There was no short-term liberation of Iraq, it was an occupation to control the strategic Persian Gulf, and not only to safeguard Israel but also to act against Iran and Syria, independent researcher Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich told RT.
RT: There has already been speculation of a coup with these troops in Baghdad. How do you view this situation?
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich: We heard different stories. Some believe that a coup is imminent and is going to be against the president, some believe the coup is against the prime minister. I personally believe that if the US is behind the president who took office on July 24 than it is more likely that the coup may be against the prime minister, who in fact does have the mandate from the people. Towards the end of the last year an Iraqi court ruled out term limits and Mr. Maliki who won many seats, more than in previous elections in Parliament, became the prime minister, he was nominated prime minister. There is a strong support for him by the people but he has never been favored by the US and we keep hearing about sectarian violence. But even as early as 2004 the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunnis said “We all have been invaded”. It’s not the Sunni or the Kurd that have been invaded. And the uniting against this occupation and the occupying powers and their regional allies went to create in fact this division, to weaken the resistance towards the occupation. Mr. Maliki was the one that in fact refused to allow the US military to stay indefinitely. This was not something that had planned from the onset of the Iraq invasion. America was building on an enduring basis, there were many cities with golf clubs and restaurants and pools. This was not a short-term liberation or whatever it was called. It was an occupation to control the strategic region there, the Persian Gulf, and not only to safeguard Israel but also to act against Iran and Syria. So the plan has always been for a permanent basis and permanent troops there.
RT: How reasonable are the claims that Maliki made in his speech, accusing the president of violating the constitution? Washington has already voiced its support of Iraq's president. What does this mean for Prime Minister Maliki?
SS: They have been saying for a long time that they want Maliki to resign, that he should be out. And it is really mind-boggling that Washington should be deciding who is voted into office, who can stay in office and who should go out. It has nothing to do with Washington unless we as a global community, people around the world, accept that Washington determines every government around the world. And of course you are going to get reaction to that; you are going to have people who will react to dictates of outside powers, determining who should be running for office in a given country. So things will escalate if Washington does interfere again.
RT: What about the timing of this political crisis - just days after the US renewed its military operation?
SS: I do not think there are any coincidences in political actions. And you can always bet that they plan steps ahead of time. I do not think it is just the US; I think every country does plan ahead and coordinate their moves. If that comes a few days after military planning it should not come as a surprise. And everything that has been happening up to this point, all the violence we have been seeing, all the atrocities that have been brought to our living rooms are the net support of America’s actions and interference in Iraq again. I do think we should believe from the first moment this is humanitarian because elsewhere, especially in Syria, they are arming basically the same groups to throw out the president of their country. So it is not humanitarian.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.