'US using terrorists as chess pieces to push own agenda'

Rasa - The United States claims that it has killed 50,000 terrorists in Iraq and Syria since 2014. That statement runs counter to Washington’s policy of blocking the anti-terrorism front led by Syria, Iraq, Iran and Russia in the region.

News ID: 425707

Date: 12 December 2016 - 17:32

RNA - On Sunday, Leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei underlined that the US has never tried to eradicate terrorism in the Middle East, rather it has sought to prevent the annihilation of certain terror groups.

Hazem Salem, an activist and political commentator from Cairo, told Press TV’s program “The Debate” that American authorities are not sincere in fighting terrorism; instead, they are relying on terrorists to wreak havoc across the world, especially in the Middle East.

“The United States has supported insurgency everywhere in the world whenever this is pro-US. But if this [insurgent activity] crosses the American interest line, they will start fighting it,” Salem said.

He asserted that terrorism is in fact what provides America with an excuse to use its military power. “Terrorism is useful for the American military policy. Terrorism gives America the go-ahead to demonstrate its strength, to favor certain groups, to arm certain groups, to balance certain things. So, terrorism is useful for the US. It has to exist, or else the US would not have a cause to intervene.”

He also said, “The US wants to intervene militarily even [in favor of] its own enemy in order to [be able to] install whatever friendly regime that can serve the American interests.”

The activist added that the US uses the fight against terrorism as a pretext to attack any state or group that does not move in line with its policies.

Various US administrations, he argued, have somehow taken advantage of militant groups, depending on whether they fit into “useful or non-useful” categories, which is defined by who they fight and how they help preserve American interests.

The commentator maintained that the United States is following a kind of dual containment strategy across the world, including in the Middle East.

He said the US is playing on the differences [among various groups] and on the complex military situation, for which reason it may help one side in a certain way and the opposing side in another way.

“There will be more of a full-fledged American [military] presence and intervention. Because this is the motto of the Trump administration, making America great again by making it more expansionist, imperialist and having more say military-wise,” Salem added.

The United States resorts to intentional mistakes in the so-called war on terror in order to tip the balance in its own favor. “It is a whole calculated strategy and this is an interplay of roles and you can change the labels [of good or bad militants] as much as the American interests and the American military presence favors.”

He further said, “If the terrorists disappear in one minute, the US will be puzzled what to do,” because in that case, the White House can no longer argue that American military intervention is needed to fight terrorism and there would be no more argument about banning Muslims from coming to the United States.

“The idea of cultivating terrorism in order to have a case against terrorism is already there in the West,” he noted, adding that the term “clash of civilizations” was invented by the US itself to promote Islamophobia as a leverage to go after Muslim communities.

Meanwhile, Richard Millet, a journalist and political commentator from London, ruled out any support from the United States for Daesh, saying that the phenomenon of terrorism came about as a result of the “invasion of Iraq” in 2003 and the “premature withdrawal of American troops” from the Arab country under the Obama administration.

The journalist said that Daesh terrorists have in fact “stolen” vehicles and weaponry from the so-called Free Syrian Army, which was equipped by the United States and that the Americans did not supply the Takfiri group with arms and ammunition.

He is of the opinion that America should have been attacking both Daesh and the Syrian government simultaneously, because Washington’s “red line” in Syria was crossed, but the United States preferred to do nothing there.

Dismissing the existence of any misinterpretation about Islam and Muslims in the Western world, he argued that there has been “problem with extremism but not with members of society or Muslims, Jews and Christians.”

847/940