Share

If you need a crash course in foreign policy travesties, this article I recently read will absolutely give it to you.

The article from TheCradle.co delves into the controversial and complex history of ISIS, particularly focusing on its dramatic capture of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, ten years ago. The narrative presented is stark and challenges the mainstream media’s portrayal of the events, suggesting a more orchestrated role by the U.S. and its allies in the rise of ISIS as part of broader geopolitical strategies.

According to the piece, the fall of Mosul was not merely an act of aggressive expansion by a radical group but a calculated move facilitated by foreign powers. The article alleges that the U.S. and its regional allies deliberately used ISIS as a proxy force to achieve specific foreign policy objectives, namely destabilizing the region and countering Iranian influence. This perspective is supported by references to declassified U.S. intelligence documents, such as a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo from 2012, which reportedly discusses the potential benefits of a “Salafist principality” in Eastern Syria as a buffer against Iran.

Moreover, the article outlines how the U.S. and Saudi Arabia provided arms and logistical support that inadvertently or directly bolstered ISIS capabilities. It references a report by Conflict Armament Research, which traced the flow of weapons from Eastern Europe, through U.S. and Saudi channels, directly into the hands of ISIS fighters. This narrative is further complicated by accounts of direct weapon drops by U.S. forces to areas controlled by ISIS, ostensibly by mistake.

RELATED: Europe’s Shift on Migration: A Lesson for the U.S. in the Age of Propaganda

The narrative extends beyond material support, touching on strategic non-interference, which the article argues allowed ISIS to flourish. It suggests that the U.S. had intelligence and capability to thwart ISIS’s advances in Iraq but chose not to act decisively. This inaction is framed as a part of a larger strategy to force political changes in Iraq, particularly the removal of then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom the U.S. viewed as too closely aligned with Iran.

This review underscores the hypothesis presented in the article: that the U.S. intervention in Iraq and subsequent policies not only failed to stabilize the region but actively contributed to the chaos and rise of extremist groups like ISIS. The piece challenges readers to reconsider the narrative of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, suggesting that actions taken under the guise of fighting terrorism often had the opposite effect, contributing to instability and enabling groups like ISIS to gain power and territory.

Overall, the article from TheCradle.co provides a provocative look at the complexities of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. It offers a critical perspective that contributes to ongoing debates about the consequences of foreign intervention and the real drivers behind geopolitical strategies in the region.

NEXT: The Draft Should Have Stayed Dead, Yet Here We Are Again

Share