Finally! Someone who understands what's going on!

In a letter to a newspaper, a genius named Aubrey Bailey explains our current war(s) in the middle east. I shall transcribe:

Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle East? Let me explain.

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against Islamic State. We don't like IS, but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like.

We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government against IS. So some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against other of our enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less. And all this was started by invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went in to drive them out. Do you understand now?

Perhaps you still need a guide for the perplexed. Let me help.

Before Bush invaded Iraq in his quest to convert the entire region to democracy, there were no "franchises" or offshoots of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Or in Syria. Or in Iran. Or Nigeria. Or Lebanon. Or India. (Yes, they're in India now.) In 2002-3, some American liberals (and some libertarians) warned that the invasion of Iraq would only increase Al Qaeda's popularity. Those who sounded this warning were called unpatriotic.

Here's another fun fact which even Aubrey Bailey may not know. The rebel fighters in the Free Syrian Army are the alleged "moderates" whom we are training and arming. And yet, according to Wikipedia's "Al Qaeda" entry, the Free Syrian Army is listed among the allies of Al Qaeda. On the other hand, the governments of Syria and Iran, which we would like to topple, are listed as opponents of Al Qaeda.

Understand?

If you are still confused, let me repeat this passage from former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovky's 1994 book The Other Side of Deception.

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad's general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region. And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete.

Let's also take another look at the words of former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren:

"We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Quite the blabbermouth, Oren is. That's why I like him. Oren and Ostrovsky make a complex situation much easier to comprehend.