[A-List] Tehran Times: collapse and collusion in Iraq

["Seth Sandronsky" <ssandron@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dictator's Collusion
In The Iraq 'War'
By Parviz Esmaeili
The Tehran Times
4-9-3

Note - This is the first story to point in the
direction of possible/probable answers to a number of
key questions about the US-UK zionist subjugation of
Iraq. When the Iraqis failed to blow a single bridge -
a classic and mandatory defensive military strategy -
suspicions arose immediately. Aside from a handful of
oil well-head fires in the South, there was no effort
to torch Iraq's oil assets by Saddam. The repeated
deployment of the regular Iraqi army and the Guard
into exposed areas in the desert - and certain death
by total US and UK airpower and carpet bombing - is
also equally bizarre in a military sense. What
happened to the deadly Russian Kornet wire-guided
antitank missiles which surprised the 'Coalition' in
the South? And now the 'obliteration' of Saddam and
sons can only be 'confirmed' by 'dna' on the word of
possibly a single person in a lab somewhere...how
potentially convenient. And then there is the
remarkably and surprising ease with which Baghdad was
taken. There are many things to ponder in the weeks
ahead, and high-level collusion is certainly at the
top of list. This article begins the search for
possible answers. Nothing much is as it seems. -ed


Almost 10 days ago, there was a halt in U.S.-British
operations in Iraq. However, U.S. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and the chief of the U.S. Central
Command, General Tommy Franks, in their interviews
with the media never elaborated on the issue, but
instead tried to mislead world public opinion in order
to hide a greater secret decision from them.

Suspicions rose on the same day when U.S. troops, that
had been stopped at the Euphrates, immediately were
able to advance toward the heart of Baghdad without
any significant resistance by Iraqi forces. Nobody
asked why Tikrit, that was once called the ideological
heart of Saddam's government and the last possible
trench of the Iraqi army, was never targeted by U.S.
and British bombs and missiles. Or why when the elite
Iraqi forces arrived in eastern Iraq from Tikrit, the
pace of the invaders advancing toward central Baghdad
immediately increased. Also, it has been reported that
over the past 24 hours, a plane was authorized to
leave Iraq bound for Russia. Who was aboard this
plane?

All these ambiguities, the contradictory reports about
Saddam's situation, and the fact that the
highest-ranking Iraqi officials were all represented
by a single individual -- Iraqi Information Minister
Mohammed al-Sahhaf -- and the easy fall of Baghdad
shows that the center of collusion had been Tikrit,
where Saddam, his aides, and lieutenants from the
Baath Party had been waiting for al-Sahhaf to join
them so that they could receive the required
guarantees to leave the country in a secret compromise
with coalition forces.

This possibility was confirmed by the Al-Jazeera
network, which quoted a Russian intelligence official
as saying that the Iraqi forces and the invaders had
made a deal. The Russian official told Al-Jazeera that
the Iraqi leaders had agreed to show no serious
resistance against the U.S.-British troops in return
for a guarantee that Saddam and his close relatives
could leave Iraq unharmed.

The question now is whether the U.S. would prefer
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to be dead or wants him
alive to be tried. There may even be a third
alternative that the White House is looking far. It
seems that U.S. officials would welcome a solution
where Saddam was found, either dead or alive.

First of all, the White House hawks and U.S. President
George W. Bush would definitely not be saddened to
hear that reports claiming that Saddam was killed,
which were highlighted by the U.S. media on Tuesday
after a missile attack on an underground restaurant in
Baghdad, have been verified.

This is because they do not want the Iraqi people to
ever find out about the secrets of the clandestine
political cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq. On
the other hand, Saddam's death would mean that the
weak Iraqi regime has been completely defeated, and
this may to some extent satisfy Washington's feeling
of militarism.

However, an inactive, defeated, and exiled dictator
can definitely be beneficial to the White House,
provided that he is under Washington's control. Look
at what happened to Mullah Muhammad Omar and Osama bin
Laden in Afghanistan. Is there any sign that the U.S.
is interested in finding them and wiping them out? One
should know that these two, as U.S. henchmen over the
past decade, provided enough pretexts for the White
House to dominate Afghanistan, even though they are
still at large. This automatically justifies the U.S.
presence in Afghanistan.

Therefore, Washington benefits from its inability to
find the Taleban and Al-Qaeda leaders. The same holds
true with Saddam, and the U.S. failure to find Saddam,
or Washington's efforts to withhold news of his death,
provide the best pretext to stay in Iraq.

Secondly, in the event that Saddam survives the
U.S.-British attacks on Iraq, the White House will
have to devise new policies and approaches to make the
best use of this. There is no doubt that Saddam knows
many of the secrets of U.S. strategy in the region
over the past three decades. If he were put on trial
in an international and open court, he might reveal
much evil about the U.S. that would expose the real
image of the White House hawks to the world. This is
the reason why the Fox news network has taken the lead
in reminding the world that an international tribunal
would lack the authority to put the Iraqi president on
trial, given that neither Iraq nor the U.S. have
joined the International Criminal Court. Fox has thus
proposed three alternatives to deal with Saddam in
case he saves his skin in the U.S.-led attacks: living
underground, changing his identity, or travelling to
the beautiful beaches of Guantanamo!! Needless to say
these alternatives will make Saddam harmless for the
White House, even if he is not of any use to the U.S.

These stances clarify the fact that the rumor on the
possibility of Saddam seeking political asylum in
Syria is only a red herring because any attempt by the
Iraqi president to flee the country without
coordinating with the U.S. is absolutely impossible.
Therefore, if there had been any kind of compromise
between the U.S. and Saddam, the Iraqi president would
take refuge wherever the White House ordered him to.

Even dictators have to respect a hierarchy. A minor
dictator like Saddam is like a puppet that has danced
for a lifetime to the tune of a certain major dictator
like the U.S. and cannot act on his own. Saddam did
whatever the White House wanted him to do for years.
Therefore, the simple answer to the question "Where is
Saddam?" is nothing but "Wherever the U.S. desires!"

http://www.tehrantimes.com/






_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail