TEHRAN (FNA)- Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, an American political commentator, believes that the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) falsely promotes the Western narrative of a Sunni-Shiite divide in order to weaken Iraq’s internal resistance underlining that the terrorist group is waging a total war against Islam.
“The initial occupation of Iraq and the support of anti-Assad elements had a two-fold strategy. One was to re-establish American hegemony over the region, in particular the Persian Gulf – the lynchpin of US strategy and its ambitions of global domination. In addition to its presence and control of the region, America also wanted control of the resources – oil and water,” said Sepahpour-Ulrich in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.
“Second, ISIL falsely promotes the Western narrative of a Sunni-Shiite divide in order to weaken the internal resistance. In fact, ISIL is killing all Moslems, Christians, and others,” Sepahpour-Ulrich further said.
She believes that the brutality of ISIL has painted a false image of Muslims and underscored – inaccurately – the Israeli narrative that it must fend itself against Islamic terrorists.
Fars News Agency has conducted an interview with Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, a public policy scholar and political commentator based in the United States, in an attempt to study various aspects of the presence of ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and shed more light on this.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication. She is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy. Her articles and writings on Iran’s nuclear program, the Middle East developments and the US foreign policy have been published by several print and online publications.
What follows is the text of FNA’s interview with Ms. Sepahpour-Ulrich:
Q: ISIL which controls parts of Syria, sent its fighters into neighboring Iraq in June and quickly seized large swaths of territory straddling the border between the two countries. The militants have terrorized entire Iraqi communities, including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians and Ezadi, Kurds while executing a large number of civilians and soldiers. What do you think are the major objectives of the ISIL?
A: To try and determine what the objectives of ISIL are, it is important to understand how they came to being. It has been widely reported and established, correctly, that had it not been for the actions of the United States, be it the illegal war against Iraq or the arming of the militants to overthrow the Assad government, there would be no ISIL threat today. America’s contribution to these terrorists included arms and training. Britain also participated in arming and training anti-Assad rebels.
In June, Obama sought hundreds of millions for dollars for “moderate rebels” in Syria! Losing arms Iraq, Afghanistan.
But the aforementioned is the most obvious fact, which even US officials openly admit to. This degree of rare honesty serves to conceal and distract from the hidden agendas of which there are many.
The initial occupation of Iraq and the support of anti-Assad elements had a two-fold strategy. One was to re-establish American hegemony over the region, in particular the Persian Gulf – the lynchpin of US strategy and its ambitions of global domination.
In addition to its presence and control of the region, America also wanted control of the resources – oil and water.
While the US import of oil from the region is negligible, the control of the system and the oil would give it the upper hand, especially with regard to Europe and Japan. In other words, US control of the oil flow from the Persian Gulf directly or through proxies, would give it leverage over its allies.
In 2012, the majority of Israel's crude oil imports came from Russia and Azerbaijan via tanker vessels.
In addition, the US would be able to safeguard Israel’s energy demand and reduce costs given that at the time, Israel relied on Russian oil. According to a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Israel, America guaranteed Israel’s energy demands.
A far more vital resource in that part of the world is water of course. In essence, another reason for the intervention in Iraq and Syria is water to create hydraulic security for Israel.The Tigris and Euphrates rivers provide Iraq and Syria with their water and depend essentially on agreements with Turkey where both rivers originate. Plans have been in the making to divert this water to Israel (and in some measure, to Southern Persian Gulf states).
These resources, water and oil, demanded compliant governments in Iraq and Syria. In 2013, Netanyahu publicly hinted at arming Syrian “rebels”.
ISIL serves these agendas in many ways. Foremost, it serves to weaken the central governments. For as long as they are busy fighting an enemy within, their capacity would be too diminished to fight the greater enemy without.
Second, ISIL falsely promotes the Western narrative of a Sunni-Shiite divide in order to weaken the internal resistance. In fact, ISIL is killing all Moslems, Christians, and others.
The gruesome killings that are taking place and tweeted around the world, serve to direct hatred and anger at Moslems, regardless of the roots and origins of these terrorists. Curiously, this group does not target Israel.
The brutality of ISIL has painted a false image of Moslems and underscored – inaccurately – the Israeli narrative that it must fend itself against “Islamic terrorists”.
Perhaps the most important aspect of ISIL, in my view, is that it is waging a total war against Islam. Not long ago, the world learnt in horror that future leaders of America were being taught to wage a “total war” against 1.4 billion Muslims in order to “protect America against Islamic terrorists”.
The total war included transformation of Islam to “cult status”, bombing and starvation while reinforcing the notion that “mainstream” Muslims are dangerous, because they’re “violent” by nature. US military did concede that some of the tactics would be considered “politically incorrect”. It seems to me that ISIL has solved the problem for them.
