‘It all came from the West’: Who is behind the golden age of terrorism in the Middle East?
Ten years ago, ISIS declared the creation of an Islamic caliphate. Although the terrorists were defeated, the threat lives on...

By Elizabeth Blade, RT Middle East correspondent

At its peak, ISIS controlled one third of Syria and about 40 percent of Iraq. Various groups in Africa pledged loyalty to its leader, and cells of the organization carried out attacks in the heart of Europe. Various actors, local, regional and international, exerted efforts to curb the spread of the cancer but today their radical ideas persist.

Sheikh Mohammed al-Tamimi still remembers June of 2014, when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the then-leader of ISIS, a Sunni terrorist group, announced the establishment of a caliphate stretching from Aleppo in Syria to Diyala in Iraq.

In those days, Al-Tamimi was a commander in the Faylaq al-Wa’ad al-Sadiq forces, a Shiite militia linked to Iran that was originally established to defend Iraq from American and British occupation in 2003 but was later developed into a force fighting to secure Iraq and neighboring Syria from the threat of ISIS.

In 2014, Al-Tamimi participated in many battles, where he and his fighters faced off against the ISIS terrorists.

In June 2014, for example, he undertook his first air descent operation at Speicher Airbase in Salah Al Din province with the aim of saving a group of commanders, officers and fighters who were besieged in the area – a task he and his 250 fighters successfully accomplished. Later that same month, he led an operation to free hundreds of hostages at Tikrit University. His men wouldn’t rest until the last ISIS terrorist was eliminated.

Those were really sad days,” recalls Al-Tamimi. “Terrorists were seizing control over large parts of the four Sunni provinces, and quickly advancing thanks to the support of sleeper cells and the backing of the Sunni Muslim community.”

In 2003, after the US invasion of Iraq, Sunni Muslims, a national minority who had enjoyed a privileged status under Saddam Hussein, started to be persecuted. The new, Shiite government discriminated against the Sunnis in everything from bureaucracy and politics to business and security jobs, leading to frustration and general dissatisfaction. When ISIS came and vowed to change all that, many Sunnis extended them a helping hand.

Al-Tamimi says ISIS managed to sell them a dream. “Their idea was to overthrow the political systems in Iraq and Syria to establish a Sunni caliphate. Their clerics issued fatwa [religious rulings - ed.], calling to eradicate anyone who would not go by their fanatical teachings. Those fatwas came from Saudi Arabia, and were supported by Qatar. Money, arms and fighters were streaming from the West. Everything was going according to plan,” he explains.

By September 2014, ISIS already controlled most of Iraq’s northwest. Large parts of Syria - that since 2011 had been fighting various armed groups, were also under its control. There too, ISIS was bolstered by local Sunni tribes who were frustrated by long years of dry seasons, dire economic conditions and the negligence of the Syrian government.

Lamis Jdid, a researcher of international relations and a native of Aramo, a tiny village in the Governorate of Latakia, some 30 kilometers away from the Mediterranean, describes how the life of her community was shattered when ISIS started taking over.

“In August 2014, twenty armed groups belonging to the Syrian opposition, comprised of ISIS, Ahrar al-Sham, Al-Nusra and others, launched an attack on many villages close to the northern Turkish border, including Aramo. They killed 190 people and took 240 others into captivity. Most of those were women and children.”

“They destroyed holy places and harassed minorities. All of us were terrified by their presence. My family that still lives in Latakia did not dare to go to the village or take the road to Damascus. Such a trip could cost an Alawite their life. My Christian friends had to cover their heads when moving from city to city, out of fear of being stopped and attacked by ISIS groups.”

The Syrian Army, which was forced to fight multiple radical groups simultaneously, needed to prioritize. Its efforts were primarily focused on two axes: Damascus-Homs-Hama-Aleppo and Hama-Tartus-Latakia. Small cities and towns, especially on the outskirts, fell prey to ISIS gangs.

Then, their threat started to spill over, far beyond the borders of the Middle East. In Africa, many small terror groups started pledging loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the then-leader of ISIS. Europe was shattered by several terror attacks carried out by the group’s loyalists.

Action was necessary. In September 2014, the US established a Combined Joint Task Force – uniting 87 Western and Eastern partners – to fight the threat of ISIS. During the first five years of its existence, the alliance pounded Syria and Iraq with thousands of bombs. It killed hundreds of ISIS terrorists and detained thousands of others. In 2019, after Al-Baghdadi was eliminated, the US and their allies claimed victory in the fight against ISIS. But Al-Tamimi says it wasn’t the US that helped stop the threat of ISIS.

