Adonis Diaries

Kissinger blurted it: “US strategy in Middle-East is denying dominion to any State…”

This statement of Henry Kissinger, State minister during Nixon in the 70’s,  and who opened the door to dialogue with China Mao and planned the civil war in Lebanon, is not an earth shattering news: It has always been the case in the Middle East since antiquity for an emerging power to try to occupy the entire land in the Near East.

The strategies of France and England since the 18th century was to deny any country in the Middle-East to dominate the region…The Roman Empire had the same strategy. Russia and China adopt the same strategy in the Middle-East…Why this strategy never changes?

The history of the Middle-East is a succession of invasion by nascent young powers to dominate the entire region from the Babylonian, the Assyrian, the Persian, the Pharaoh of Egypt, the Greek, the Roman, the Arabic Empires, the Ottoman Empire, the mandated powers of France and England, and lately the USA… Current Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and even Syria (during the first Omayyad Arabic Empire) were dominant powers through antiquity during different periods…

The Middle-East is the carrefour for trading between the east and west Europe, and all caravans had to pass by this region, one way or another.  The successive nine Crusade military campaigns were meant to occupy Egypt and circumvent paying to every conceivable city-state the price of passage of the spices and aromatic products coming from the far east islands and Yemen…

Lately, England thwarted the ambitions of Mehmet Ali of Egypt in the 19th century to dominate the region after he conquered the Arabic Peninsula, Sudan, and Syria…England supported the radical Wahhabi obscurantist Emirs in the Arabic Peninsula (the family of Saud) since the 19th century, in arms and finances in order to keeping the Peninsula in a state of insecurity…and displaced the “legitimate” emirs in Mecca (the Hashemite) for the Saudi Arabia monarchy in order to maintain the deals on oil production and rob the “Arabs” of any archaic legitimate leader who could unify them after WWI.

The creation of the Zionist State of Israel was within the objectives of the superpower to keeping this region in constant disequilibrium and unrest.  The Zionist ideology was a continuum of the European ideology of nationalism and it suited well England and France to having a mercenary organization willing to gather the Jews in Palestine and die for their masters in colonial Europe.

After 1967, it suited the USA well that Israel was willing to wage its strategy for maintaining this region in a state of instability and division. Israel is basically a land air carrier with mercenary soldiers willing to fight the US strategy in return for supporting the archaic religious ideology of the Elite specie…

During WWII, the US decided that it was about time to expand its dominion to the Middle-East and thwarted the attempt of Iran to becoming a self-autonomous power in the 50’s and brought back the Shah of Iran from exile. The US thwarted Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser ambitions to unifying politically the Arab States and armed Saudi Arabia and fomented alliances against Abdel Nasser.

Saddam Hussein of Iraq ambitions were checked by encouraging him to invade Iran under the pretence of recuperating “Arabic lands” and then by encouraging Saddam to invade Kuwait as another Iraqi provence…Bush Junior made the blunder of occupying Iraq that was already on its knees since 1991, and dilapidated most of the US resources during the 8 years of occupation of Iraq.  What can you do when Bush Junior claimed that his decisions emanated from God, and the US citizens responded by “Hail to the messenger of God?”

After the Arab Spring and the dissemination of a rejuvenated spirit in the Arab World, only Syria in the Near East exhibited the status of a unified, powerful enough, and economically self-sufficient State. The latest troubles in Syria are not meant to dislodge the Al Assad regime, but to weaken the society and reduce it to an unstable entity.  After all, if the regime in Syria was maintained for over 40 years it was mainly by the explicit support of the US: Syria was given mandated power over Lebanon for 20 years…

There are only two regional States that think they can dominate the Middle-East: Turkey and Iran.  Turkey made the strategic “faux pas” of alienating Syria after exposing itself as the model for power transitions in the region and opened the way for cessation tendencies within Turkey (Kurds, Alawits, “Arab tribes” in south Turkey…)

So far, only Iran has demonstrated that it is a homogeneous society and has plans for self-autonomy of the western powers, with or without the bombing of its nuclear facilities.

It is no mystery that the US has started in urgency the exploitation of its oil and gas resources and is now 50% self-autonomous in the production and consumption of these resources…Is that a policy in preparation for another long protracted war? Iran is too big a fish to chew on, within this fragile state in the world economy and finance, and problems in oil transportation is the last cataclysm to facing at this stage…

Does the US care if the Middle-East people will experience wild upheavals for years to come? Not a chance. As long as oil production and distribution are secured by mercenary leaders in the region, the entire population can go to hell…The US has no great economical trade with this region, except oil..but Europe has a big stake here…

The US main economical interests have refocused to China, Far East Asia, and India, and in 20 years the entire Middle-East region can go to oblivion, and the US will never bat an eye…