So at the end of the day, you have to ask who created, armed and trained the terrorists? And who stands to gain from their butchery.
Q: Many experts believe that Iraq is on the verge of disintegration. Will Iraq fall apart? Is this serious?
A:The threat of disintegration of Iraq is very real and very serious.The US has long sought to balkanize the entire region, not just Iraq. There is a plethora of literature on these plans introduced by neocon Bernard Lewis who proposed a plan for redrawing the borders of the larger Middle East into a mosaic of competing mini-states, thereby weakening the power of the existing republics and kingdoms. In 2006, Joe Biden openly called for Iraq to be divided into 3 parts. Everything that is happening today has been long in the making.
We cannot lose track of the fact that none of this would have been possible without the Iraq invasion. ISIL would not be a threat had the United States (Britain and regional allies) not armed and trained them.
In January 2014, ISIL (then referred to as al-Qaeda affiliate) seized Fallujah. In February, the United States sent heavy weaponry, intelligence gathering drones, missiles, thousands of contractors to train the Iraqis and help with intelligence gathering. In spite of American training and sophisticated weaponry, a few short months later, fewer than 1000 ISIL fighters sent some 30,000 soldiers into retreat. Surely then, we must either accept that the United States with its sophisticated weaponry, its intelligence gathering and highly paid contractors is absolutely useless; in which case we must question the deployment of special forces and the aerial “humanitarian bombing”, or, concede that ISIL has been the beneficiary – deliberate or not. This only underscores America’s role in all this. Curiously, the same month that 1000 ISIL members defeated 30,000 US trained soldiers, America asked for millions more in funds to arm rebels in Syria, even as (US) government officials have conceded that the US had armed ISIL in Syria.
In spite of promoting the false narrative of a Sunni-Shiite divide, America was not able to balkanize the region. ISIL provides the opportunity to accomplish these goals – and more. If you look at everything that ISIL has accomplished to date, you will note that they have only served the United States and Israel at the expense of the region and Moslems as a whole.
This is a serious threat that needs to be taken seriously. I don’t believe that assistance from the US is the answer, as clearly indicated above, it would have he exact opposite effect. Without any military knowledge or training, I cannot really address what would be the best course of action. But it is important that every citizen, regardless of their ethnicity and religion see this group as a direct threat.
Q: Do you believe that the Zionist regime is funding the terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria?
A: Please see above. In 2013, in a BBC interview, Netanyahu hinted at the possibility of arming Syrian “rebels”. In fact, former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin told the audience at the Israel Policy Forum in February 2013: “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating. We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an Al-Qaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army." In essence, these rebel terrorists are weakening sovereign armies while killing the populations of both Syria and Iraq (not to mention others such as Palestinians).
Q: According to the latest reports, ISIL may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000-5,000 in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners; nearly a thousand are reported to hail from Chechnya, 500 or more from Britain and hundreds of others from France, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. What do you think?
A: The West now has the perfect excuse not to let in refugees of wars they have created, to promote fear, and to crack down on liberties in their respective countries. The threat of ISIL is a fine propaganda tool for US and allies. At a minimum, the United States and Europe can take comfort in the fact that not once has ISIL threatened Israel. Which makes ISIL all the more questionable! This lack of hostility toward Israel and what is happening in Gaza mirrors bin Laden in 200-2009. While the world was supposed to believe he was still alive and an enemy and threat to the West, he was completely silent as Israel massacred Gazans in Operation Cast Lead. Important facts are not discussed in the media.
Q: The US turned a deaf ear and blind eye to the massacre in the Gaza Strip by Israel and suddenly US President Barack Obama decided to authorize military strikes on the ISIL positions in Iraq. Obama has said that airstrikes could go on for months to protect both US personnel and religious minorities who are trapped by the militants on a mountain.
What’s behind this sudden change of approach? Is this related to the geopolitical position of Erbil? Kindly explain.
A: Possibly several reasons. There are many American forces in Erbil. And of course there is an oil and gas conference scheduled in Erbil in December 2014. There have been huge demonstrations around the world with regard to what Israel is doing in Gaza and Americans have not been immune from the news. Now once again, US is attempting to show that it is concerned with and involved in humanitarian crisis. Frankly, this is all propaganda. And America’s standing in the world relies on propaganda.
