al-Qaeda, he didn’t exactly put it that way but a closer reading
and a more honestly keen interpretation inevitably leads those
of us sympathetic towards a sincere anti-imperialist tradition
to logically infer and quite inevitably draw that conclusion.
The comparison and then verdict is clearly implicit and what more
noble platform to affirm this absolute truth, than at his own
inauguration, as President of the United States of America: one
of the first nations, if not the first nation to free itself from
the British parasitic and imperialist yoke.
testifies that if the American revolutionaries had not liberated
themselves from the British they simply would not have become
the technologically pioneering and culturally dominant nation
of the last 100 years. China, India and Iran are now showing
similar patterns of progress. The fascinating progress of all
the three nations is predicated on the uncompromising fact that
they freed themselves from imperialist and neo-imperialist bondage.
It is very unlikely that China will ever suffer from British imperialist
opium dealers backed by the British Navy again.  Since Indian independence, the Indians have
not been inflicted by any famine caused by British imperialist
looting and pillaging of their staple resources.
what did President Barack Hussain Obama really say at his magnificent
inauguration. One of the most important themes the new President
addressed was to refute, indeed declare “false” one of the Bush
administrations defining policies. That is, there is clash between,
“safety” and “ideals”. President Obama indirectly asks why the
safety/ideals dichotomy was not expediently utilised during the
founding moments and battles of the new republic. Furthermore,
not only was this dichotomy not utilised for political expediency’s
sake but a charter was drafted “to assure the rule of law and
rights of man.” President Obama categorically states, that the
“enemy”, i.e. the British Empire, during the war of independence
was more perilous – actually, “perils we can scarcely imagine”
– than a “network of violence and hatred” i.e. al-Qaeda.
British Empire was more perilous than al-Qaeda. Or in other words,
if the United States did not compromise its ideals when they were
facing the British enemy which wanted to destroy their revolution,
their ideals and bring to an end the fledgling republic, then
why should they compromise their values when faced with al-Qaeda?
British imperialism initially waged war on the United States,
on American soil so as to prevent the development of the new republic
and also eventually invaded and burned down the capital as it
was retreating, al-Qaeda’s attacks on the United States and American
interests are very much largely a response to American foreign
policy. As the main leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, has said,
why hasn’t he attacked Sweden? If American values, such as freedom,
are what antagonise al-Qaeda, why isn’t al-Qaeda attacking other
nations, such as Sweden, which share those values?
foreign policy has not always been as contemptible towards the
indigenous Arab population of the Middle East as British imperialism’s
foreign policy. Before the Eisenhower doctrine of 1957, America
didn’t always see the Middle East through British foreign policy
officials during and immediately after the Second World War worked
very hard and launched an academic propaganda campaign in order
to convince the United States to acknowledge Soviet Russia as
the new enemy. Once this acknowledgement was established, the
United Kingdom easily sold its design of and for the Middle East
as a bulwark against Soviet Russia and communism. 
before this was fully established there were two episodes wherein
the United States seemed to be in political sync with the now
indigenous Arab population of the Middle East.
first episode was the King-Crane commission in 1919. The commission
was devised by President Wilson after the Great War to find and
report on what the local populations of the Middle East wanted
in its aftermath. They visited at least 1500 locations in what
was then known as the ‘Shaam’ region amongst the indigenous population.
 This region now covers Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon
and Syria. It was found that, after the commission’s remit had
been reduced so as not to partly offend the British, the indigenous
population wanted nothing to do with British mandates, the Balfour
Declaration and Britain’s project of facilitating a European Jewish
majority in Palestine.
second episode was when America compelled the British led tripartite
invasion of Egypt in 1956 to stop. This British led imperialist
adventure is now commonly referred to as the “Suez Crises”. According
to the historian Keith Kyle, there is evidence that America having
won popularity and credibility amongst the vast majority of mankind
by preventing British barbarism from going further could have
chosen to side with Third World anti-imperialists. Instead it
continued to perceive the world through British eyes and eventually
reaped its wrath. 
of the other reasons why America reaps Arab and/or Muslim wrath
which has emanated from unquestioningly inheriting British designs
is because British so-called anti-imperialists, dissidents and
left wingers find it much easier to criticise American imperialism.
As such, they ‘direct dissent’ towards American foreign policy
rather than British foreign policy. For example, at the time
of the American war on Vietnam, Great Britain was actively engaged
in supporting pro-imperialist reactionaries in North Yemen and
Oman, yet the British establishment left, found it more convenient
to march against the American war on Vietnam. We witnessed this
highly convenient strategy again during the Iraq War 2003, when
leaders of the British anti-war movement falsely and without one
piece of evidence blamed America for Britain’s co-invasion of
Iraq, rather than its own economic interests or imperialist traditions.
an adjunct to his inauguration, in his first interview with a
foreign television station, the new President reiterated America’s
liberation from British imperialism. He correctly stated that,
“America was not born a colonial power.”
 This may be seen as a much belated swipe at America’s
former imperial master and the Middle East’s original architects
of division, exploitation, terror and war - the British. Britain,
to a very large extent, has always defined itself by colonialism
and imperialism. To this day, a statue of one of its greatest
imperial looters, Robert Clive stands outside the British foreign
and commonwealth office in London, no doubt, signalling its intent
are now roughly 250 million Arabs, a billion Muslims and the new
President of the United States claims he wants a new relationship
with these peoples, based on “mutual respect.” This “mutual respect”
will never develop if President Obama, like his predecessors,
continues to play the British concocted evil game in the Middle
East. A barbaric game, which has reaped millions and billions
in subsidies 
for the British state (under the fig leaf of “investments”
and “trade” from the Gulf statelets it created), fanatical murderous
wrath for the Americans and ethnic cleansing, division and war
for the indigenous Arabs.
Commentator, Nu'man Abd
al-Wahid, is a UK-based freelance writer (of Yemeni origin) who
specializes in the political relationship between the British
state and the Arab World. His focus is on how Britain has historically
maintained its interests in the Arab World and the Middle East.
to contcact Mr. Abd al-Wahid.