------------THIS POST HAS BEEN RE-POSTED AND UPDATED TO MAKE MORE SENSE

Israeli investment in Iraq War -> Media Jews + Media Profits = Israeli Profits.
War stories + 24/7 viewing = $$$ revenue .

[olivebranch]


Who has most at stake in the outcome of the war on Iraq?

Is it Iran? is it Israel? is it the USA?
or is it Saudi Arabia???

This is a debate I enjoy having with myself, since noone else seems willing to have it with me,
or indeed informed enough to care about said debate (not people I see in real life here in Perth, Western Australia anyways)

Lately I am not sure, I have been noticing an increasing acknowledgement for the heavy influence that Irani factions in Iraq such as SCIRI and the Da'awa Party have been having on the civilian population, including their attempts to segregate religion, and radicalize the general public so as to sway the government towards a Shia controlled Islamic Theocracy like that imposed on Iran in 1979 when the Shah was over-thrown by Ayotollah Khomeini.

I have also been reading alot about the conditions of life itself and the religious ways and beliefs of the Saudi Royal family and the Bin Laden Group, including a book by the name of "The Veiled Kingdom" By Carmen Bin Ladin, ex-wife of prominent Bin-Laden Brother Yeslam Bin Ladin. It shows that much is at stake for Saudi Arabia in Iraq too, for if the Irani model of Islamic Theocracy were to rise in Iraq, on the border of Saudi Arabia there would be much trouble.

From one perspective I see that as the US invaded Iraq, the amount of oil consumption by the US government must have increased greatly. Doubt over the stability of the Middle-East and the future of oil reserves and the environment world-wide has driven prices-per-barrel souring upward. At the same time there would have been a rapid decline in the amount of oil being provided from Iraq even through the oil-for-food program wich was highly controversial and generally exploited anyway, as pipelines were being destroyed, and oil was being emptied into trenches and burnt as a smoke-screen against US invading forces.

For the oil-rich Saudi's, this meant an economical boom. Their stocks in the Carlisle Group and Lockhead Martin and other such military markets in the USA also boomed, adding great personal gains for the Bin Laden's and Saudi Royals, as well as for the official government of Saudi Arabia and its people themselves.

And, if, as many experts predict (though I disagree), that the price of oil is being driven mainly by instability in the Middle East rather than concern for global ecology, then an end to the war on Iraq could mean recession for the Saudi Economy. To the Saudi princes, who enjoy fast expensive cars and frequent flights overseas this could pose some problems.

The Saudi Royals have a huge amount of money invested in US trends, in Weapons development and distribution, in land and in the Carlisle Group, along with the Bin Laden Clan, Bush Senior and many other war-mongering politicians. If the war in Iraq
turns foul enough for the American's to have to leave, this profit would slow or even turn to debt very quickly.

With constant discontent towards them inside the country, the rising threat of civil war or coup-de-ta would be fueled by any poverty created, or by the stark differences in the life-styles enjoyed by the rich Saudi Royals, and the common Saudi man/woman.

To add to this, any turn further towards Western ideals inside Iraq would quickly spill further into Saudi society, and begin eroding away at the strict religious base used to keep a hold of the country by the Royals and the supporting Bin Laden Clan. This could quickly mean women, particularly foreigners living inside Saudi Arabia,of which there are many, start to stand up for them selves, start to dissent. Ultimately, this leads to the collapse of the Saudi Monarchy.

Now maybe you understand that people in Iraq are being forced by either side to start wearing their Hijab's, because both Iran and Saudi Arabia fear that further "westernisation" of Iraq could spill into their borders as more American technology
pours into the country. In Iran this too would erode away at the religious foundations that float the powerful Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporting clan in the Irani Government and Republican Guard.

Israel on the otherhand have a hell of a lot to lose aswell, but their involvement in Iraq is much more symbolic and political than it is directly military or economical based. If, as before, Iraq comes out with a very pro-Palestine government, only this time with better relations to its neighbours, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria..... There could very quickly become a powerful united front backing the Palestinian resistance, and this would very quickly threaten the basis on which Israel stays on Occupied Palestinian territory. (Security)

On the other hand, Israeli and American Jews are reknown for their ownership of the global corporate media based mostly inside the USA, and the Corporate Media companies as such are known for being the first to profiteer from war. I know that I certainly bought a paper every day for a month either side of invasion day in March 2003. I know I watched the news and kept reading every peice of media available. (though I also used non-corporate resources to get a much better, in depth knowledge base to form my personal view from)

I have available a VERY VERY large list of Jews involved at the highest level in corporate media such as Fox , Walt Disney, Time Warner, CNN, Universal studio's, DreamWorks SKG, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation - which owns somewhere near 90% of
Australian newspaper sales and television news contracts. They Also control The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY more.