But one must also not rule out the possibility of a full scale return to Iraq. From the onset, US build enduring bases in Iraq, mini cities. These were for permanent occupation. US did not plan on leaving. The Abu Gharib scandal and American actions untied Iraq against their occupiers. Even with the false narrative of a Shiite-Sunni divide and the false flags, America was tossed out of the country by Maliki. This could be an opening for the US to return to Iraq (occupy by other means) and to justify such actions to the American people. In other words, a repeat of George W. Bush slogan: We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here!
“Second, ISIL falsely promotes the Western narrative of a Sunni-Shiite divide in order to weaken the internal resistance. In fact, ISIL is killing all Moslems, Christians, and others,” Sepahpour-Ulrich further said.
She believes that the brutality of ISIL has painted a false image of Muslims and underscored – inaccurately – the Israeli narrative that it must fend itself against Islamic terrorists.
Fars News Agency has conducted an interview with Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, a public policy scholar and political commentator based in the United States, in an attempt to study various aspects of the presence of ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and shed more light on this.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication. She is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy. Her articles and writings on Iran’s nuclear program, the Middle East developments and the US foreign policy have been published by several print and online publications.
What follows is the text of FNA’s interview with Ms. Sepahpour-Ulrich:
Q: ISIL which controls parts of Syria, sent its fighters into neighboring Iraq in June and quickly seized large swaths of territory straddling the border between the two countries. The militants have terrorized entire Iraqi communities, including Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians and Ezadi, Kurds while executing a large number of civilians and soldiers. What do you think are the major objectives of the ISIL?
A: To try and determine what the objectives of ISIL are, it is important to understand how they came to being. It has been widely reported and established, correctly, that had it not been for the actions of the United States, be it the illegal war against Iraq or the arming of the militants to overthrow the Assad government, there would be no ISIL threat today. America’s contribution to these terrorists included arms and training. Britain also participated in arming and training anti-Assad rebels.
In June, Obama sought hundreds of millions for dollars for “moderate rebels” in Syria! Losing arms Iraq, Afghanistan.
But the aforementioned is the most obvious fact, which even US officials openly admit to. This degree of rare honesty serves to conceal and distract from the hidden agendas of which there are many.
The initial occupation of Iraq and the support of anti-Assad elements had a two-fold strategy. One was to re-establish American hegemony over the region, in particular the Persian Gulf – the lynchpin of US strategy and its ambitions of global domination.
In addition to its presence and control of the region, America also wanted control of the resources – oil and water.
While the US import of oil from the region is negligible, the control of the system and the oil would give it the upper hand, especially with regard to Europe and Japan. In other words, US control of the oil flow from the Persian Gulf directly or through proxies, would give it leverage over its allies.
In 2012, the majority of Israel's crude oil imports came from Russia and Azerbaijan via tanker vessels.
In addition, the US would be able to safeguard Israel’s energy demand and reduce costs given that at the time, Israel relied on Russian oil. According to a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Israel, America guaranteed Israel’s energy demands.
A far more vital resource in that part of the world is water of course. In essence, another reason for the intervention in Iraq and Syria is water to create hydraulic security for Israel.The Tigris and Euphrates rivers provide Iraq and Syria with their water and depend essentially on agreements with Turkey where both rivers originate. Plans have been in the making to divert this water to Israel (and in some measure, to Southern Persian Gulf states).
These resources, water and oil, demanded compliant governments in Iraq and Syria. In 2013, Netanyahu publicly hinted at arming Syrian “rebels”.
ISIL serves these agendas in many ways. Foremost, it serves to weaken the central governments. For as long as they are busy fighting an enemy within, their capacity would be too diminished to fight the greater enemy without.
Second, ISIL falsely promotes the Western narrative of a Sunni-Shiite divide in order to weaken the internal resistance. In fact, ISIL is killing all Moslems, Christians, and others.
The gruesome killings that are taking place and tweeted around the world, serve to direct hatred and anger at Moslems, regardless of the roots and origins of these terrorists. Curiously, this group does not target Israel.
The brutality of ISIL has painted a false image of Moslems and underscored – inaccurately – the Israeli narrative that it must fend itself against “Islamic terrorists”.
Perhaps the most important aspect of ISIL, in my view, is that it is waging a total war against Islam. Not long ago, the world learnt in horror that future leaders of America were being taught to wage a “total war” against 1.4 billion Muslims in order to “protect America against Islamic terrorists”.
The total war included transformation of Islam to “cult status”, bombing and starvation while reinforcing the notion that “mainstream” Muslims are dangerous, because they’re “violent” by nature. US military did concede that some of the tactics would be considered “politically incorrect”. It seems to me that ISIL has solved the problem for them.
So at the end of the day, you have to ask who created, armed and trained the terrorists? And who stands to gain from their butchery.
