In the midst of the crisis in Iraq caused by the advances of the ISIS (originally, al Qaeda of Iraq) and feeble US attempts to explain away the "sudden" (for the uninformed and the lazy) rise of this Qaeda army-turned-caliphate, CNN's Scott Anderson effectively unveiled the truer US position and goals (in between the lines) at a price of a bit of disinformation and a bit of "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. According to Anderson, what is happening now is the fault of the British and the French, the US key allies, whose imperialism "irreversibly" messed up the region in the early 20th century--almost one hundred years ago (which is quite true, but it leaves out the white-washed burden of the US).
Anderson correctly or almost correctly says: "We're simply starting to run out of places which the European imperialists screwed up." He should have added: "We are also running out places which US imperialism has not screwed up."
However, the most stunning revelation hidden between the lines and cunningly assigned to Syria and Iraq as the would-be carriers of the US real objective, which cannot be understandably spoken out directly, is that the US is not against turning the state of the ISIS into a new accepted reality on the ground. And an article like this is a way of how to start the public used and reconciled to such an idea--i.e. by saying (in the right Machiavellian way) that, "perversely" the victims of the US plan want this themselves.
CNN has discovered the perfidy of British and French imperialism in the Middle East, but then it slyly stops its more than sixty years belated critique of imperialism by the events of the 1950s, that is, just on the threshold of Pax Americana., CNN then does a remarkably Machiavellian thing: it effectively reveals the US plan and strategy by assigning its own objectives to its victims and targets: Syria and Iraq.
In its "perverse" conclusion, the CNN article tries to make the US wish to be the desired mindset of the targeted countries: "Perversely, there may soon come a time when both the Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad and the Alawite-dominated one in Damascus both decide such a terror-state [by the ISIS] might be the best way to be rid of their Sunni enemies."
CNN also perfidiously inserts this dis-information, which is but a transparent ongoing US goal for Syria in its regime change campaign that has greatly assisted the ISIS, al Nusra and other terror jihadist armies; but clever CNN now tries to pin and present this US wish as a would-be thought of the Syrian government itself: "there is now talk within Bashar al-Assad's embattled regime of slicing off the Alawite-dominated western portions of Syria to create a more defensible mini-state."
The fact is that the ISIS has already been in control of Syria's east and parts of north for the last two years or so and the same ISIS has been also controlling much of Iraq's west for some years as well. And these territories are not just deserts, but also population centers with millions of people living there. But the existence of this quasi state has been concealed from the Western public in a similar way in which the nearly open existence of Ukrainian fascists in control of the Kiev junta's war machine is been denied and concealed.
The above so carefully leaked and revealed, while concealing it, by CNN also helps clarify the US "suddenly strange" position which started demanding a regime change in Iraq, a departure of Maliki's government, as a needed price for any US "help."
So, as it happens, and to give an example of similar suddenly mushrooming statements now coming from the US, another recent CNNarticle argued with reference to the highest US officials:
"As the al Qaeda splinter group ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, continues its fierce advance in Iraq, senior U.S. officials tell CNN that the Obama administration is of the belief that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is not the leader Iraq needs to unify the country and end sectarian tensions. The officials, along with Arab diplomats, say the White House is now focused on a political transition that would move Iraqis toward a more inclusive government -- one without al-Maliki … But despite al-Maliki's words, there's a growing chorus of calls -- both in Washington and in the Arab world -- for him to go if there is to be any hope of unifying Iraq as the Islamic militants advance. ... Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said al-Maliki has to be convinced that it's in the country's best interest for him to retire." I think that most of us that have followed this are really convinced that the Maliki government, candidly, has got to go if you want any reconciliation," she said this week. Publicly though, the White House isn't being as direct. Earlier this week in a Yahoo News interview, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States shouldn't be dictating to the Iraqi people that al-Maliki needs to resign."Now, we clearly can play an encouraging, consultative role in helping them to achieve that transition, and we have people on the ground right now," he said.”
So the bottom line, quite discernible now by any half-decent analyst, is that the US is trying to use the current advance of the ISIS/al Qaeda for yet another regime change in Iraq—against the same government, which tries to stem the advance of the ISIS and that this goal—the fall of the current Iraqi government—is for the US the real goal. Moreover, the US is, as a minimum, quietly blasé when it comes to the existence and continued existence of a new terror state in the center of the Middle East, which has been richly funded and supplied by US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, andQatar anyway and whose commanders relax and are treated in Turkey, a key NATO member state. And the ISIS’ daughter, al Nusra, has taken the lead position in the new US-backed anti-Syrian Islamic Alliance, which has replaced the US-backed Free Syrian Army.
