(TMU Op-Ed) — In 2017, former secretary of state and potential war criminal Henry Kissinger warned the world that defeating ISIS would lead to an “Iranian radical empire.” As far as he was concerned, the radical terror group was basically keeping Iran in check.
It is no secret even to western media, particularly now that the U.S. has extinguished him completely, that the late Quds commander Qasem Soleimani fought ISIS to great effect. While not often talked about, the US essentially used him as an unofficial ally at one stage in the fight against the extremist group.
It shouldn’t be a surprise therefore that ISIS has heralded the death of the late commander as an “act of divine intervention.” They are now reportedly planning a regroup in Iraq as the U.S. paused all of its anti-ISIS operations.
Shortly before Soleimani’s death, many major newspapers were reporting that ISIS militants were already regrouping in Iraq. A top Kurdish official described the extremists as being like “Al-Qaeda on steroids” (something he already warned about two years prior).
The corporate media is now alleging that if the U.S. were to leave completely, as per Iraq’s wishes, that this would also benefit ISIS. There is some merit to this argument as well, however, it only holds true as long as the U.S.-led coalition is genuine in its attempts to eradicate the organization (and not, say, secretly give them safe passage from one territory to another).
If this is all hard to swallow, consider that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the mastermind who rallied Trump to deliver the strike on the prominent Iranian official. Pompeo is the new and improved Kissinger, receiving tips straight from the horse’s mouth on a regular basis.
While it may sound counter-productive to some, it would make sense that the U.S. would want to postpone the defeat of ISIS as it gives the world’s superpower a never-ending excuse to operate its military inside the region. It has already made itself clear that withdrawing its troops, even at the serious request of the host country, is completely off the table—so the media need not worry about the potential end of U.S. imperialism in Iraq.
Whatever the intentions, the immediate outcomes following the assassination are crystal clear. The U.S. may have ignited a spark in the region between Iran and itself to prolong the threat of an antagonized Iran, all the while keeping alive a terror threat that can also justify its presence for the next few years at least.
Unfortunately, Iran may have had some internationally recognized sympathy following these events if it weren’t for the apparently mistaken downing of a civilian airliner by its military. Where a major war was potentially on the way to being averted, all bets are more or less off the table.
Typos, corrections and/or news tips? Email us at [email protected]