Q: Many experts believe that Iraq is on the verge of disintegration. Will Iraq fall apart? Is this serious?
A:The threat of disintegration of Iraq is very real and very serious.The US has long sought to balkanize the entire region, not just Iraq. There is a plethora of literature on these plans introduced by neocon Bernard Lewis who proposed a plan for redrawing the borders of the larger Middle East into a mosaic of competing mini-states, thereby weakening the power of the existing republics and kingdoms. In 2006, Joe Biden openly called for Iraq to be divided into 3 parts. Everything that is happening today has been long in the making.
We cannot lose track of the fact that none of this would have been possible without the Iraq invasion. ISIL would not be a threat had the United States (Britain and regional allies) not armed and trained them.
In January 2014, ISIL (then referred to as al-Qaeda affiliate) seized Fallujah. In February, the United States sent heavy weaponry, intelligence gathering drones, missiles, thousands of contractors to train the Iraqis and help with intelligence gathering. In spite of American training and sophisticated weaponry, a few short months later, fewer than 1000 ISIL fighters sent some 30,000 soldiers into retreat. Surely then, we must either accept that the United States with its sophisticated weaponry, its intelligence gathering and highly paid contractors is absolutely useless; in which case we must question the deployment of special forces and the aerial “humanitarian bombing”, or, concede that ISIL has been the beneficiary – deliberate or not. This only underscores America’s role in all this. Curiously, the same month that 1000 ISIL members defeated 30,000 US trained soldiers, America asked for millions more in funds to arm rebels in Syria, even as (US) government officials have conceded that the US had armed ISIL in Syria.
In spite of promoting the false narrative of a Sunni-Shiite divide, America was not able to balkanize the region. ISIL provides the opportunity to accomplish these goals – and more. If you look at everything that ISIL has accomplished to date, you will note that they have only served the United States and Israel at the expense of the region and Moslems as a whole.
This is a serious threat that needs to be taken seriously. I don’t believe that assistance from the US is the answer, as clearly indicated above, it would have he exact opposite effect. Without any military knowledge or training, I cannot really address what would be the best course of action. But it is important that every citizen, regardless of their ethnicity and religion see this group as a direct threat.
Q: Do you believe that the Zionist regime is funding the terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria?
A: Please see above. In 2013, in a BBC interview, Netanyahu hinted at the possibility of arming Syrian “rebels”. In fact, former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin told the audience at the Israel Policy Forum in February 2013: “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating. We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an Al-Qaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army." In essence, these rebel terrorists are weakening sovereign armies while killing the populations of both Syria and Iraq (not to mention others such as Palestinians).
Q: According to the latest reports, ISIL may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000-5,000 in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners; nearly a thousand are reported to hail from Chechnya, 500 or more from Britain and hundreds of others from France, the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. What do you think?
A: The West now has the perfect excuse not to let in refugees of wars they have created, to promote fear, and to crack down on liberties in their respective countries. The threat of ISIL is a fine propaganda tool for US and allies. At a minimum, the United States and Europe can take comfort in the fact that not once has ISIL threatened Israel. Which makes ISIL all the more questionable! This lack of hostility toward Israel and what is happening in Gaza mirrors bin Laden in 200-2009. While the world was supposed to believe he was still alive and an enemy and threat to the West, he was completely silent as Israel massacred Gazans in Operation Cast Lead. Important facts are not discussed in the media.
Q: The US turned a deaf ear and blind eye to the massacre in the Gaza Strip by Israel and suddenly US President Barack Obama decided to authorize military strikes on the ISIL positions in Iraq. Obama has said that airstrikes could go on for months to protect both US personnel and religious minorities who are trapped by the militants on a mountain.
What’s behind this sudden change of approach? Is this related to the geopolitical position of Erbil? Kindly explain.
A: Possibly several reasons. There are many American forces in Erbil. And of course there is an oil and gas conference scheduled in Erbil in December 2014. There have been huge demonstrations around the world with regard to what Israel is doing in Gaza and Americans have not been immune from the news. Now once again, US is attempting to show that it is concerned with and involved in humanitarian crisis. Frankly, this is all propaganda. And America’s standing in the world relies on propaganda.
But one must also not rule out the possibility of a full scale return to Iraq. From the onset, US build enduring bases in Iraq, mini cities. These were for permanent occupation. US did not plan on leaving. The Abu Gharib scandal and American actions untied Iraq against their occupiers. Even with the false narrative of a Shiite-Sunni divide and the false flags, America was tossed out of the country by Maliki. This could be an opening for the US to return to Iraq (occupy by other means) and to justify such actions to the American people. In other words, a repeat of George W. Bush slogan: We are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here!
