Who Is Really Winning the War Against ISIS?

[vimeo 132181688 w=640 h=360]

January 17, 2015—Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in. A recent headline caught my attention. It says, “Iran eclipses US as Iraq’s ally in fight against militants.” Now this is rather ironic because we have not been friends with the Iranians. We have been antagonizing them for a long time. All of a sudden, we find out that the fight, the war that we have been fighting in Iraq, which has essentially going on since 2003, has not been won by us. It’s not been won by the Iraqis. It looks like the Iranians won the whole thing.

This was well known early on because the government that was put in place were Shia, and the Shia identify with the Shia of Iran. We overthrew a Sunni government under a pretense that they had weapons of mass destruction, which was not true. Now the Iranians have come in and they’re helping out and we’re sort of being quiet. We don’t say we coordinate anything but, in a way, the United States is sort of welcoming because the Iranians are moving into Iraq in the war against ISIS.

Since we have done such a poor job, we’ve more or less precipitated the growth of ISIS. ISIS is in Iraq and that means al Qaeda is in Iraq. Our failure there says that, “Boy, if the Iranians can come and help us out of this, the big deal, this would be helpful.”

It’s just like ISIS being our enemy, they also wanted to get rid of Assad. The Iranians want to preserve Assad and yet, we like them and they’re to get rid of ISIS, so it becomes rather complex.

The Iranians are doing quite well for themselves. We have sanctions on them. They’re supposed to not be able to trade. They’re probably being hurt by lower oil prices. They just sent $10 billion worth of weapons into Iraq and got paid for it, because Iraq has similar oil. It looks like they’re doing pretty well on trade. Of course the Iranians identify with trading with Russia and China as well. It’s rather amazing that they’re doing this well.

The American people, though, don’t quite understand how this comes all about. And because it’s complex, they sort of want to just forget about it. We have been there and we’re unsuccessful and now the Iranians are there. The big question that comes up: what’s going to happen to Syria? What if the Iranians are very successful in Iraq and push the ISIS out of there? Then maybe instead of supporting our position against ISIS, then they go and they become much more vocal, and with the use of their forces, too, defend Assad?

We could ask them and they could get out of control. The alliances are very fragile and it doesn’t serve our interest in any way. I cannot see any benefit to the American people or our government or for peace, for us to be so involved there. Just think of all that time we’ve spent, all the individuals who have died and all the money spent. And here we are—we’re back to “square one minus” because the country is in worse shape than ever before. Right now, it looks the Iranians are going to control our country, eventually, unless something major happens, which could be major in a negative sense that the whole place blows up in war.

We, as a country, need to understand that it’s not to our interest, that we change our policy and that we need avoid getting involved like this, because this is a major mess. We wouldn’t be involved in it if we didn’t accept the neocon position that we had to remake the whole Middle East. Yes, they can be pleased. We have remade the whole Middle East. But I’ll tell you what, not in a positive way. It’s much worse now.

Even with Saddam Hussein and the others, the Middle East was not nearly as chaotic and dangerous. And, of course, thousands of Americans would still be alive and we would probably have $3 trillion in the bank that we wouldn’t have spent. I think that’s a pretty good argument for nonintervention. The sooner we accept nonintervention as a foreign policy the better for us. I want to thank you for tuning in today and come back soon.

Advertisements