I'm not taking the following very well:
The Defense Department confirms it has received the written reports of U.S. teams sent to Iraq to assess the state of the country's military and security situation. But officials caution it still could take some time before any decision is made on what should happen next.
The assessment from U.S. special forces comes about two weeks after they first set foot in Baghdad, asked to determine how far Iraqi security forces have fallen since American troops pulled out in 2011.
"The initial work is done. Additional assessment work continues. We have not moved to an advisory capacity at this point," said Rear Admiral John Kirby.
The military officials wish for us to believe that they aim to make the decision on what happens next with the Iraqi military, but the reality looks more like the U.S. is in Iraq simply to stall, not to help Baghdad. By the end of the week, there was still no word on any advice.
Maliki must realize something is wrong with the American "help," and is therefore not taking any advise, not allowing the Americans to call the shots, which must be the real reason that Kirby disguises the fact by saying the team hasn't yet entered advisory capacity. The article adds that "U.S. forces have been sharing information with the Iraqis through an operations center in Baghdad and with Kurdish Peshmerga fighters through a center in Irbil," but this is a way to notify the Kurds on the conditions and strategies of the Iraqi army...that happens to be at near-war with the Kurds. I can't imagine the Iraqis being happy with the U.S. "helping" both sides of a conflict.
The U.S. wishes for us to believe that the Iraqis and Kurds are on the same side because both oppose the Sunni. Now that Maliki has struck out at the Kurds, accusing them of forming an alliance with the Sunni enemy in Irbil, I doubt very much that the Americans are allowed to share information with Kurds with Maliki's blessings. In other words, things are not going well for the stated U.S. strategy, not at all meaning that the U.S. isn't progressing in its real ambition(s).
What is there to assess while the war against the Sunni rages? Instead of assessing the condition of the Iraqi army, why not assess the condition of the battlefield, and help the Iraqis to devise strategies for repelling the Sunni? That seems like the logical thing to do, and what Maliki would like to see. To win this war, the Iraqis need to be positioned in the right places, with the right equipment to demoralize the Sunni from every spot that they've come to hold. Are the Americans preparing to send the Iraqi fighters to boot camp, to waste more time? Do they need more target practice? The article tells that the Americans are providing rifles and bullets, such an insult to Maliki. Kirby admits that the Americans are taking too much time when saying that it's better to get the issue right than to get it quick. That's a mere excuse for the waste of time.
Obama made it clear, in one of his bad moments, that the reason for the waste of time is to topple Maliki. Under such a scenario, how possibly will the Americans fare well under an advisory capacity? The article ends with: "Pentagon officials say they have not been able to reach out to Shi'ite militias in and around Baghdad, due in large part to heavy Iranian involvement." That sounds like another excuse, the reality being that the Iraqi Shi'ites are rejecting American supervision with or without Iran in the picture. Therefore, the task of the American military is to worm into the affairs of the Shi'ites while being rejected by them.
Under the current circumstances, where Maliki is playing the willing fool in hopes of getting something meaningful from the U.S., I expect the U.S. to come up with a real game-changer plan, but intended to backfire. It first gets the Iraqis interesting in letting the Americans play a key role, but it ends in pre-plotted failure...more time wasted. The Bush war was a super example on how to waste time, how to give excuses for not defeating the insurgents promptly, and how to worm into Iraqi politics for a long haul. Tax payers funded the war, but big business was in a position to receive the spoils of war.
A headline has appeared on July 14: "US advisers in Iraq have yet to give advice." It's focusing on American neglect. If we take the American side, we are to believe that the U.S. can't chew gum and give advice at the same time.
My assessment is that the Americans have been helping the Kurds to win a political war against Maliki. In order to remain imbedded with the Iraqis, the Americans must oppose (with their lips, anyway) Kurdish independence. So long as the Sunni armies are poised between Baghdad and Kurdistan, Maliki will have a tough time fighting the Kurds. The easiest way to do it is to fly over the heads of the Sunni armies, and this is where the Russians can be of help. It is in Putin's interest to stop the Kurds from pumping oil to Turkey, as this is likely part of the Western scheme to sabotage Russia's South Stream pipeline. But first, let's see whether Maliki starts a war against the Kurds when he's already up to his neck with the Sunni. It could be a while yet. A Maliki official said that the seizing of an Iraqi oil field by the Kurd army last Friday was a "declaration of war."
Putin can perhaps persuade Maliki that the Sunni war is an affect of the pipeline war between Europe and Russia, and that the civil war in the Ukraine is a product of the oil war in Kurdistan. Putin has the evidence to prove it because the Ukrainians have been publicly airing their plans to pass oil to Europe by denying it from South Stream. Maliki could be sympathetic to Putin in this regard. It might be quite easy, at this stage, for Putin's agents to convince Maliki that the Americans are Iraq's arch enemies. Putin knows it hasn't escaped Maliki that Americans have interest in Kurd oil.