For further information on Jews in the Media check these links.

http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html <--- good source of info, but I dislike his opinions.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406 <-- even better info, less opinion, less story... read the top one first...

Well, Now I have given you an overview of my opinion, here is some information and fruther argument that I present to prove that Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran all have much at stake in Iraq.




[olivebranch]

The connection that appears to me most blatant of all between these countries, is that of SCIRI (the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) and the Irani revolutionary group SCIRI (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iran) which

toppled the Shah of Iran in 1979 and imposed the religious rule of Ayotollah Khomeini upon Iran. Perhaps most concerning about SCIRI, is it's military wing, Badr Corps, originally the Badir's Brigade.

Here is a couple of paragraphs giving a brief rundown of the history of SCIRI's origins. The more documents can be found

from the following links:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/sciri.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021405A.shtml

Also check out http://www.juancole.com/ for much information about Iraq and those involved with it.


[snipette]

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a Shi'i resistance group also known as the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI), was formed in Iran in 1982 to provide an opposition to Iraqi aggression against Iran. Following the Iran-Iraq war, the organization continued to operate with the aim of toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein. SCIRI was directly supported with funds by Tehran and with arms by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard. The movement advocated theocratic rule for Iraq and conducted a low-level, cross-border guerrilla war to bring Islamic revolution to Iraq.

The Badr Corps consist of thousands of former Iraqi officers and soldiers who defected from the Iraqi army, Iraqi refugees, and Iraqis who fled the country to join SCIRI during the Iran-Iraq war. The Badr Corps' main military goal was to crush Iran's nemesis, the Mujahedeen Khalq Organisation (MKO), a guerrilla group of Iranians who fell out with Tehran in the early days of the 1979 revolution and allied themselves with Baghdad.

The Badr corps consist of Infantry, Armored, Artillery, Anti aircraft and commandos units. The training courses are supervised by Iraqi military officers and commanders who defected from Iraqi army.

The Badr forces strategy is as follows:

1. To build military bases in some safe areas such as the Marshes in southern Iraq and Kurdistan in Northern Iraq.
2. To establish secret resistance cells all over Iraq.
3. To keep mobilising and training camps outside Iraq in the neighbouring countries which allow such activities.

[/snipette]

So, if you haven't already read into this yourself and deducted what this can mean for the future of Iraq, I think maybe you should go borrow some books from your library on the Irani revolution,

go read some Irani blogs which can be found in english at http://blogsbyiranians.com/

Or maybe I will just elaborate a little bit for you on how I percieve it. SCIRI, which formed with the support of the Irani government and its Elite Republican Guard in the midst of war with Saddam's Regime, has its primary objectives as "Crushing Iran's Nemesis", and to "Bring Islamic Revolution to Iraq", in other words, to Iranify(hehehe I made up a new funny word) Iraq.

It is this same party, with the same said goals, that is now supported by the American Occupation forces in Iraq. Infact, the whole government that was in all practicle terms imposed on the Iraqi people by the US government is ridden with connections to Iran deeper than the American's wallet.

The top two winning parties in Iraq's elections, which together won more than 70 percent of the vote are, much to the dismay of neo-conservatives in America, Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

These results will have some extreme long-term implications. The US government have played Baghdad and Tehran off each other to ensure neither became a regional giant threatening or dominant over U.S. allie, notably Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf sheikdoms, for many many years.

It appears to me that the US can do nothing but wait for it to happen. The US can't win a popularity contest in Iraq, and their only means for staying in Iraq is do act as a pawn for the United Iraqi Alliance, which is expected to very quickly strengthen ties between Iraq and Iran as a shield against outside influences like the US, Israel and the Saudi's.

Tehran's in-action against the Iraq war was advantageous to its own future, by toppling saddam and lining Badr's Brigade up on the border while the US tanks were wading their way into Baghdad, they ensured their ability to influence the people of
Iraq towards supporting their Theocratic and extremist interpretation of Sharia (or islamic Law, if I spelt it right, being the silly westerner I am :D

It also could be the one thing protecting them from America and Israel[other than its own military might]. If Iraq was all pro-USA and conforming to US ideas, IRAN would be FUCKED. But Iran knows better of Iraq's military capabilities and ingenuity, having faced its formidable foe for many years during the Iran/Iraq war and I am sure they kept their eye on what Saddam was doing in preperation of invasion since 1991 much better than the US did.

They probably knew of the likely emergence of Al-Sadr, they would DEFINATELY have planned for SCIRI to move in and undoubtedly knew the fierce resistance the sunni's would put up to any invasion, UN, US, IRAN, SAUDI, SYRIAN, TURK -ANYONE-
Saddam laid down his weapons and retreated into his people, he then fought until his capture, a story I will link to at a later stage when I can be bothered finding it to disprove the US 'he was in a hole underground' bullshit, just like the Private Jessica Lynch rescue! and the shooting of the Italian Intelligence agent Nicola Calipari.

