U.S. Threat of Iraq Partition Linked to Zionist Plans, Historical Proposals Reemerge

The U.S. Secretary of State’s recent statement on September 23, warning of Iraq’s partition if armed militias are not disarmed, has sparked renewed debate over the motivations behind such threats. The statement is described by some as a pressure tactic aimed at the Iraqi government, with deeper implications tied to long-standing geopolitical interests. According to the source, this approach aligns with a broader Zionist agenda, which has been actively pursued through lobbying efforts since the passage of the Iraq Freedom Act in 1998 under President Bill Clinton. At that time, Madeline Albright, then U.S. Secretary of State and a prominent figure in Zionist circles, played a key role in shaping policies that would later influence the country’s trajectory.

Albright’s response to a journalist’s question about the humanitarian impact of sanctions, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated one million Iraqi children, was unequivocal. She asserted that the sanctions were justified as a means to pave the way for the eventual occupation of Iraq. This perspective, though controversial, underscores the complex interplay between foreign policy and domestic political strategies. The stated goal of these interventions, according to the source, was not merely to remove a dictator but to dismantle the Iraqi state entirely, creating conditions for a new political order.

The occupation of Iraq led to the drafting of a constitution that aimed to establish a form of consensus democracy, or what some describe as quota democracy. This system, however, has been criticized for fostering divisions rather than unity. The resulting political landscape has given rise to new parties and forces, many of which have emerged in the wake of the 2005 elections. These developments have fueled ongoing discussions about the future of Iraq, with proposals for partition or federalization gaining traction.

The idea of partitioning Iraq is not a recent phenomenon. It has been discussed for over two decades, with early proposals coming from figures such as the late Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. While al-Hakim reportedly advocated for administrative federalism rather than full partition, the distinction remains significant. Similarly, former U.S. President Joe Biden reportedly proposed similar ideas in an article published in an American newspaper. Both proposals were rejected by President George W. Bush in 2005, not on principled grounds, but due to the perceived inopportune timing.

The source suggests that Bush’s rejection was a strategic decision, waiting for the right conditions to emerge. More than twenty years later, the political environment has matured, and the proposal for partition or federalization is being revisited. This has led to a renewed focus on the potential for a divided Iraq, with implications for regional stability and the rights of its diverse populations. The debate continues, with calls for a unified Iraq remaining a central theme in discussions about the country’s future.

Source: Read the original report (translated from Arabic)