In June 2014, a Shiite leader, Sayyid Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, issued a fatwa calling on the Shiites in Iraq to rise in defense of their motherland from the hordes of ISIS invaders. Thousands rose to the occasion, forming the so-called Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an alliance of 67 armed factions boasting some 100,000 fighters.

“This was the force that blocked the advancement of ISIS,” says Al-Tamimi. “Iranians also played a pivotal role, as they provided advisors and weapons. Russians came to the rescue too, supplying support to the Iraqi government and the PMF. The Americans, on the other hand, were the ones who supported terror groups, feeding them with weapons and military equipment. Holders of European passports were fighting in the ranks of ISIS; money was flowing from the West,” he added.

Ali Yahya, a political analyst and international affairs advisor based in Beirut, knows well the history of ISIS, and he agrees with the claims put forward by Al-Tamimi.

“It is not the first time that the US is stealing victory and changing the narrative,” he says. “The Red Army was the main power that eliminated Nazism, whereas Washington waited until June 1944 to open a front. Nevertheless, they claimed victory in that war, sidelining the achievements and the sacrifices of the Russians. It is true in the case of ISIS as well.”

According to Yahya, in 2014 the Iraqi government approached the US asking to supply them with the weapons they needed to fight the ISIS insurgency. The Americans agreed but said that the first shipments would only arrive in 2020 - a luxury Baghdad could not afford. When the Iraqis understood Washington‘s terms, they quickly turned to Iran and Russia for help, and they delivered.

“It was thanks to them that Iraq started to gradually break ISIS. When the Americans came to the realization that the Iraqi forces would soon destroy the group, they joined forces in the final battle of Mosul so that later on, they could claim victory over the organization.”

That victory was proclaimed in 2019, but even after ISIS lost most of its territory, the allies of the Joint Task Force continued to carry out attacks in Syria and Iraq, under the pretext of fighting terror. Al-Tamimi has been fighting the Americans, demanding that they leave his country.

“Today, thanks to the efforts of our heroes and the supreme religious authority, Iraq is capable of eliminating any terror organization. Iraq is under the control of the state. ISIS is now a thing of the past, it cannot make its way back to Iraq,” he claims.

Statistics, however, paint a different picture. According to US Central Command data released in January 2024, ISIS still boasts some 2,500 militants in Iraq and Syria, of whom about 1,000 are at large in Iraq. A non-profit group called the Counter-Extremism Project reported that there were at least 69 ISIS attacks in Syria in March alone.

“The problem with fanatics is that it is not an organization, it is an idea. So how can you possibly destroy it?” asks Jdid.

“Of course there should be a security arrangement in the whole region to weaken those groups. But we also need to think about educational, social and economic solutions to eradicate terror. In Syria this could be empowering secular education, separating religion from state and fighting corruption,” she concluded.

https://www.rt.com/news/600153-isis-middle-east-terrorism/

GUSNOTE: THIS WESTERN TERRORISM WAS BUT ONE STEP TO DESTROY RUSSIA'S FRIENDSHIP WITH SAY SYRIA. RUSSIA HAS ONE MEDITERRANEAN PORT, TARTUS, IN SYRIA.

READ FROM TOP.

The Black Sea country of Georgia was recently convulsed by protests over the passage of legislation requiring disclosure of foreign funding of NGOs. The controversy is a big deal in Tbilisi. However, the issue doesn’t matter much in America. At least, it shouldn’t.

But that ignores the endless ambitions of those who rule Washington, D.C. Georgia’s elected government refused to comply with instructions to drop the bill. So, the Biden administration is determined to impose its will.

Just another day in the Imperial City.

Georgia was one of the Soviet republics that broke free when the USSR imploded. The new country’s birth was tumultuous, and the famed Rose Revolution later brought to power a Georgian version of Volodymyr Zelensky by the name of Mikhail Saakashvili. The latter tied himself to Washington, lobbied to join NATO, and, expecting American support, made the disastrous mistake of bombarding Russian troops stationed in the breakaway territory of South Ossetia, triggering Moscow’s 2008 invasion.

Alas, amid a short but not-so-sweet war, Tbilisi discovered the limits of American backing. A proposal to destroy tunnels used by Russia to reinforce its forces fighting in Georgia reached President George W. Bush, who, thankfully, decided that the wannabe U.S. ally was not worth World War III. Saakashvili was defeated for reelection, with power shifting to the opposition Georgia Dream Party. The latter did what any sensible small nation neighbouring an angry giant does: adjust and accommodate. Although reviled in Washington, Georgia Dream was twice reelected. While U.S. policymakers wanted to use Tbilisi to hem in Russia, Georgians decided to set their own course.

With Tbilisi approving the disclosure bill, the Biden administration is attempting to force Georgia’s elected parliament to reverse course. Just as a sparrow does not fall to earth without God knowing, apparently no law is passed in Tbilisi without Washington judging.

Critics view the legislation as the end of Georgian democracy, hence the need for action. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the measure would “compel us to fundamentally reassess our relationship with Georgia.” James O’Brien, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, warned the measure “could be a turning point in what has been till now a constructive and productive partnership” between America and Georgia. He threatened sanctions on Georgian Dream legislators who supported the measure, and soon thereafter State-restricted visas for the presumed Georgian miscreants.

The reaction on Capitol Hill, filled with self-anointed secretaries of state, was similar. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) drafted legislation targeting Georgia. The measure would sanction officials who “have material responsibility for undermining or injuring democracy, human rights, or security in Georgia,” including those responsible for passage of “the recent Russia-style foreign agent legislation.” He would also offer trade and visa benefits if that government complied with Washington’s will. European politicians demanded the European Union impose similar penalties while suspending action on Tbilisi’s application to join the EU.

Critics blame Moscow for the controversy.

The Hudson Institute’s Luke Coffey opined that the measure was called “the ‘Russian law’ because it mirrors a Kremlin law designed to silence, stifle, and shut down political opposition.” Analyst Ivana Stradner claimed that Moscow’s objective is to keep “Georgia in its grasp without a single bullet being fired” and that the legislation “will be a catalyst for other governments to adopt more authoritarian rules.” Natalie Sabanadze, a former ambassador to the EU, called the bill a “coup d’etat” and remarked: “I have no idea whether they’re working on Russia’s instructions, but they certainly are fulfilling their interests.”

All this may be Moscow’s plan, but no evidence has been offered to that effect. Mandating transparency itself is not undemocratic. Georgia’s bill requires NGOs to register if more than 20 percent of their funding comes from abroad. They would have to disclose relevant information to the authorities. Such groups would be viewed as either promoting foreign interests or being “agents of foreign influence.” No one wants to be labeled as such, but the bill would apparently do no more. In practice, then, the legislation is striking in its modesty. No one will be jailed. No one will be barred from politics. No one will be fined. Rather, foreign funding will be disclosed to the Georgian public.

The real objection is that most foreign NGO money comes from the U.S. and Europe. Hence Georgian protestors waving the EU flag. Despite the allies’ high-minded blather about democratic values, they would prefer to keep their activities secret. Western funders might claim they are supporting democracy, but their ultimate objective differs little from that of more authoritarian states, installing friendlier governments. Which is precisely why the existing authorities bridle at foreign funding of NGOs.

Years ago a friend who worked for the U.S. government-funded International Republican Institute told me that he was officially tasked with promoting democracy but was barred from meeting with the largest elected party in one country’s parliament because it was populist and opposed to EU membership. I happened to be in that nation on its election day and he could not meet me: he told me that he was too busy promoting the mainstream, pro-EU parties. Indeed, despite the largely discredited claim of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race, America is the world’s most active election meddler: a Carnegie-Mellon study reported that Washington had interfered with foreign contests more than any other nation, 81 times between 1945 and 2000.

While Moscow regulates foreign funding and influence, the real problem there is authoritarian practices, not transparency requirements. After all, Americans also bridle at foreign activities in the US, including alleged Chinese and Russian attempts to influence U.S. elections, foreign contributions to American political candidates, and foreign fundingof Washington think tanks. Surely the Biden administration does not believe that Vladimir Putin and his coterie of friendly business oligarchs have a democratic right to secretly fund American political activities.

In fact, the U.S. has always been sensitive to overseas influences in American politics and business. In his Farewell Address, President George Washington warned, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealously of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience provide that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republic government.” During America’s early years there were controversies over British, French, and Spanish activities.

Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1938. According to the Congressional Research Service, the purpose was “to reduce the influence of foreign propaganda circulating in the United States.” That is, to prohibit certain views, especially if funded by certain foreigners. Agents of “foreign principals” must register with the government. The measure is expansive, defining foreign principals as foreign governments, political parties, entities, and people. Engaging in political or PR activities, collecting or spending money, and representing foreign principals to the U.S. government make one a foreign agent, subject to FARA’s registration, disclosure, and record-keeping requirements.

America’s expansive law has created a specialty practice for lawyers. For instance, Covington & Burling published a guide to the law, which is generating an increasing number of prosecutions. Among the firm’s judgments: “FARA is written so broadly that, if read literally, it could potentially require registration even for some routine business activities of law firms”; “FARA is a complicated, arcane, and loosely worded statute”; FARA “triggers for registration are, on their face, extremely broad”; “FARA has no de minimis threshold. It can be triggered by even the slightest activity that means any one of the statutory triggers.” Covington also warns of “common traps” yielding criminal liability “even without a contract or payment, and even if the foreign person is not a government official.”

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney offered similar warnings. For instance, “the broad array of activities that may trigger FARA registration requirements becomes even more expansive when considering how the law defines ‘political activities’.” Moreover, “when read together, the scope and reach of FARA’s applicability is expansive and could include a wide range of activities conducted on behalf of foreign governments, political parties, and/or organisations, including for example: lobbying U.S. government officials, activities undertaken to promote the U.S. public’s perception of a foreign government or entity, or even providing a forum for foreign officials to promote their programs and ideologies.”

If America has not abandoned democracy by enforcing such an act, why is Georgia’s measure, approved the required three times by an elected parliament, inconsistent with democracy?

Indeed, the allies seem to have given up on elections as a measure of democracy. For American and European policymakers bent on regime change, demonstrations override elections. Thus, Rep. Wilson declared that “the pro-Russian government is going against patriotic Georgians who reject life in the Kremlin’s dark ages. The repression of freedom-loving Georgians must stop, and the U.S. stands firm in calling for a return of democratic norms and values.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen similarly claimed the legislation “is at odds with the wishes of the Georgian people.”

This is a remarkably arrogant characterisation of another country’s politics. It ignores the sentiments of presumably patriotic Georgians who voted Georgia Dream into office. It treats demonstrating rather than voting as reflecting “democratic norms and values.” (However valid, the charge that the government used excessive force against protestors has nothing to do with the transparency bill.) Similar was the 2014 overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich. He was thoroughly corrupt, but was democratically elected in what Western observers acknowledged was a reasonably fair election. He was overthrown by street demonstrations in an opposition-dominated city which effectively disenfranchised millions of people who had voted for him, and, according to polls at the time, opposed his ouster. Who were the true “democrats”?

In the end, the Georgian controversy has little to do with democracy. Instead, Tbilisi’s critics are upset with the choices made by Georgia’s democratically elected politicians. Coffey argued that Georgia Dream was once reliably pro-Western, but that pro-Russian elements have “worked their way to the top.” Although Tbilisi remains officially for EU and NATO membership, he complained that the government isn’t vigorously pushing those issues. Moreover, noted Coffey, Georgia did not support sanctions on Moscow or Georgians volunteering to fight for Ukraine. Rep. Wilson had his own list: Georgia’s government “has openly attacked U.S. and other western democracy promotion organisations as well as local and international civil society while embracing increased ties with Russia in particular, as well as China.”

These positions are not surprising for pragmatic leaders of a small nation living in the shadow of a threatening neighbor. Especially when the allies have demonstrated their readiness to use other people to fight a bloody proxy war against Russia. However sympathetic Georgians may be to Ukraine, how many want to follow Kyiv into the abyss?

Of course, Brussels is entitled to set the EU’s entry criteria, which might include accepting well-funded European NGOs. What, however, is Washington’s excuse for meddling? American policymakers might question the judgment of Georgian voters and leaders, but that’s no justification for punishing them. If the Georgian government is, as claimed, out of step with the Georgian people, critics can make the law an issue in parliamentary elections set for October. Indeed, that is what Georgia’s elected but largely ceremonial president, Salome Zourabishvili, promised to do after unsuccessfully opposing the bill.

U.S. policymakers confront manifold policy challenges. A superpower should set priorities and leave other countries, governments, and peoples to govern themselves. As in Georgia.

First published in The American Conservative on June 6, 2024.

https://johnmenadue.com/americas-arrogant-imperialism-on-full-display-in-tbilisi/

READ FROM TOP.