The Ukrainian leader, early this week (as early as July 15), has been airing his fears that the Russians are amassing soldiers and equipment for to enter the civil war. I didn't know, at the time, that the Ukrainians, along with Western leaders, were fixing to blame Putin for an airliner disaster on the 17th. In order to blame him, it was necessary to accuse Russia of supplying the rebels with the advanced missile system capable of shooting a passenger plane at high altitude. And that's exactly what the U.S. accused him of. The U.S. is in the lead in this well-rounded accusation, and the American media is out in full force, showing all the signs of pushing a false-flag event by turning a blind eye to the obvious evidence of fakery. I will cover that disaster in the next update, showing from online photos that multiple crash sites were faked.
Right in the middle of the initial crisis between Kurdistan and Iraq, the Kurd leader (Barzani), who abandoned his post with Maliki last week, is visiting Turkey. The oil situation must be the reason for this meeting. Barzani would like to see Turkey officially supporting Kurd independence, but Turkey has a responsibility to take the EU positions on many matters. In Kurdistan news, there is a headline: "Kurdish ministers to visit Turkey to collect oil revenue"
Ministers from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) are expected to pay a visit to Turkey today to receive the sale revenues from oil exports.
KRG Deputy Prime Minister Qubad Talabani, Finance Minister Rebaz Muhammad and Energy Minister Ashti Hawrami will sign a document which will allow the revenues to be transferred from its account at Turkey's Halkbank to the Kurdish administration, Kurdish media outlet Rudaw has reported.
...Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said late last month that the first payment of $93 million for KRG oil sales had been received by Halkbank. The Kurdish administration currently exports between 100,000 to 120,000 oil barrels per day and is expected to reach 400,000 oil barrels per day by the end of 2014.
It's not a wonder that the Kurd government is saying that it will be financially independent (without Iraq's help) by the end if 2014. It has high oil prices to credit for that, which is like saying that it has pirates for friends. Here's a juicy story implying that the Kurd government is feverish to let the world know that it has a secret relationship with the U.S.:
Iraqi northern region of Kurdistan is planned to establish a joint operation room with the US and reports of the room will soon be released, a Kurdish official said.
...The US forces will be in Erbil for coordination not for war, he said, continuing that due to Iraq crisis there are US military advisors in Kurdistan Region and "their presence is reassuring for us."
Likely, the Americans are upset by this leak, even if they have agreed to a common goal with Kurds. No doubt, an operation room already exists loosely.
To explain why there are some clashes between Kurds and ISIS, but not all-out war, the following can help:
The Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) has stated its militants will not launch any attacks on the Kurdish forces of Peshmerga if...
A member of the Kurdish forces told BasNews that the ISIS has set three conditions for the Kurdish forces.
According to the Peshmerga official the condition had stated Sulaiman Beg-Doz Khurmatu border pass way should go under the control of the ISIS. The pass way is controlled by Peshmerga forces.
The second condition was that Peshmerga forces should not intervene in the ISIS attack on Shiites and Turkmens and their massacre and the third was that Peshmerga forces should stay away in the case of the ISIS destruction of Shiite religious sites and places.
According to the Peshmerga official the militants have attacked the Kurdish forces who rejected the conditions.
The article implies that ISIS has set the stage for a Kurd-ISIS alliance, if the Kurds want it under these conditions. The controversial July-4 article below, which I'll quote in full, shows another reason for expecting a Kurd-ISIS alliance:
Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani has been aware of the recent attack on the Iraqi northern city of Mosul and has sent a representative to the meeting that decided [planned] the attack, said Ozgur Gundem daily.
Affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the daily claimed Barzani has been aware of the attack and has sent Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) official Azad Barwari to a meeting in Jordan where the attack has been discussed and decided.
Barzani has been informed on June 1st that a meeting is to be held three days later in Jordan's Capital Amman and he has sent Barwari to the meeting that has been attended by former Baath Deputy Leader Ezzat al-Dori and many other officials.
According to the daily the documents of the daily has later been sold to Iraq for 4 million dollars and Turkey and Saudi Arabia has been aware of the meeting and the attack.
If true, it underscores the winking of the Kurds at the Mosul invasion, and explains further why the ISIS Sunni think they can give Kurds ultimatums and have them satisfied. The meeting's chosen location in Jordan could insinuate multiple other things in the realm of a conniving conspiracy to topple Maliki. And by the way, the fact that Kurdpress released this article suggests strongly that its not in cahoots with the Kurd government. More of this story can be gleaned as follows:
The KDP released a statement on its website directly rejecting the claims of Cemil Bayik, a senior member of the Kurdistan Workers's Party (PKK), Hurriyet daily said.
It cited a report in daily Ozgur Gundem and the Firat News Agency (ANF), two media outlets known to be close to the PKK...
"According to this made-up script [of lies], Azad Barwari, assigned by Massoud Barzani, prepared a plan on June 1 in Amman to take control of Mosul after meeting with Sunni sides and ISIS. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has learned about the plan, got Iran involved to intervene in it. We categorically reject this report. We have always stood against terrorism...
So there we have it, the Kurd government denying its involvement in the meeting, as expected. Does the report of the meeting make sense? It does to me. But surfing fails to find this story in any Western media. Here's the story in other words, keeping in mind that the war on Assad has been sponsored by Americans in Jordan:
A statement by the party led by Kurdistan Region President , Massoud Barzani, reported for "Shafaq News", that (PKK) said in his story that Barzani went to Jordan to organize a meeting with the Jordanian authorities and Sunni bodies against Nuri al-Maliki, pointing out that (the leader in the Democrat) Azad Barwari participated later in the meeting which was attended by Sunnis representatives...
He said that the story suggests that during the meeting, a plan was prepared to launch attacks by "ISIL" and other groups on the city of Mosul and other areas, indicating that according to (PKK), (Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki) has been aware of holding a meeting, and then Iran sent (The leader of the Iraqi congress) Ahmed al-Chalabi to Barzani "to persuade him to withdraw from the plan
That is one monstrous fabrication if it's all untrue. It's easier to believe it to be true, because the people laying it out would be reckoned as nut bars to fabricate it. The Jordanian leadership has of course distanced itself from the meetings.
By July 15, an act by the Kurds against ISIS seemingly threw an axe at the Kurd-Sunni friendship:
According to Hawlati all of Kirkuk oilfields are under the control of Peshmerga forces except Hamrin oil field that is controlled by the [ISIS] militants...
Peshmerga forces seized the control of Bai Hassan and Kirkuk oil fields on Friday after a fight with the militants...
This could signal that the Kurds are through with using ISIS for their purposes of oil-dependent independence. Or, at least, the Kurds feel they can fulfill their agenda now with or without ISIS in battle against them. So long as the Sunni battle it out with Baghdad, which now looks like a long haul, the Kurds can rush to claim their independence. With the Sunni spread thin in their war, the Kurds feel they can out-muscle them in Mosul. An ISIS-Kurd alliance is only skin-deep, anyway, and the predicted fall-out would be a Sunni-Kurd war for Mosul, something the Kurds may be itching for at any moment. The West would not want to see a protracted Kurd-Sunni war because it covers pipeline territory. If the Americans in Jordan were part (unofficial, anyway) of the Sunni meetings, the Americans would have wanted assurances from Kurds that they would stay out of conflict with the Sunni aggressors.
Kurdpress claims that the Maliki government puts the blame for the seized oil fields squarely on Barzani...and Israel: "'Massoud Barzani's militia takeover of Kirkuk oilfields is a kind of occupation within a Zionism plot to rob Iraqi people's property and a declaration of war against Iraq army,' Muhammad al-Sayhoud told al-Musalama daily, adding that central government will not remain silent in face of the takeover." All of the tough talk isn't going to bring the Kurds back to the Iraqi government, and that's the real crisis for Maliki. Begging won't work either. The Kurds are seeing glorious freedom, but this is hasty and a jumping too far to the moon. They may get independence, but it won't be glorious. Rather, it will invite perpetual war. The Arab League opposes the Kurd move to statehood, which situation is aggravated all the more by Israel being in support.
Assuming that the U.S. backs Kurd independence, the last thing the U.S. wants the world to see is indication that it's all about the Kurd pipeline to Turkey. This can explain the following from Kurdpress, which statement I trust to be true: "The US has warned Israel and Turkey not to support the Iraqi Kurds' independence from the state, a Turkish official said on the condition of anonymity." "Warned" suggests that Turkey is itching to support Kurd independence.
Look at how much the Kurds owe the Sunni insurgents, and note that the following statements are made with American officials in view, where Fuad Hussein is asking the U.S. for funding:
Iraq's Kurdistan region is pursuing two separate paths to the future, one as part of Iraq and one as an independent state, said senior Kurdish officials, including Hussein, who met with Secretary of State John F. Kerry on Wednesday in Washington.
But even if a suitable government is formed in Baghdad -- for Kurds, one that does not include Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- "we are not ready to go back to pre-June 9," when Islamist militants began their advance across the northwest part of the country, said Hussein.
"We are not willing to go back to the previous formula of Baghdad to control and dictate," Hussein said.