Most of these so called 'insurgent cells' in the Sunni triangle are not pro-saddam, but they were equipped by Saddam, they were in agreeance with Saddam. If the American's come we wont fight, we will let them in, we will shoot a few bullets and
seem week. We will let them get worn out and fight to the death over time.

Face-to-Face all out combat with the US war machine is suicide. Incensing revolutionary movement and alienating the people against US policy is the highly successfull plan laid long before the Invasion had been realised. Im sure Saddam was ready for it in 1998, and if not, im sure the 5 years between were DEFINATELY time for preperation.

Iran knows this. I mean, if by reading what I have found on the internet, in books, from my own little hunches to look at a particular person and find many worlds behind them, that I can see that this is what happend, from my little desk here in
the most isolated major city in the entire world, then surely Iraq's closest neighbours, closest religion and arch-rival would have known. So they played along too, I wouldn't even be surprised if Saddam's friends had made deals with SCIRI
though I have no evidence to back this claim.




-- Now back to Saudi Arabia, this is mostly based on regional information, not its ties to America which information can be

found on at many sites already.

If the new government of Iraq comes out close to the hard-line Isalmic Theocracy of Iran, then the future of relations between Iraqi's and their Wahhabi brothers to the west looks very shakey and very shadey.

Although Riyadh declared its neutrality at the outset of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, it helped Baghdad in nonmilitary ways.

For example, during the conflict's eight years, Saudi Arabia provided Iraq with an estimated US$25 billion in low-interest loans and grants, reserved for Iraqi customers part of its production from oil fields in the Iraq-Saudi Arabian Neutral
Zone, and assisted with the construction of an oil pipeline to transport Iraqi oil across its territory.

Despite this though, Riyadh's fears concerning Baghdad's ultimate intentions prompted Saudi Arabia to become involved directly in the war against Iraq during January and February 1991. This caused major divisions between the Saudi and Iraqi governments.

Saudi Arabia's fear of losing oil sales to Iraq have prompted them to exerpt their influence on Iraq in the form of aggitation against the US presence. They will not openely support the invasion of Iraq, and condemn the presence of non-Muslim troops as 'peace keepers' or 'liberaters' on Muslim soil. If a pro-US government were to eventuate from the invasion or Iraq, that would mean that US dependancy on Saudi Arabia for oil would decrease greatly, and the supply-demand balance would once again be pushed away from Saudi favour. This would open up the way for judgement of the Saudi regime by western leaders openly, without the fear of losing a vital oil supply.

This would mean that Saudi Arabia's harsh religious law enforcement could come under human rights scrutiny, and combined with the afformention arguments about economic harshities and inequalities in lifestyle, this could be enough to fuel an explosion of radicalism away from traditional Saudi Wahhabism.

"The road to the entire Middle East goes through Baghdad," <--- This is true whether you are Wahhabi', Kurd, Shi'a, Sunni or another sect of Islam, whether you are the USA, the UK, the USSR.... Mesopotamia is and always had been the center of civilization, particularly for the Muslim/Arab world.

The Saudi's still need Iraq as a religeous buffer between their hardline Wahhabi'ism interpretation of Sharia and Iran's Shi'te population, and Jordan's secular government. Such melding of religion could bring an end to the oppression of women in Saudi Society, which would require a totally new reshaping of Saudi Society, and would this change would deffinately turn many against the Saudi Royal family for its oppressive ways.

So you see that the Saudi's too, even before we move into physical investment in the USA and military equiptment or the ACTUAL reconstruction effort in Iraq have a large interest ideologically in the future of Iraq. The removal of Saddam Hussein could have been a pro or a con for Saudi's, and could still go either way. As can be found on many Iraqi' blogs like Riverbends' - quotes resounding the following message "Before the invasion, we had never heard of Wahhabi'sm in Iraq, women needn't wear hijab's and could walk alone in the streets".

In Saudi Arabia a woman can barely answer the front door without permission of her husband, or in his absence the eldest son, or in absence of an eldest son or father, then the closest male relative must permit them to do so and make sure no non-related male see's their face or be spoken to or speak to them. I fear for the future of women in Iraq when Wahhabi'sm is mentioned in Iraq's future, is doesn't sound nice to me.

I will conclude by stating that I probably don't have enough physical evidence in this blog 'YET' to prove that Saudi Arabia 'gains' from the invasion of Iraq. However if you would care to read Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men", and watch some documentaries on Saudi Royals and their connection to the BUSH family such as "House of Bush, House of Saud" or "Farrenheit 9/11" or "9/11 in plane site", you can see the hidden investments made by Saudi Royals and the Bin Laden' family in the Carlisle Group and other parts of the American economy, amounting to a total of 13% of the economy of the USA.

[/olivebranch]