The great political mystery of our time: The origin of ISIS

Wanna hear something hilarious? It seems that there are people who actually think that Bashar al-Assad of Syria created ISIS (or ISIL or whatever they are calling themselves these days).

Yes, we are supposed to believe that Assad has propped up a movement which aims to oust him. The very idea is absurd on its face -- yet that doesn't impede its circulation, as you can see for yourself by going here and here and here.

If you follow the last link, you'll find that even the Obama administration has trafficked in this absurdity:

U.S. State Departments Deputy Spokesman Marie Harf said on Wednesday that the Assad regime has allowed ISIS to expand into Iraq. "They have led to the security situation where this group could flourish. They have killed their own people. They have allowed groups like ISIS to perpetrate attacks in Syria and now cross over into Iraq." she added.

If you accept this argument, then you may also believe that the prostitutes of Whitechapel "allowed" a psychopath to murder women in the area.

Far more compelling, I think, is the argument that this administration and the Saudis created ISIS. Here's a video interview with Sheikh Nabeel Naim, former fighter with the mujahadeen in the days when the Soviets were in Afghanistan; he then broke with jihadis. I don't know much about the guy, but the transcript of his observations (translated) contains some interesting views...

Q: Explain to me now the position of Dr. Ayman Zawahri from ISIS and Abu Bakr Baghdadi (head of ISIS), what do they consider him?

Nabeel Naiem: He (Zawahri) asked Abu Bakr Baghdadi to pledge allegiance to him (as the Emir..) but Abu Bakr Baghdadi, since he’s basically a U.S. agent, told him: we are the people of cause, the cause of liberating Iraq, Syria and so.. You’re the one who should pledge allegiance to us, Ayman (Zawahri) refused so there was a dispute and a fight between them.

Q: How he is an American agent? Explain to us how?

Nabeel Naiem: It is known that the USA released him from prison and he spent 20 to 30 million US Dollars to establish these ISIS groups and the first ISIS camps were established in Jordan, and Jordan doesn’t allow camps for charity, when Jordan establish camps to train terrorist groups, it doesn’t do that out of good will and charity, these camps were supervised by the Marines, and the arming of ISIS is all American.. and how do they arrange their expenses?

Genghis Khan used to enter a village and annihilates all living in it, even animals he’d slaughter it, and burn down the houses, so the next village hears that Genghis Khan is coming they flee away and this is what ISIS is doing in Iraq, and what’s the goal of ISIS? When ISIS entered Samerra they killed a thousand Sunni, and now killing Shiites, and this is the American policy.

Henry Kissinger wrote a memo in 1982 or 1984, don’t remember exactly, it’s titled The 100 Years War. When asked where this 100 years war will occur? He said in the Middle East when we ignite the war between the Sunnah and the Shiites.

So they’re working on igniting the war between the Sunna and the Shiites, just like what Abu Mussab (Zarqawi) used to blow up Sunnah mosques then blow up Shiite mosques, to start the sectarian war in the region; and this is of course an American plot, and I tell you ISIS didn’t kill a single American.

ISIS didn’t behead a single American and didn’t play football with his head, they beheaded Muslims and ate livers of Muslims and didn’t kill a single American though it’s established since 2006...

Bernard Lewis founder of Fourth-Generation Warfare said so, he said: we do not need trans-continent armies that would awake nationalism and they return to us as bodies like what happened in Afghanistan & Vietnam, but we should find agents inside the (targeted) country who will carry out the task of the soldiers, and we need a media tool to falsify truths for the people, and money to spend on them..

This is the Fourth-Generation Warfare, agents instead of soldiers..

Q: This is an alternative army, a war by proxy?

Nabeel Naiem: Yes of course.

Q: Between who (this war)? We are talking about armies on the ground, Al Qaeda and all what branches out of it, these armies work for the account of which battle and between who?

Nabeel Naiem: It works for the US Intelligence (CIA).

A lot of this is nothing more than conspiracy theory, but it's still worthy of consideration in light of other information.

I do not believe (as some do) that Obama in any way desired the current disaster in Iraq. However, a faction within the American intelligence community does seem to find the ISIS phenomenon beneficial. Here's the argument (as formulated in The Hill a couple of weeks ago):

ISIS is precipitating what has always been an inevitable breakup of Iraq, one that will be all to the good in terms of American security.

Neither Iran nor Iraq is a natural ally of the United States. Because President Obama has correctly decided not to intervene militarily, the Shiite Iranians under the mullahs and the Sunni Arabs under ISIS will resume their all-out war of the 1980s. With Iran — a chief financier of terrorism — now needing to spend hundreds of millions in battle with ISIS, Iran's terrorist surrogates will necessarily be starved of funds, and the ability to do harm to America and its allies. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, too, will need to focus on securing its gains in Iraq, rather than attacking U.S. interests. Only after the Iran-ISIS war winds down would these two enemies of America be able to fully focus on attacking America.

In the interim, a new state of Kurdistan will have emerged. Iraqi Kurdistan, which already exists in all but name, has been prevented by successive U.S. administrations from declaring independence in a misguided State Department belief that America is best off with Iraq united.

By allowing Iraq to break up and disabusing itself of the conceit that a reset is possible with Iran under the mullahs, the U.S. will be saying goodbye to two enemy states and welcoming an important friend in Kurdistan. In the process, Iraq would be diminished as a threat, Syria would be diminished as a threat, Iran would fear having its own territory diminished, and the Kurds and the Israelis, dependably pro-Western states, would be ever able to neutralize threats in the region, obviating the need for U.S. boots on the ground.

Is this merely the opinion of columnist Lawrence Solomon? Or does it reflect "insider" thinking?