Kurdistan, which long has sought greater autonomy, no longer has a border with the remnants of the Iraqi state ruled by Baghdad, Hussein said. "There is a new state between us and Baghdad, ruled by a terrorist group," he said.
Another Kurdpress article makes it plain that Kurds "love" the Sunni terrorists: "Iraqi northern region of Kurdistan says the region will not send its forces to fight against the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) as long as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki remains in power." That's as good an excuse as any to allow the Sunni caliphate to dig in and remain Kurdistan's protection.
Just as unexpected, the Turks "love" the Kurds suddenly. It's amazing how money talks. But the big story, that you won't find anywhere, is that the U.S. supports Kurdish separation. One way to realize this is the lack of U.S. opposition on the Kurd theft of the Iraqi oil field. Or, how can we explain that the Iraqi official above requested a large sum of U.S. money in the midst of a Kurd move to statehood? Clearly, the Kurds know that the U.S. is for Kurdish independence, and, of course, the Kurds want the Americans to say so publicly. This is their irony. There is no way that the U.S. will talk openly with the Kurdish government, concerning this Western task of producing Kurd independence. The Kurds understand that the Americans are winking with a green light, however.
Here's the Kurd leader: "'Kurdistan Parliament is trying to start the procedure for the referendum and I believe that International community including United States won't be against us,' Barzani told German newspaper Bild am Sonntag." He's speaking to a growing set of circumstances that Putin must oppose. Is Putin in a rush to stop this? Just as he's about to enter Iraq as its angel, acting also as an angel of the UN, the West has set him up as a child killer. You will see how the West has set him up as such a thing when I discuss the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 in the next update.
Can the following act as evidence that Putin's in a hurry to deal with northern Iraq's new set of circumstances:
Iran and Russia have agreed to jointly help Iraq combat terrorism, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdollahian says.
...He added that Iran and Russia both oppose any conspiracy for the disintegration of Iraq into smaller entities.
Does the above mean that the prophetic stage is set? The "evil axis" coined by George Bush verses the oily globe trodders in Kurdistan and Mosul?
Kurdpress.com/en does not at this time have many articles with details on the main events of the particular companies in Kurdistan's fossil-fuel business. It should be a big story if Western oil companies are willingly providing Kurd oil when the Kurd government refuses to give any share of the profits to Baghdad. Shouldn't Western reporters be at the phones of these companies to get their word on developments? Does this Armageddon story belong only in the business section of the news?
On May 22, about 4 million barrels of crude oil surged through a pipeline running from the autonomous region in northern Iraq, which is controlled by Kurds, to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The crude was loaded into four tankers commissioned by the [Kurdish government] One tanker, the United Leadership, sailed through the Mediterranean toward Morocco -- where the first alleged buyer of the oil was, says Ben Lando, editor-in-chief of the Iraq Oil Report.
"But just as it was about to reach the port and unload, the Moroccan authorities refused entry and forced it back into international waters," Lando says. That's where the tanker remains, he says.
"This is because the Iraqi government and its international lawyers and the U.S. government pushed back and essentially claimed that this oil is stolen, it's smuggled, that it hasn't been exported with the authority of Baghdad and thus would be considered illegal," he says. "They convinced the Moroccan authorities not to 'play ball.'
It appears that the U.S. is opposed to Kurd-oil exports, if we go by the statement above, and so we should be hearing the U.S. opposing American oil companies where they provide Kurd oil. Or, we should be hearing tough talk from the U.S. toward Turkey. As the article says, "Relatively small amounts of crude oil have been trucked out of the Kurdish region into Turkey in the past, but this was the first time crude was shipped by pipeline", it means that Turkey has huge dollar signs in its eyes, and the U.S., if it were opposed to this pipeline smuggling, should be breathing fire down Turkey's back. I don't see any articles even beginning to apply U.S. pressure on Turkey in regards to re-selling Kurd oil.
If the U.S. were truly opposed to Kurd independence, the movement could be spoiled as easily as denying its oil exports. The easiest way of denying them is to pressure Turkey not to contribute to illegal oil sales. But I say that the very purpose of the Iraq war is to solidify this oil deal between Turkey and Kurdistan. And I think that this is the ball that bounces to Armageddon.
For now, the U.S. needs to give lip service to the illegality of Kurd sales, but the illegality disappears into thin air if Kurdistan is a recognized nation. "Baghdad's stance has broad international backing, says David Goldwyn, of Goldwyn Global Strategies and a former special envoy for international energy affairs at the State Department. He says any party trying to buy oil marketed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, or KRG, would face certain litigation from Iraq." So long as Kurd oil remains in Iraqi territory, the illegality issue will remain problematic. But if the West could get Kurdistan to become a recognized country...
Who would have thought that one of the lawless nations accepting Kurd oil would be Israel: "According to online tracking data, one [of the tanker ships] appears to be heading to South Africa and the other toward Brazil. Goldwyn says the final tanker commissioned by the KRG was off-loaded at a port in Israel...Still, Goldwyn says it's not known who bought that oil shipment or even if it's been sold." Has anyone heard Obama's dogs barking up Israel's tree for this piracy?
The article (titled "Not many buyers for Kurdish oil") must not be painting the true picture, for, obviously, if few are buying the oil, transfer through the Kurd-Turk pipeline would nearly cease, and yet we see the Kurds feverish to form their own nation based solely on the oil money. The Kurds themselves are saying that the oil volume will double in the next couple of months. Is this a fabrication, or is it true? The U.S. can make light of the details, if it truly opposes the illegal oil sales.
The "evil axis" would rather see Kurd oil through Syria, but so would the West. This must be the Armageddon powder keg: the task of securing Syria as part of securing Iraq for oil. This "black gold" was created in Noah's Flood, as sediments of the Flood covered the lush forests of what is now the Middle East. The garden of Eden was in southern Iraq, and the oil under the sedimentary rocks of Iraq is evidence of forested areas there. The Flood changed the atmospheric dynamics of the world, converting the forested regions of the Euphrates-Tigris theater into desert areas. The point is, the destruction of the world by water is leading, by the oil produced at that time, to the destruction of the world by Armageddon fire.
Part of a Western-backed pipeline deal would naturally include funds to and through Turkey to help the Kurdish cause. That's said because there's a July-16 article on the topic, "Turkey pledges financial help to Kurdistan Region":
'We expressed readiness to make all sorts of support [the KRG] to overcome financial problems in northern Iraq,' a senior Turkish Foreign Ministry official has said.
Asked about media reports that Turkey is providing fiscal assistance to the autonomous region, the official did not elaborate, but addressed existing cooperation with the KRG on energy and an agreement for the sale of northern Iraqi oil to world markets.
Clearly, Turkey is in absolute mad love with Kurdistan. The Muslim cock had previously pecked the Kurds to death, but suddenly the Kurd coop has become the cock's favorite night spot. The international buyers of this oil must be a well-guarded secret, like the brand of perfume worn by the lover. The West, putting all their eggs into one basket, must be making the wedding plans as we speak. But instead of celebrations, Armageddon shall explode upon them, when the "kings of the east" come to the Euphrates.
Another Kurdpress article states what seems contradictory: "The KRG has piped nearly three million barrels of oil to Ceyhan, Turkey, but it has struggled to sell its product on the world market..." If the oil isn't being sold, it won't be piped either. Someone is buying this oil.
The article adds: "...one week before ISIS took control of Mosul, it attacked a Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) office in Diyala, killing 18 people." It just so happens that PUK is a Kurd faction opposed to the Kurd government. If I recall correctly, PUK opposes Kurd separation (under the present Kurd government, at least). It goes on: "For the United States to promise Kirkuk to the KRG would be foolish -- a promise that the Kurds know the United States can't fulfill. But a promise to tacitly accept Kurdish claims [to independence] is another matter. This reassurance, too, must be delivered silently..." The Kurds understand the American silence, don't they?
I can't think of anything in prophecy that helps to disclose whether "the king of the north" enters Mosul in support or opposition to Kurd oil. But I like to predict that he's the Dip Stick who will measure the oil level in the Kurd well, and count the amount of money that it's worth. If the Medes of Isaiah 13 are the Kurds, then it tends to reveal that the Kurds will oppose the "king of the north, " who in Isaiah 14 is "the king of Babylon." From that stand-point, the Dip Stick will oppose the Kurds and seek their oil wealth. This picture tends to jibe with a Dip Stick acting on behalf of the Russia-Iran alliance.
In fact, things are starting to make sense in this regard where the Kurds of Turkey are now doing battle against ISIS in Syria, and where the Kurds of Kurdistan just took some 80 oil wells from ISIS. It's causing the Sunni to abandon any partnership they had with Kurds for securing Mosul, and to join the Russia-Iran axis against the Kurds. The axis could very much use the Sunni of Mosul to cripple the Kurdish move to independence. But, so far, there is no evidence of a Russia-Iran military plot against the Kurds. It could develop, depending on how Putin decides to counter the Kurds. What better way at this time but to use the Sunni in a backlash against them.
In such a short time, the ice-thin alliance between the Sunni and the Kurds is breaking apart. It's a short time because the Kurds got what they wanted quickly, practically as soon as the Sunni took Mosul and showed signs of retaining Iraqi territory at least south to Tikrit. The Sunni did not do this for the Kurds, but for themselves, and with the Kurdish capital between Mosul and Tikrit, one can see why jihadist Sunni would be eying a defeat of the Kurds for to take more of the oil wealth than the Sunni-Kurd partnership would have allowed. But the Sunni tribes did not ever start this war to tackle the Kurds. It should be a long time before the Sunni are prepared to take on the Kurds while the Sunni agenda for Baghdad remains the priority. Could Putin change this?
