The Associated Press is reporting that civil war looms in Iraq as bombings tear across the country. Is this disaster really a result of a failed foreign policy or is it a deliberate plan to initiate a policy of ethnic cleansing that will finally allow the Globalists to capture and dominate Iraq as they never could before?

The agenda to maintain division and ethnic tension in Iraq can be seen as long term plan and the only way to finally capture and enslave a country that has historically thrown out its occupiers on every occasion.

In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

Ethnic cleansing, maimed children and thousands of dead American soldiers are a small price to pay because for the Globalists the end always justifies the means and untold bloodshed and misery and bloodshed won't stand in their way.

Such a strategy, aimed at marginalizing the Sunni resistance, the group that always spearheads opposition to occupation in Iraq, has also been triumphed by such luminaries at Council on Foreign Relations member and New York Times editor Leslie Gelb.

So if the plan is to keep the different sects at each others' throats then who benefits from the chaos created by the endless bombings? It is a myth that Sunni and Shia factions in Iraq violently despise each other's very existence. Most co-exist peacefully and only fringe elements are interested in stoking tension, this according to Dahr Jamail, an unembedded journalists living in and reporting from Iraq.

Jamail agrees that it is inconceivable that Sunni or Shia factions would even consider attacking religious shrines like Samarra's Golden Mosque. Iran has blamed the US and Israel for the attack and former CIA analyst and presidential advisor Ray McGovern concurs that they would have had the motive. Previous examples shed light on the plausible identity of the perpetrators.

In September 2005, British SAS were caught attempting to stage a terror attack by disguising themselves as Arabs and attacking Iraqi police. The soldiers were arrested and taken to a nearby jail where they were confronted and interrogated by an Iraqi judge.

The initial demand from the puppet authorities that the soldiers be released was rejected by the Basra government. At that point tanks were sent in to 'rescue' the terrorists and the 'liberated' Iraqis started to riot, firebombing and pelting stones at the vehicles injuring British troops.

The only news outlet to ask any serious questions was Australian TV news which according to one viewer gave, "credibility to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are, in fact, being initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces."

The consequences of this strategy of tension are obviously hideous for Iraqis and their future generations but they also come home to roost for Westerners. As a result of the disaster in Iraq, the sullied reputation of the United States has collapsed and its government is increasingly seen as out of control and illegitimate. While on the surface this is true it is also by design because it opens the door for a Globalist form of world dictatorship to step in and 'rescue' the American people from its tyrannical government.

The end game is the complete destruction of US sovereignty.

Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss