands it—within the context of maintaining the division of Iraq with a fragile link to the center as steps toward a final future partition, if it is able. Therefore, it understands security in this manner: the transgression of one region against another, and not the transgression of a region's components against themselves.
Therefore, there is no breach of security that calls for its intervention if the problems of the Sunnis are confined to their region, or the problems of the Kurds are confined to their region, or the problems of the Shias are confined to their region, provided that Baghdad remains a passable route for the three regions with a fragile link to it... Accordingly, if one region transgresses against another, it sees it as a breach of security and intervenes under the pretext of the security agreement. Likewise, if a region transgresses against the center "Baghdad," it considers that a breach of security and intervenes... This is how it proceeded in its security agreement with Iraq when only the Kurds had a region... Then, in recent years, it began effectively preparing for the remaining regions: the Sunni and Shia regions... This required a malicious preparation to create enmity between Sunnis and Shias in a way that makes the repulsion between them strong. Its creation, Maliki, was sectarian par excellence; he provoked and agitated others until the atmosphere was prepared for partition and regions. He succeeded in this role; Maliki planted enmity with the Sunnis and the Kurds until the partition of Iraq became a demand for many people... Maliki succeeded in creating this enmity and preparing the atmosphere for regions and partition, which was the main task America appointed him for as Prime Minister to implement... It seems that today it has achieved its goal; Maliki prepared the atmosphere of enmity among the people in Iraq, his role ended, and there became a need for a slightly calmer government to exploit the atmosphere of enmity to arrange the matter of regions or areas in a way that makes them functional in their places and semi-detached with a fragile link to the center in a quasi-state they call federal... Thus, Maliki's role ended, and he became blamed and expelled by his mistress, America, and even by his nurturer, Iran. It seems that Maliki was surprised by this expulsion after everything he did to serve America and its interests, and to serve Iran and its demands, so he flew into a rage and became angry... Had he been rational, he would not have been surprised by that; all agents, once their roles are exhausted, are thrown to the wayside. Some are honored by their masters by being thrown on a road cleared of stones, while others are thrown on a road with sharp stones that make their bodies bleed!
Based on the above, America did not consider the bloody events in the Sunni region between the tribes, the Islamic State organization, the Baathists, and the Naqshbandis as a security breach despite the massacres that occurred, as long as the conflict and fighting were within a single region... Likewise, it did not see the arrival of the Islamic State organization in Mosul on 10/06/2014, or Tikrit or elsewhere, as a security breach, nor genocide, nor a violation of humanity... because the fighting was within one region... However, it considered the approach of the Islamic State organization and other Sunni groups and their threat to Baghdad as a security breach. It sent security experts, as Psaki stated on Monday 16/06/2014, to its embassy in Baghdad—which is the largest embassy in the world, acting as a den for conspiracies where malicious means and dirty methods for aggression against humans are cooked... Then America returned on 31/06/2014 and sent about 300 more soldiers there in addition to a group of helicopters and drones. The Pentagon decided to place American military personnel in a security role at Baghdad airport. Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said that about 200 soldiers arrived in Iraq to reinforce security at the US embassy in the Iraqi capital and its support facilities and Baghdad International Airport, while another 100 soldiers were scheduled to head to Baghdad "to provide security and logistical support."... All of this was a threatening signal to prevent those organizations from reaching Baghdad, so the attacks on Baghdad retreated and stopped... although the military situation of Maliki and his forces at that time was very weak, and it would have been easy for those organizations to reach their goal in Baghdad easily, but they took America's threatening signals seriously and retreated!
Thus, the violation of American arrangements to set the rhythm of events in Iraq is considered by America a violation of human rights, a cause for fear of genocide, and a security breach that crosses its red lines... But this does not include the massacres committed, the rivers of blood shed, and the terrible destruction of humans, trees, and stones, as long as it is an achievement of America's interests and an implementation of its plans... Accordingly, the Islamic State organization's crossing of the Sunni region and its approach to the Kurdistan region in a way that threatens the region was, for America, a security breach, a violation of human rights, and genocide. As Obama said in response to a New York Times question in an interview with him on 09/08/2014 regarding military intervention with aircraft strikes in northern Iraq: "When you have a unique circumstance in which genocide is threatened, and a country is willing to have us there... then we have an obligation to do that." He says this at a time when even harsher and more severe massacres occurred and are occurring in Syria with barrel bombs... yet Obama did not fear genocide from them! Therefore, he did not intervene against the massacres of the Syrian tyrant... but he intervened in northern Iraq because the threat approached the Kurdistan region. His speech on Friday 08/08/2014 called for intervention, and his Vice President Biden's call to Barzani confirmed American support, followed by American airstrikes since Saturday 09/08/2014...
The main reason for America's intervention is to prevent any attacks from the Islamic State organization on the Kurdistan region according to the American policy of dismantling Iraq into three regions with a fragile link to the center, without any region occupying another. It does not want Iraq to return as a single state with anyone, but rather to remain dismantled into regions that ultimately lead to actual legal division according to its plans. At the same time, it does not see the conflict within these regions as a security breach that contradicts the security agreement that permits American intervention...
This is the reason, and not for any humanitarian motive or fear of genocide... For capitalist countries led by America do not give weight to any humanitarian or moral factor; rather, the issue for them is spreading their conspiracies and promoting their plans, even if it destroys crops and livestock... Such are the colonialist disbelievers; they observe toward a believer neither pact nor honor. Rather, their hands are stained with blood wherever they land, which is a witness from them against them, and woe to them for what they do.
- In conclusion, it is painful to see the Islamic Ummah, which led the world for centuries, falling under the dominance of the Ruwaybidah tyrant rulers who have gained power over its neck, making it a stage for the colonialist disbelievers and their agents to implement their conspiracies and plans... Calamities and hardships have intensified for this Ummah since its silence regarding the destruction of its Khilafah more than ninety years ago. Thus, the shield that was a protection, a safeguard, and a good shepherd for it has gone, and what has befallen it has befallen it... But what alleviates this pain is this influential awakening we see in the Ummah; it moves today with strength and acts with firmness... Furthermore, what will remove this pain, Allah willing, is the presence of those men—the pure carriers of the Da’wah—who join the night with the day as they work in a pure and pious party, by Allah's permission, to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Rightly Guided Khilafah on the method of Prophethood. Then the Ummah will return, by His permission (Glory be to Him), to what it was of glory and sovereignty, and will truly be the best Ummah brought forth for mankind, and that is not difficult for Allah...
وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ
"And you will surely know [the truth of] its information after a time." (Surah Sad 38:88)