Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

1

Motives for Imperial Meddling against the Backdrop of Iraq 2014


Omar Alansari-Kreger

Empires exploit a unique psychology that is all about passive opportunism. A
nation is invaded, its government toppled, and its people are occupied for a prolonged
period of time only to follow a full withdrawal. In this case, that retreat from military
occupation is an act that is forged out of figurative necessity which is consumed entirely
by a situational gesture. The implementation of that maneuver ensures that long term
objectives can be pursued and put into place at a later period of time. Entire nations are
consumed and exhausted so that a geo-political precedent can reign only to join an
international standard which folds into an arena designed and engineered by the
original interventionist empire. By destroying one nation only to follow its eventual
reconstruction is a blatant indication of foul play which stinks of a conspiratorial agenda.
It becomes relevant to raise the following question: what is the ultimate end
game scenario that specifically concerns the nationhood of Iraq? Is it in the interest of
the United States to bring back a strong armed dictator back into power so that it can
finish a fragmenting Iran off? Theoretically, that could spell out the start of a second
Iran-Iraq War; in the beginning stages of a disintegrating Iraq, common ground could be
found in curbing the rise of fringe extremism with the Iranians, but once that trend is
reversed a new power vacuum will be set in place and naturally a refurbished Iraq will
not want to be seen as some kind of Iranian proxy. The act of balancing geo-political
paradigms becomes very intricate because enemies transform into allies simply
because they are in the pursuit of the same overarching interest.
Even the most archaic zealot understands that to some degree it is necessary to
compromise because following through with that assures that greater power is to be
had. In turn, American economic and military support will be gestured and sent to
substantiate that theoretical Iraqi claim and Irans role reversal as the pragmatic
collaborator will be transformed into a belligerent one. Armed fringe extremists are the
bait, Iran becomes an isolated pariah, and American support, overshadowed by
clandestine Israeli backing, encourages a newly federated Iraq to assert its role in the
region by going after an enemy in which the rest of the region would favor as an extinct
element of the past. The only other alternative would spell out the sovereign
fragmentation of Iraq into regional proxies that would be absorbed into neighboring
nations or spheres of geo-political interest.

2

That leaves us with a rather unsettling reality which states the following: the dead
speak of no absolute justice once conflicts of injustice are brought to a temporal close.
The plight of the deceased is carried by their successors because the latter is internally
shaped by the former. That describes the reciprocity of history which attributes to the
main reason why history repeats itself in some of the oddest fashions. Fringe extremists
serve a vital purpose because the aftereffects of their actions create unrest which
invites the formation of a unified coalition around that darkened situational black hole
which desires to stabilize it by over or under exploiting ideological hodgepodges.