Numerous media accounts and occasional officials, especially from Jordan, also report that, both in Jordan and Turkey, some of the best trained ISIS militants at secret bases and camps by the US. Interestingly enough, the Turkish direct support of al Qaeda (al Nusra) was confirmed by the US own officials.
Furthermore, it has also been recently reported on the basis of intelligence supplied by an ISIS insider (Al-Arabiya's article and video on the interrogation of an ISIS/ISIL fighter captured in Syria) that Abu Faisal, also known as Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, the brother of Prince Saud al-Faisaland Prince Turki al-Faisal, was the actual “supreme commander” of ISIS/ISIL. Saudi Arabia is thus in command and in charge of the ISIS and not its Iragi persona who goes under the name of al-Baghdadi and who was in US custody in Iraq from 2005 till 2009. (For more interesting background on the ISIS you are advised to look into the previous link)
Also bear in mind that al-Arabiya is a Saudi-owned "pan-Arab" news channel!
All this means whatever the exact identity of the Saudi Prince was that, in the face of the crisis and possible US strikes (however symbolic) against the ISIS in Iraq (and possibly also in Syria), Saudi Arabia is thus publicly and brazenly declaring that the beast, ISIS/al Qaeda, is its own army, child, Frankenstein monster, or bastard (whichever of these you prefer). In a word, Saudi Arabia has found a way of declaring that the monster, whether it is now an army of some 60,000 (at least) or a new state on the map of the Middle East is, indeed, theirs. This should have been a shot that ought to be talked about around the world as much as Yatsenyuk's declaration of the Kiev Nazi commitment to cleanse all the "subhumans" in Ukraine who don't like and oppose Banderite fascism, the junta, the oligarchs, and NATO expansion.
Saudi Arabia is thereby also putting defiantly the US, which already knows this parentage and foster care, on notice. By revealing that much--its own Saudi head of the ISIS/al Qaea of Iraq, Saudi Arabia clearly and quite openly demands that the US treat its ally and their joint progeny as a good ally, comrade, and conspirator. In other words, Saudi Arabia found it necessary to impose strict limits on what the US may want to do against or about the ISIS in Iraq and calls the public, especially in the Middle East, which follows al Arabiya and developments in Syria, as its witness!
In other words, through its own media channel, Saudi Arabia has made it known that attack on the ISIS would be clearly tantamount to an attack on the Saudi royal family itself. And it seems that Saudi Arabia decided that the stakes are too high and thus decided that the risk of coming out is worthy it and had to be taken.
Thus we have what appears as a deliberate strategic leak, which, of course, Western media treat as taboo--they have more important Newspeak propaganda to report.
Moreover, one cannot fail to see that the US never was much concerned about the ISIS. The US has not been ever much concerned about it. What the US really wants is to topple Maliki and, to this effect, the US is using the ISIS and its threat to achieve its regime change in Iraq No. 2. In 2003, there was no al Qaeda, but this did not prevent the US from falsely asserting that it is so. Now, more than ten years later, al Qaeda in the form of the ISIS has carved out of Iraq and Syria what is effectively a protectorate or fundamentalist emirate of Saudi Arabia. The US, however, wants to use the current crisis to remove no really the ISIS, but Maliki and with him the current Iraqi government. The fact is that Maliki did not allow the US to stay in after 2010, and his government is too pro-Iranian in the eyes of the West.
The claim of the "few thousand fighters of the ISIS" is part of the ongoing PR campaign observed from the beginning of the attempted regime change in Syria that was meant and tries to downplay and conceal the prevalent fundamentalist nature of the faux "freedom fighters" and "moderate rebels" supported by the West and the fact that al Qaeda armies form the core and the most and best trained and equipped forces of the force jointly created by the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, and the rest of NATO in their joint push to install a new dictatorial "World Order" by means of the most reactionary militants available. This war machine is massive, it is very well trained, organized, and equipped, and it controls upwards of 5-10 million people in Syria and Iraq. Few thousand militants can never control that many.