The best thing Maliki could now do is to shut down the U.S. embassy and request support from Russia, China and Iran

Three days ago we said: The U.S. has conditioned any involvement on the Iraqi government side on a change in its structure towards some “unity government” that would include representatives of the rebellious Sunni strains. Prime Minister Maliki, who received good results in the recent elections, will see no reason to go for that.

As expected Maliki declined to follow orders out of Washington DC and he is right to do so. Isn’t Iraq supposed to be a sovereign state?

Over the past two days the American ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, along with Brett McGurk, the senior State Department official on Iraq and Iran, have met with Usama Nujaifi, the leader of the largest Sunni contingent, United For Reform, and with Ahmad Chalabi, one of the several potential Shiite candidates for prime minister, according to people close to each of those factions, as well as other political figures.

This move lets arouse suspicions that the recent insurgency against the Iraqi state, with ISIS takfiris in the front line, did not just by chance started after Maliki’s party, the State of Law Coalition, won in the parliamentary elections a few weeks ago. It had been decided that he had to go. When the elections confirmed him, other methods had to be introduced. Thus the insurgency started and is now used as a pretext for “regime change”.

The U.S. media and policies again fall for the “big bad man” cliche portraying Maliki as the only person that stands in the way of Iraq as a “liberal democracy”. That is of course nonsense. Maliki is not the problem in Iraq:

The most significant factor behind Iraq’s problems has been the inability of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and its Sunni neighbors to come to terms with a government in which the Shias, by virtue of their considerable majority in Iraq’s population, hold the leading role. This inability was displayed early on, when Iraq’s Sunnis refused to take part in Iraq’s first parliamentary elections, and resorted to insurgency almost immediately after the US invasion and fall of Saddam Hussein. All along, the goal of Iraqi Sunnis has been to prove that the Shias are not capable of governing Iraq. Indeed, Iraq’s Sunni deputy prime minister, Osama al Najafi, recently verbalized this view. The Sunnis see political leadership and governance to be their birthright and resent the Shia interlopers.

The U.S., with strong support from its GCC allies who finance the insurgency, now seems to again lean towards the Sunni minority side in Iraq and wants to subvert the ruling of a Shia majority and its candidate. Maliki doesn’t follow Washington orders, is somewhat friendly with Iran and even wins elections. Such man can not be let standing.

So the program is again “regime change” in Iraq, now with the help of Jihadists proxies, even after the recent catastrophic “successes” in similar endeavors in Libya, Egypt and Ukraine and the failure in Syria.

Phil Greaves seems thereby right when he characterizes the insurgency and ISIS as aexpression of Washington’s imperialism:

The best thing Maliki could now do is to shut down the U.S. embassy and request support from Russia, China and Iran. South Iraq is producing lots of oil and neither money nor the number of potential recruits for a big long fight are his problem. His problem is the insurgency and the states, including the United States, behind it. The fight would be long and Iraq would still likely be parted but the likely outcome would at least guarantee that the will of the majority constituency can not be ignored by outside actors.

Via – Moon Of Alabama

See also – Interview with Prince Turki bin Faisal: ‘Saudi Arabia Wants Downfall of Assad’: Saudi Arabia has long urged the West to arm the Syrian rebels as they battle forces loyal to President Bashar Assad. In an interview with SPIEGEL, he explains why. He also says Europe should change its strategy in nuclear negotiations with Iran.