The
Islamic resistance denounced the bombing that rocked the U.N.
headquarters in Baghdad, branding it as a "criminal" act.
In
a statement, the group exonerated all Iraqi resistance factions from
attacks on the U.N. office, the Jordanian embassy and strategic sites in
the occupied country, including oil pipelines.
It
asserted that Tuesday’s attack was meant to scare off the world
organization to quit Iraq and leave the country to the U.S.-led
occupation forces.
The
statement also underlined that such attacks were plotted with the aim of
discrediting the Iraqi resistance.
No
Party Excluded
Looking
for leads, U.S.-led forces and possibly U.S.-hired Iraqi police are
studying the scene of the crime.
Beneficiaries
must mark high on the list of suspects, only logic.
Applying
this to the crime at hand, we find ourselves in a maze, to put it
mildly.
Back
to the BBC’s Mr. Reynolds, we find the same logic also applied.
"Some
countries, led by France, want the UN to be much more of an equal with
the Coalition Authority (that is the Americans and British).
"The
resolution laying out what the UN should do in Iraq - 1483 - gives it a
rather secondary position, for example in helping to form the Governing
Council. It could advise, but the Coalition decided.
"In
addition, many governments (India was an important recent example) will
not send troops to help in peacekeeping in Iraq without a UN mandate.
"But
if the resistance is now targeting the UN itself, then those countries
will be reluctant to help even with a mandate.
"The
United Nations was seen by many as the solution to the present crisis.
"This
attack may force them to think again," he concluded.
This
of course could be true. However, is this the only side there is to the
crime?
Having
already a clear condemnation of the attack from the so-called Islamic
Iraqi resistance, we need to look deeper.
Who
is the party that sees the current messy and chaotic situation in Iraq
in their best interest?
Some
may imply Iran, for example. It should not be that hard to understand
why the Iranians want the U.S. always busy-minded trying to get things
under control. After all, no one can tell who is next in the U.S.
so-called "war on terror".
Others
may imply the Iraqi Kurds themselves, on the grounds that they enjoy
relative security and peace, have their own self-ruled areas - a case
that may come to an end once a strong Iraqi regime is put in place.
Al-Qaeda
operatives may not be excluded as well. Some may say the attack was not
directed to their number one enemy; "infidel Americans". But
again, the method and place of the attack deal - in any case - a heavy
blow to the U.S. attempts to get things under control.
Can
the U.S. occupation forces themselves be really ruled out as a
perpetrator? Immediately after the blast, it was declared as "a
suicide bomb attack". However, no identity of the bomber has yet
been declared, not even a body has been referred to, so far.
In
addition, can it be that the Americans want no U.N. role - as charged by
the Iraqi Islamic resistance - at this point for some reasons?
As
we put it in the beginning, it is a messy situation indeed where, in the
absence of transparency and information, people depend on rumors and
guesses.
So,
I think before trying to guess why, we need to know who.
