Over the last 16 years, numerous
debates have troubled the experts in international politics in their attempts
to define the objectives of US strategy. It is obviously much easier to answer
the question now rather than at the beginning. And yet very few have tried, and
many persist in expounding theories which have been belied by the facts. Basing
his analysis on the conclusions of this debate, Thierry Meyssan reminds us of
the next stage which was planned for the US armies by their theorists of that
time – a stage which may soon be put into practice.
The forces who imagined and planned the annihilation of the « Greater
Middle East » considered this region as a laboratory in which they would test
their new strategy. While in 2001 they were comprised of the governments of the
United States, the United Kingdom, and Israël, they have since lost political
power in Washington, and pursue their economic-military project by using
private multinational companies.
On
one hand, they conceived their strategy around the work of Admiral Arthur
Cebrowski and his assistant Thomas Barnett at the Pentagon, and on the other,
that of Bernard Lewis and his assistant Samuel Huntington at the National
Security Council [1].
Their objective is to update
their domination with contemporary technical and economic evolutions and extend
them to the countries which were once members of the Soviet bloc. In the past,
Washington controlled the world economy via the world energy market. To
maintain that position, it imposed the dollar as the default currency for any
oil contract, and threatened any recalcitrants with war. However, this system
could not be maintained once gas from Russia, Iran, Qatar – and soon Syria –
partially replaced oil.
Reconnecting with the
criminal origin of a large percentage of US colonists, these forces imagined
they could dominate the rich countries by extortion. In order to gain access to
the sources of fossil energy, but also prime materials in general, the stable
States (including the ex-Soviet States) would be obliged to solicit the «
protection » of the US army and also that of the United Kingdom and Israël.
All that was necessary was to
split the world into two parts, to globalise the solvent economies and destroy
any capacity for resistance in the rest of the world.
This vision of the world is
radically different from the prevalent vision of the British Empire and
Zionism. This change of paradigm could only be implemented by a massive
mobilisation consecutive to a psychological shock – a « new Pearl Harbor ».
That was 9/11.
Although this project seemed
insane and cruel, we can observe today, 16 years later, that it is effectively
underway, and also that it has met with some unexpected obstacles.
The economic globalisation of
the solvent countries was almost total when one of these countries, namely
Russia, offered military opposition to the destruction of the Syrian capacity
for resistance, and then the forced integration of Ukraine into the global
economy. Washington and London, therefore, ordered their allies to impose
economic sanctions against Moscow. By doing so, they interrupted the process of
globalisation of the solvent countries.
By launching its « Silk
Roads» project, China has invested considerably in the countries which were
slated for destruction. The forces which promote the « new map of the world »
reacted by creating a terrorist State which cut the ancient Silk Road in Iraq
and in Syria, and by transforming the Ukrainian conflict into a war, effectively
cutting the original traces of the second Silk Road.
These
forces are currently working to spread chaos to a second region, South-East
Asia. At least, it is to that area that the jihadists seem to be migrating,
according to the United Nations Anti-Terrorist Committee. By doing so, these
forces are closing down the 2012-2016 episode in the Middle East – apart from
the possibility of a war around the Kurds – and are preparing the devastation
of South-East Asia. This would be the second stage of the « clash of
civilisations ». After the Muslims against the « Judeo-Christians » (sic) [2], we now have the Muslims
against the Buddhists.
Notes
[1] Network Centric Warfare : Developing and Leveraging Information
Superiority, David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka & Frederick P.
Stein, CCRP, 1999. The Pentagon’s New Map,
Thomas P. M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004. « The Roots of Muslim Rage
», Bernard Lewis, Atlantic Monthly, septembre1990. «
The Clash of Civilizations ? » & « The West Unique, Not Universal », Samuel
Huntington, Foreign Affairs, 1993 & 1996
; The Soldier and the State & The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,
Samuel Huntington, Harvard 1957 & Simon and Schulster 1996.
[2] Until the 1990’s, the
expression ‘Judeo-Christians’ defined exclusively the community of Jews
converted to Christianity around St. James – a community which was dissolved
after the rape of Jerusalem by the Romans. However, Western Christians
continued to allow a large place in their practices to the Old Testament, which they defend, without realising
that Jewish points of view often replaced Christian points of view. On the
contrary, Eastern Christians, faithful to the tradition of their predecessors,
only rarely make reference to the Jewish writings, and refuse to read them
during the Eucharist.
French intellectual,
founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His
columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and
weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published
in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The
articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is
cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial
purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).
Previous
article by Thierry Meyssan: After Its Caliphate Fails