The contradiction that occured after the US president Bush’s Middle East visit cannot be hidden, even it began to be a “familiar view”. UAE has been the model that Bush could show as the architect of the Great Middle East Project that once offered bringing democracy and human rights. It has been long ago that he explained they would follow a procedure in order to change whatever there is peculiar to the region including the political map to the cultural map, the map of conscious and play with the cultural codes. We do not care enough for the “Bushovenism” since we are used to the painful contradiction between the truths and American rhetorics.

The basic issue, we are used to the tragicomic views of the great strategy that are neglected being tied with the political near sightedness of Bush.

The determinations in the article of one of the most famous names in the area of international justice, Richard Falk, published in “Zaman” recently point out that the policies in the Bush term are not a result of the near sightedness but the reflections of a bigger game. Before Falk’s comment, there are two important points to tell about his personality:

As it is known Falk also took part in the commision of the international justice investigating the slain of thousands of Palestinians by the Israel backed militants in Lebanon on September 16,1982, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps

Even if he is Jewish, he prepared a report that found Israel and the defense minister of that time Sharon, guilty. That is why he is a scientist threated by the Jewish fanatics and is under close protection now.

In his long article Falk points out two things. First, “The reason of the Iraqi invasion is not because it has nuclear weapons as it is claimed, on the contrary it is invaded because it does not have nuclear weapons.

Another outstanding determination is, whatever the reason is, an attack on Iran will result with the inner conflicts in the Islamic world between the Sunnis and Shiites. Or we can comment this determination as; the aim of the attack on Iran is to push the Islam world into a bloody conflict.

While the oppressive Arab sheiks were addressing the people of Iran ,it was certainly known that there were no similarities between the brilliant offers in the Great Middle East Project and the political structure of these countries.

It is difficult to believe that as he came to the Middle east, moreover more liberal and democratical in its own style, threatening Iran is not a simple show.

What does it mean to challenge this country in the gulf emirates since almost all the Arabic countries oppose a possible attack on Iran?

As  you remember, after 9/11, the strategical advisers of America ( for example Kissinger) said this war will not be the war of ( war on terror-crusader) “It will not be the war of the west and Islam but the war of Islam on Islam”

In order to realize this, very important tricks took place as the cultural and political bases of this were constructed. Not the conflicts of cults,  but even the conflicts of the regions were away in a great sense,in the territory that does not have such kind of conflicts in its core, it is named as the sectarian conflict / wanted so, bloody games were played.

It is not possible to be scared of marketing the games played in Iraq-that carries all the factors of the Middle East in its core- to the entire region after the enough practices.

Not because of the defend of the Sunnis on an attack on Iran but, the turning of  the conflict that will occur between Iran and the regimes that take part on America separated from the people into a Sunni-Shiite fight is not a difficult operation.

I don’t have an intention of being the crier of a disaster, but we must evaluate the process true and determine the important stones in American stategies.

As we can manage this, we can finish the game that is wanted to be performed and it is still possible.But with the cries of pessimism and heroism, putting America to the level of a “god” that can determine all kinds of badness, we cannot get rid of this issue. Let’s not forget that even the well roganized small groups can make the global powers upside and down. Recently we witnessed such kind of things.

With the enforcement of the global capitalism and in order to maintain its hegomonic power, to hold the strategical powers in its hand against the rival actors in the following term, it will not leave the region.Even it will create reasons to justify its settlement in the region as something right and legal.

In this frame, it seems that the thesis of ” Islam’s war on Islam” seems as a game that is wanted to be played with the minimum risk. Both in the short term a project is applied with the least cost to keep this territory under control milatarily and economically, and the financial power of the “Islamic life style” to challenge again to stand against the capitalist exploitation is taken in the long term.

When we look from this point of view,in spite of the US intelligence reports, the truth to challenge Iran and the arguments lying beneath this can be understood better.

First a danger under the name of Shiite crescent is created, then an atmophere of conflict to prevent this.

Let’s try to decode the puppeteer behind the puppet rather than being the merchant of fear.

Ýlgili YazýlarDünya, English, Siyaset