The regime in Tehran has fueled the Shiite-Sunni civil war, which the IS arose.
Who is to blame for the rise of the Islamic State? George W. Bush, some say. He had destabilized sustained by the fall of Saddam Hussein and the resolution of the Baath Party and the Iraqi army to Iraq. Barack Obama, say others. He had hesitated too long, the moderate opposition against Bashar al-Assad in Syria effective support by military action against Assad. Thus, the radical forces were strengthened in Syria. In other words, Bush is to blame, because he has “regime change” operation in Iraq, and Obama, because he has operated in Syria is no “regime change”.
Now it may be that both reviews are correct. Perhaps the United States have plunged the wrong regime. Maybe Bush was too indiscriminate and Obama too cautious. But you can also say: If you already crashes a regime, as did Bush in Iraq, then you have to ensure that you leave the country stable, and it can not simply be left to itself, as Obama fulfilled his campaign promise has done. And since the United States seem constitutionally unable to establish a long-term “mission civilisatrice” endure as occupiers, as it wanted the Neocons, they should be extremely cautious with the overthrow of governments.
You could draw this conclusion. Yet there were many who supported the action against Saddam Hussein, in the not unrealistic belief that they – all terrible mistakes that have been made – but the bottom line is positive could have been. Had the United States and its allies have been willing to engage in long-term sense of “democratic imperialism” in Iraq.
Of course you could also know and have that such long-term commitment to democracies in general and the USA in particular is difficult, almost impossible. So you can also fear that all current successes in Afghanistan fall to the country after the early withdrawal of NATO organizations in a state of permanent civil war or is completely fall to the Taliban. That is, given the enormous losses – especially among the civilian population – in both countries a bad result.
Brutality is answered with brutality
But it also seems that you can not get very far in assessing the situation in the Middle East, if we consider only the actions of the United States as the cause of the destabilization of the region and especially for the rise of IS. Because the main culprit for the outbreak of Sunni-Shiite civil war (because that’s what it is) that has raged between Aleppo and Baghdad in the east to the west, is Iran.
Syria Dictator Assad – himself a member of a minority Shiite sect – is an ally of Tehran; he has not seen from the beginning of the protests against his regime, a civil rights movement, but an uprising of the Sunni majority, and he has led the fight against his own people with all the brutality of a religious war.
At his side was the Shiite Hezbollah, the “Party of God”. The Islamic State rose to therefore also the leading force of the opposition against Assad because he had no illusions about the religious character of this war, brutality responded with brutality.For it is in the nature of such a civil war, not defeat the enemy, but want to destroy.
In Iraq, the IS could therefore gain a foothold, because after the withdrawal of the United States, the regime in Baghdad has become increasingly a tool of Iran, as it had the Sunni minority in Iraq always feared.
With a combination of hardness against the radical elements among the Sunnis and guarantees for the safety and rights of the moderate Sunnis, the United States had been able to end the Sunni insurgency against the occupation. Under Iranian influence but has the Shiite-dominated government, the Sunnis increasingly marginalized after the withdrawal of the USA and suppressed and thereby driven into the arms of the IS.
If you wonder whether the Iranian regime is still not rather considered revolutionary or on the maintenance of the status quo, so should you less attention to the statements of the President Ruhani against the West and more of the Iranian attempt a Shiite domination belt to create Tehran over Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut.
Maintained pressure on Tehran
Against this rule – and not against the West – is directed primarily to the terror of the IS. In this context, one should also see the staged executions of Western journalists and workers. The IS wants to pull the West in the fight to his opponents, especially the Shiites – and especially Tehran – to discredit as allies of the West.
We are not the main enemy of the IS; the IS will only exploit us. And: The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. We are not responsible for the IS, because he represents the supremacy of Tehran in question; and we are not responsible for Tehran, because imagine the Iranian mullahs against the IS.
It is therefore right that President Obama has brought an alliance of Sunni forces against the IS existence; of “moderate” Sunni forces one can not speak, given the involvement of Saudi Arabia. It is therefore right that the United States have urged the government in Baghdad to make concessions to the Sunnis; whether it is to be able to is another question. Therefore, it is especially true that the pressure on the regime in Tehran persists.
Iran is not our ally. Between the heads of Western journalists and aid by the IS and the hang of Iranian gay man to construction cranes there are, as far as the brutality, not much difference. Iran must not become a nuclear power; not only, not even primarily, because that would threaten the existence of Israel; but because so that the Sunni-Shiite civil war would inevitably lead to a nuclear conflict.
Terrorist movements such as the IS or al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah are dangerous. Infinitely more dangerous they are, if they – get the resources of a state in the hands – such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon or even the Shia Revolutionary Guards in Iran. The saw also the way in European history, when it became the Bolsheviks to seize the Russian state apparatus and wield it for its purposes in motion.
Therefore, it is in the interest of the West to prevent the creation of an oil-funded “Caliphate” by the IS. But that’s why it is also still in the interest of the West to seek that change, with the situation in the Middle East could be improved with a blow: “regime change” in Tehran.