Washington’s Syria policy is driven by geopolitical motive rather than purely establishing democracy in the Middle East

Reflecting on some of the comment I had received on my previous thoughts on Syria, I can only say to those who did not agree with me is that any writing is subjective: one may find it interesting and agreeable and others will criticise it depending on individuals understanding and taste, but for me I write what I perceive to be the reality, although, I may be wrong. And I strongly believe America’ long term intention in the Middle East is not conducive to peace, unity and stability in the region, so allowing them the opportunity to bomb Syria is unwise. Now from this thought, many of you may infer that I am supporting a dictator, absolutely not, contrary to this, I do not support dictators or monarchs, but I believe any good Washington will be achieve by bombing Syria far outweighs the evil that they will bring in with their action in the region.

 

I believe there was chance to bring an end to Assad regime by negotiation, but the foreign powers did not allow this to happen. This is the same reason why Mursi could not find a compromise, because the elements that had other agendas in Egypt did not allow the opposition to come to a peaceful solution. Look at Bangladesh, when Awamileague came to power with a huge majority, they had a chance to govern the country and enjoy prosperity, progress and popularity. If they had been wise and not fall in to trap of the leftist, ultra secularist and Indian agenda’s, they could have had a good relationship with the opposition and may even could have been fairly voted in power again, but those people with vested interest did not allow this to happen, as they can not achieve, or get what they wanted from the government if there was political harmony in the country. So they advised the leadership wrongly and achieved their interest, but destroyed Sheikh Hasina’s chance of a re-election victory.

 

Even if Asad is removed, the next government in Syria will be pro western puppet, and an instrument of America’s agenda in the Middle East. If any one is over excited about Syria’s Nusrat front, they need to think twice because their dream will be shattered as soon as Israel and America has its way. Post Syria will not have civil and religious peace but will witness daily and monthly killings similar to present day Iraq. Many people will not understand the reason behind

 

Now consider Iraq, why is it that after so many years since Americas soldiers left the country, apart from the agreed trainers, having a democratically elected Prime minister and a parliament, each month almost a 1000 people are getting killed ?  Where is the peace and security that everybody talked about when attacking Iraq? Well, I have to say the same reasons are behind insecurity in Iraq, because foreign powers don’t want a Shia dominated Iraqi government. This goes against democratic principle, if they believe in democracy that is, as 65 % Iraqi population are Shia’s, hence the outcome is natural, but The Saudis, and Washington axis don’t like this Iran friendly government, so they finance instability and killings in Iraq. The Saudi’s don’t even have diplomatic relationship with Iraq due to their enmity. Now, many of the extreme salafist will say so what; kill them all, they are Shia kuffar. Well brothers, you can say this, but this principle is wrong. You don’t kill people because of their belief.

 

Before the Iranian revolution, Iran was most hated by those who had some consciousness about right and wrong, about promotion of vice and demotion of virtue. About political persecution and killings by its secret service called savak.  Irans Shah promoted western way of life, and plundered the countries wealth to benefit the few and left behind many. When people ask question about Akida, they fail to understand Akida is to do with Iman and religion, but justice is universal. A Muslim can not stay silence when he sees unjust committed to its fellow humans regardless of colour, religion, race or sex. When Saddam started a war with Iran on the dictate of USA and Arab kings, that had resulted in death of millions on both sides, was that war anything to do with Shia verses Sunni, or was it more to do with removing Iranian clergy dominated government from power, and replacing it with one that was more friendly with Zionism and American Imperialism?  In that case, if one had supported the victim rather than the aggressor, how would you have labelled him? Would you have said that he had lost his faith due to supporting a Shia country? Certainly not, for, standing against unjust does not diminish or put ones Akida in to question. Allah will judge between Shia and Sunni, between Christian and Jews, between individual faiths. But we have a moral obligation to be just and fair when conducting our affairs in the worldly matters.

Some people fail to understand that international politics is different from local politics. There is a bigger picture from which one analyzes and sees a different end result that may be detrimental to Muslim Ummah as a whole. So if one sees an apparent support for a country, it does not mean support in Akida but rather supporting to foil the bigger ploy that the Zionist and its friends have designed.