The US is looking for a reason to come back into the Middle East, to divide countries so that they are unable to resist US direct occupation, Head of the International Action Center Sara Flounders told RT.
RT: This is the second Islamic State video allegedly showing the beheading of an American journalist. Do you think Islamic State's fear tactics are succeeding?
Sara Flounders: There is no doubt that Islamic State is an utterly reactionary sectarian force, but it is a force that came out of US policy and destruction of the whole region. ISIS or the Islamic State is a direct result of the US policy of fomenting religious, ethnic, national differences in Iraq, in Syria as a policy. For the war in Iraq, for the effort of regime change, overthrowing the government in Syria, and again and again they have used absolutely reactionary groupings in these policies. Islamic State is now acting in the same role as an agent provocateur does – it justifies US bombing of the region. The US is looking for a reason back into the region, a reason to justify bombing both in Iraq and in Syria. It is not meant to push back any reactionary forces; they are opposed to a unified Iraq.
RT: If the second beheading video proves to be genuine, what do you think will be the reaction from Washington?
SF: I don’t know what the reaction from Washington will be because the US wants a reason to be back into the region. They don’t care about the lives of any US soldiers, any journalists or correspondents as shown by how many correspondents died in Iraq during the US occupation, even when the US had a hand. So I don’t think they have any real concern for journalists who are killed by Islamic State. Really what they want, and they are determined to have, is to divide countries at one point were nation states are able to resist US direct occupation. In the same way really the US through the reactionary Saudi regime helped to create and gave rise to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in an effort to destroy everything that was progressive, to align with completely reactionary warlord forces. That becomes the basis of Al-Qaeda, Taliban and other groupings and very much so today in Iraq and in Syria. It is an important time to say that there is no basis to support the US bombing or to assume that they are really interested in pushing the Islamic State back. What they are really interested in doing is positioning themselves again in the region.
RT: Several US politicians, including Hilary Clinton last month, have said that Obama's policies in Syria have contributed to the rise of the Islamic State group. Do you think that's accurate?
SF: Certainly Hillary Clinton's policies would not have any different basis than Obama’s policy. It is really the Wall Street policy which is an effort to continue war and destruction of the region, it is aimed at regime change in Syria and it is aimed at keeping Iraq divided. I do not hear anything different in terms of policy coming out from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
RT: The terrorist shown in the two videos has a British accent, and is believed be a UK citizen. Does it mean that ISIS is that successful in recruiting British citizens?
SF: This is a force that is recruiting around the world. There have also been people from the US, from the entire world. As a matter of fact, in Syria the Syrian government has said again and again they are fighting people representing 68 different countries that are part of these reactionary sectarian organizations. Islamic State is one of them, maybe the most reactionary force, but maybe Al-Nusra Front wouldn’t be much different or any of the other groupings. They are paid, they are mercenary forces, but they also rely on recruiting people who are thinking it’s on a religious basis, but a lot of that is what Saudi, Qatari money can do. That policy wouldn’t be possible unless it had a quiet green light from the US, every step on a way.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.