The inferior Sunni would make a serious attempt at defeating the Kurds if Russia were to help out. To legitimize the alliance, Putin would be on speaking terms with the "moderate" Sunni tribes, and the official purpose would be to disallow Kurd separation. Thus, Putin could act like one on the high, moral road, and the world could not criticize him for taking that tack. However, this all depends on whether the moderate Sunni tribes will give Putin the key to their future. Russia's first step, I predict, is an effort to secure the confidence of the Baathists, who will in turn seek to have other Sunni groups join the Russian plan. This step essentially requires a Russian abandonment of Maliki, but he may be out of power before too long, anyway. We could be looking at a period of a leaderless Iraq wherein the anti-Christ arises to fill the vacuum.
One way for the U.S. to contribute to a Russia-Sunni alliance in opposition to the Kurds is for the U.S. to succeed in replacing Maliki with a Kurd-friendly prime minister that the Kurds can accept. Perhaps the central truth is that the U.S. is for Kurd separation only if the next Iraqi prime minister is unwilling to address the Kurd oil crisis. This past week, the Iraqi parliament succeeded in nominating a speaker of the house, a Sunni of the Jabouri tribe. The process to choosing the next prime minister can now begin.
Another way to legalize the oil sales by the Sunni is for the latter to create their own nation in northern Iraq, which may be the reason for the "caliphate." Although the ISIS caliphate will not be openly accepted by the West, the entity might be modified by certain Sunni tribes to the point that it can be accepted.
Thursday morning found the headline, "Report: West supports "Caliphate" state with enormous money". It says that humanitarian aid is going to people affected by the war, but not to ISIS. But the aid props up the caliphate's economy and living conditions so that people don't flee. ISIS has been very concerned about having people remain, and has been on a humanitarian crusade of its own so that they don't leave. What's to say that the Western goods are not being passed to ISIS so that it gets the credit for the aid? The article even says that ISIS is leaving the Western humanitarian organizations alone, fully expected in a conspiracy where the end result is beneficial to the independence agenda of the Sunni fighters. Although humanitarian organizations are said to be on the ground, yet the article says: "The aid, which is paid for by the UK, European and US governments..." Is it really due to charity, or to a conspiracy to create a new Sunni nation in defiance of Maliki? There is definitely room here for monkey business.
Also on Thursday, an expected headline at Shafaaq: "Violent clashes between Peshmerga and ISIL in Kirkuk ". There are no details, but this battle is likely a sign of things to come in the oil war.
Below is a story that seems unbelievable, because Iraqi fighters greatly outnumber ISIS fighters, because ISIS does not have equipment superior to that of Iraq, and because ISIS is spread thin over a huge area:
Islamic State of Iraq and Levant has overcome military forces to reach the edge of the Iraqi capital. Security sources said ISIL, which now calls itself Islamic State, has reached the outskirts of Baghdad. They said ISIL units, attacking from three sides, were battling the Iraq Army within 15 kilometers of the Iraqi capital, with a population of seven million.
If the article didn't describe the Sunni side as ISIS exclusively, it becomes more credible. On the same day, there is a headline, "Iraqi tribal leaders pledge to march to Baghdad. Gathering of Sunni tribal leaders in Jordan says Isil is only part of larger uprising." This is a sign that the Sunni are about to use the ISIS springboard to go in and pounce on the Shi'ites. But the city is huge. What possibly could they hope to accomplish?
Several hundred tribal figures, representatives of Islamist insurgent groups, ex-army officers and former Baath party figures attended the meeting in the Jordanian capital.
Sunni cleric Abdul Malek Al Saadi, who praised the "mujahideen" (holy warriors) leading the revolt, said tribes were the backbone of a broad-based insurgency battling against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's rule...
..."This revolution is led by the sons of tribes who are leading it and Isil is a small part of it," said Al Saadi, who led some of the mass peaceful protests in Iraq’s Sunni heartland in 2013 that called for an end to security abuses and perceived marginalisation and political exclusion.
...The conference which excluded Al Maliki's few Sunni allies within the government said they would fight any attempt to revive government-backed Sunni militias known as the Sahwat (Awakening) that had succeeded with US support in repelling and defeating Al Qaida in Iraq.
..."Now Isil is fighting and has scored victories and helped revolutionaries in achieving their goals so we are almost in harmony with them in achieving our goals," senior Baath leader Abdul Samad Al Ghurairi, who attended the parley, told Reuters.
Assuming that Baghdadi (the man) is a Western puppet for the purpose of blocking the Maliki power structure from the Kurd pipeline, there should be no over-reaching desire in the U.S. camp to invade Baghdad. But if the Sunni tribes are willing to attempt it, and if they are angry with the U.S., the latter has little choice but to watch it...or to support it. It is likely that the Sunni are divided into pro- and anti-American camps. In that picture, the U.S. would have its favorite Sunni camp for to lead a Sunni government after a coup. To support the Sunni tribes financially, the West would send much humanitarian aid into the caliphate region so that the Sunni tribes don't need to pay for it, thus leaving the Sunni more money for the war. Therefore, the West could, at this time, be supporting a Sunni romp on Baghdad.
The Reuters article once again suggests that Jordan is on-side with the insurgency. Couldn't we expect the Americans in Jordan -- whom are there with the blessing of the Jordan regime for to topple Assad using Sunni fighters -- to be in support of the Sunni too? Yes, and that brings the Jordanian goal lots of U.S. money. I don't think, therefore, that ISIS would invade Jordan under these circumstances. The recent fear of ISIS entering Jordan allowed the U.S. to send Jordan "aid." Poor American tax-payers, always footing the war bills that include the perpetually-unresolved interests of others.
With the jihadists having their hands full inside their caliphate, and so long as victory is within reach over either Iraq or Syria, they are not predicted to invade the Israeli theater. To this end, however, the following (July 7) is of interest:
Contacted by KleinOnline, Abu Saqer, one of the top leaders of Jihadiya Salafiya, which represents al-Qaida ideology in the Gaza Strip, confirmed the attempt to organize various jihad groups to fight Israel under the ISIS umbrella. Saqer claimed there is also an effort to recruit jihadists to ISIS from inside the West Bank, particularly in the Hebron region. While the exact nature of the ISIS presence in Gaza remains unclear, the group's flags were seen flying at a funeral this past Sunday for two terrorists eliminated in an Israel Air Force strike last Friday, Israel's daily Maariv newspaper reported. The terrorists' coffins were reportedly also draped in ISIS flags.
...Further highlighting the possible presence of ISIS-aligned fighters in Gaza, Maariv reported Saturday that Egyptian special forces arrested a terrorist cell that had used tunnels to cross from Gaza into the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. The newspaper quoted sources saying that Egypt's interrogation of cell revealed the group was planning to set up ISIS cells inside the Sinai to target the Egyptian government.
Hamas was about to survive for another day, another attack, because Israel felt that it must respect the Egyptian ceasefire proposal as set out by Sisi. If Israel disrespects this proposal, it will start the Israeli-Sisi relationship on a bad footing. Lucky for Israel, Hamas continued to send rockets after Israel agreed to the proposal, allowing Israel to start a ground attack into Gaza by Friday morning.
John Kerry does not, apparently, feel embarrassed as per a call to Netanyahu, saying, in effect, "You have a right to defend Israel, but please stop defending. We are concerned that if you wipe out Hamas, it will have a bad effect on the United States. Try to be tolerant and understanding, would you? Don't tell anyone that Obama is forcing me to say this."
The ex-British foreign secretary wants to see the conditions of Gaza improve as part of a ceasefire deal, which is tantamount to siding with the Hamas side of the agreement.
The Salafists in the Gaza area are likely on-side with the following:
"We are now in a state of continued Jihad to end the remnants of the U.S. occupation and restore the rights of the Iraqi people," said Abd al-Naser Al Janaby, a prominent Salafi cleric and politician and a leading supporter of the armed uprising. "We expect a new dawn for Iraq from this revolution."
Pro-government papers close to Maliki have attacked the Amman meeting, saying some of the participants are politicians accused of terrorism charges
(Reuters article above).
The latter accused had been Sunni agents in the Maliki government, but who fled (the government) for fear of their lives from Maliki's iron fist. They are now coming back as part of the insurgency.
By Friday morning, the toll of spreading too thin came to light:
Isis fighters have partially withdrawn from Iraq's second city, Mosul, where another militant group - closely linked to former members of Saddam Hussein's regime - has taken over large areas, according to the city's governor.
In an interview with the Guardian the governor, Atheel Nujaifi, who escaped from Mosul last month, said the Islamic State's main "strike force" had withdrawn from the city to fight the Iraqi army further south in Tikrit, he said. A smaller number of local Isis supporters remained in Mosul's western part, known as the right bank [anciently, Nineveh], he said.
...But according to Nujaifi, most of the eastern half of Mosul is now dominated by the Naqshbandi Army, a group led by high-ranking Saddam-era Ba'athists including Izzat al-Douri, the king of clubs in the US deck of "wanted Iraqi" playing cards. Naqshbandi militants had taken down Isis flags from "a lot of buildings" and replaced them with their own, he said. Other sources inside Mosul confirmed that Isis fighters began to withdraw from the city about a week ago.
The lightning Isis offensive, which swept Iraqi government forces from swaths of the country's north, is thought to have been partially enabled by an alliance with the Naqshbandi group - known in full as the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order which emerged around 2007. The group is believed to be under the control of Douri...
"They [the Naqshbandi group] have a direct relationship with al-Douri," the governor said. "It's a Sufi group. Al-Douri is himself a Sufi."
Nujaifi said the only way out of Iraq's current violent turmoil was a political solution involving talks not with Isis but with the "six or seven" other Sunni groups fighting in different parts of the country. All are opposed to Iraq's Shia-led government, and its prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. "The solution must be without Maliki. Nobody trusts him," the governor said.
...So far, there has been no conflict between the Naqshbandi Army and Isis, who are now facing off in Mosul on opposite banks of the Tigris river. But the governor said that a struggle was inevitable. "Logically, they will confront each other," he said. Local Sunni factions in several Iraqi provinces were stronger than Isis, he added.
...According to Reuters, Isis militants last week rounded up between 25 and 60 senior ex-military officers and Ba'ath party members in Mosul, taking them away in SUVs for questioning.
It appears that the Baathists (not very religious) were always there, in Mosul, throughout the period in which the West stressed only ISIS. The article doesn't tell whether the Baathists are helping in the southward fight to Baghdad, though I suppose that the Mosul governor doesn't know either way. The governor doesn't seem to think that Baathists would share the defeat of Baghdad with ISIS.
The article is by a Muslim journalist in Mosul. He reports that ISIS fighters left Mosul a week ago, which is when the Baghdadi speech in Mosul supposedly took place. The speech had the purpose of creating a caliphate, but that's a far-different purpose than seeking to defeat Baghdad. There is inconsistency here, for just as the speech was underway to celebrate a caliphate to the north-west of Mosul, the ISIS fighters were clearing out in the opposite direction. It seems that ISIS's true marching orders may have been by the superior Sunni groups plotting to re-take Baghdad.
What happens when ISIS comes back to the east side of Mosul to find its flags torn down by the Baathists? Will the anti-Christ step in to weld the Sunni groups together again?
Maliki has indeed been plotting with Iran:
A powerful Iranian general has emerged as the chief tactician in Iraq's fight against Sunni militants, working on the front lines alongside 120 advisers from his country's Revolutionary Guard to direct Shiite militiamen and government forces in the smallest details of battle, militia commanders and government officials say.
The startlingly hands-on role of Iranian Gen. Ghasem Soleimani points to the extent of the Shiite-led Iraqi government's reliance on its ally Tehran....Shiite fighters have come to idolize the Iranians who have moved into the heat of battle alongside them...while government officials grumble the United States has failed to come to their aid.
...A handful of advisers from Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah guerrilla group are also offering front-line guidance to Iraqi militias fighting north of Baghdad...
It's nothing more than an Iraq partnership with a big bimbo. Iran, today, at the ruling level, anyway, is a big bimbo with false teeth. In my opinion, it's not necessary that the Iranian government be on-side with the anti-Christ. The Gog-Iran alliance may not be at the government level, but of individuals who sign up in his military causes. Iran is now supporting Hamas in the greatest cause that the bimbo can think of, but, just like Iran's mouth, Hamas' weapons to date haven't got much of a bite. The question is: what sort of backlash will this latest invasion of Gaza provide from the wide Muslim populations? Not that any of them care for Hamas, but that their hatred of Zionism awaits an anti-Israeli leader who has real teeth. When the anti-Christ begins to speak against Israel, there will be venom squirting from his saliva glands. The fighters will see that he means real business.
Christians/Catholics of Mosul were forced by ISIS to flee over the weekend of July 20. As brutal as this is, it could have been worse. It would be best to flee Mosul at this time.
I began to report on flight 17 in this update, but, after finding inconsistencies in the photos, it turned out to be a long story for the next update. It truly appears to be a faked operation by the West, not necessarily meaning that the plane didn't go down somewhere. There are multiple debris fields, as you will see, and the operation to recover the bodies seems to have included a fake debris field where photos and other data suggest few bodies were recovered, none of them the genuine bodies on board the passenger jet. The Ukrainian rebels have taken by force the bodies at that fake debris field, and are probably inspecting them. That took place on July 19, a day after reports surfaced (from ABC, for example) that the bodies were corpses prior to the shoot-down of the plane on the 17th. That is, the rebels found faked passengers on the 18th, likely explaining why they took some bodies into their own custody on the 19th.
The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents