During the three-month isolation regime in the West, significant changes have taken place in the Middle East. Yemen is divided in two, Israel is paralyzed by two prime ministers who do not get along with each other, Iran openly supports NATO in Iraq and Libya, Turkey has occupied northern Syria, and Saudi Arabia is close to bankruptcy. Previous alliances collapse and new divisions emerge.
For two decades Washington has been trying to reshape the Greater Middle East, an area stretching from Afghanistan to Morocco. But over the past three years, two irreconcilable lines have clashed: on the one hand, the Pentagon, which aims to abolish state structures in all countries of the region, regardless of whether they are friends or enemies, and on the other, President Trump, who intends to establish trade relations with the region resorting to armed force.
When the isolation regime was introduced to combat the Covid-19 epidemic, we immediately warned that profound changes would occur in the region, and after that it would not be the same. We proceeded from the fact that Washington refused to destroy Syria, and now this zone is given to Russia. Now the main question is who will be the next target of the Pentagon in this region. There are two possible answers. Turkey or Saudi Arabia, by the way, both of these countries are allies of the United States. And the next question is what markets the White House will try to open.
This opinion is supported by all who believe that the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy of destroying state structures in the Middle East has been implemented in the Middle East over the past twenty years. And it is rejected by those who, refusing to take into account international factors, naively interpret the events as follows one after another civil wars (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and soon, perhaps, Lebanon), rejecting between them what -or communication.
Meanwhile, Iran, three months later, began to support Turkey in Libya, Saudi Arabia almost everywhere, and especially in Yemen, practically disappeared from the radar screens, and the Emirates became a pole of regional stability. Regional changes play into the hands of Ankara and Abu Dhabi, not Riyadh. But the most radical changes are Iran's transition to the side of NATO, the normalization of relations between Turkey and the United States and the strengthening of the influence of the United Arab Emirates. Therefore, we were right, and those who believed in the tales of civil wars are driven into a dead end. Of course, they will not admit it, and it will take them several months to adapt their speeches to the realities of everyday life.
Of course, everyone should correct their positions, and our remarks are valid only for today. After all, the region is changing very quickly, and those who think too long will automatically lose. This is especially true for Europe. This situation is fragile and will be subject to revision by Washington if Donald Trump fails to run for a second term, or if President Putin fails to hold on to power until the end of his mandate, or Beijing if President Xi Jinping insists on building sections of the Silk Roads. to the west.
Although the media is silent about this, the United Arab Emirates no longer supports Saudi Arabia on the battlefield in Yemen. They support the tribes who drove the Saudi troops out of their country. Together with the British, they occupy the island of Socota, exercising control over the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait at the exit to the Red Sea. They de facto divided Yemen into two along the border that ran between North and South Yemen during the Cold War.
Iran, despite the border clashes with the Emirates and the war, which it waged with the help of mercenaries from Yemen, was content with such a denouement, which allowed the Shiite Houthis to achieve a semblance of peace, but not defeat hunger. After finally accepting the election of US President Donald Trump, Tehran resumed contacts with Washington three years later. With theatrical bombast, Hassan Rohani's government pledged military support for al-Saraj's government in Libya. In fact, this means that it supports the Muslim Brotherhood (as was the case in the 90s in Bosnia-Herzegovina), Turkey and NATO (as was the case under Shah Reza Pahlavi). It is now unclear what Iran will do in Syria, where it has so far fought its new allies - Turkey, NATO and jihadists.
Promotional video:
Of course, we must not forget that in Iran, as now in Israel, there is a dual power. The statements of the Rohani government may not oblige the Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Whatever one may say, but the new situation puts Hezbollah in an unpleasant position. The United States appears to have deliberately provoked the collapse of the Lebanese pound with the help of Central Bank Governor Riyad Salameh. Now Washington intends to extend to Beirut the US law (Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act), obliging it to close the Lebanese-Syrian border. Lebanon, in order to survive, will be forced to make an alliance with its former colonialist, with whom it shares a border, - Israel. Of course, the rise to power in Tel Aviv of a two-headed opposition that has tied the supporters of the old British colonial project together with the third generation Israelis committed to the national idea does not allow an invasion of Lebanon. However, this coalition is fragile, and a return back is not only possible, but also very likely. The only solution for Lebanon would be to refuse to apply American law and turn not towards the West, but towards Russia and China. This is precisely the thought that Hezbollah's secretary general, Syed Hassan Nasrallah, dared to express. He believes that Iran, despite its rapprochement with Turkey (present along with the Muslim Brotherhood in northern Lebanon) and NATO (represented by Israel), remains an intermediary between China and the West. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, only Persian was spoken along the entire Silk Road.despite its rapprochement with Turkey (present with the Muslim Brotherhood in northern Lebanon) and NATO (represented by Israel), it remains a mediator between China and the West. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, only Persian was spoken along the entire Silk Road.despite its rapprochement with Turkey (present with the Muslim Brotherhood in northern Lebanon) and NATO (represented by Israel), it remains a mediator between China and the West. In ancient times and the Middle Ages, only Persian was spoken along the entire Silk Road.
Hezbollah was modeled after the Iranian Basij paramilitary militia, and they share the same flag. And weapons, up to the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon in 2005, were supplied to it not from Tehran, but from Damascus. Therefore, she must make a choice between her two patrons, guided by either ideological or material considerations. Syed Hassan Nasrallah supports the Syrian secular model, while his deputy Sheikh Naim Qassem is an adherent of the Iranian technocratic model. But Damascus has no money, Tehran has it.
For many centuries, it was in the interests of Western powers to support secular regimes, but their desire to dominate the region inevitably led to the support of religious authorities (except for a short period in 1953 in the United States).
Syria, surrounded by the United States' allies, has no other option in terms of supply than Russia, but the ruling class of the latter opposes this. This will only be possible if the conflict between President Bashar al-Assad and his distant billionaire cousin Rami Maklouf is resolved, as well as between Russian oligarchs. These disagreements have nothing to do with the family conflict that the Western media is talking about. They can be compared to the rejection of power by Russian oligarchs by President Vladimir Putin in the 2000s, which made it possible to end the fermentations of the Yeltsin period. Seventeen years of the economic blockade of Damascus did not allow to resolve this conflict. But as soon as it is resolved, Damascus will be able to return the lands torn from it - the Golan occupied by Israel and Idlib, occupied by Turkey.
Iraq became the second country that, after the Emirates, learned about the changes that took place in Iran. He immediately concludes an agreement with Washington and Tehran and appoints the head of the special services Mustafa al-Qadimi as Prime Minister, although over the past few months he has been accused of actively participating in the assassination of Shiite leader Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Now Iraq will no longer be at war with jihadists (Anglo-Saxon mercenaries supported by Iran), it will have to enter into negotiations with their leaders.
Israel, the only country in the world ruled by two Prime Ministers, will no longer be able to play the role of a mediator in promoting the interests of the Anglo-Saxon powers and will not be the same country as the others. His entire foreign policy is paralyzed just at the moment when Lebanon is weakened and became his desired prey. For the proponents of the colonial project, behind whom is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and who are losing speed, the changes in Iran are already making themselves felt in Iraq and Libya. They urgently need to come up with a new enemy to hold on. And for the Israeli nationalists, behind whom is the second Prime Minister Benny Gantz, they should not throw stones at anyone, but carefully enter into negotiations with Hamas (that is, with the Muslim Brotherhood).
Egypt continues to focus on the food issue. He cannot feed his population without the help of the Saudis, and he is counting on China's help. However, the Saudi rejection and the US offensive against China give him no hope.
Libya as a state no longer exists. She, like Yemen, suffers from dual power. As a result of the NATO victory in 2011 and the absence of US troops on the ground, this country has become the only place in the region where the Pentagon can freely implement the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy. The recent military successes of al-Saraj's government (essentially the Muslim Brotherhood), backed by Turkey and now Iran, leave no illusion. Haftar's government, backed by the Emirates and Egypt, is resisting. The Pentagon intends to maintain this conflict for as long as necessary to the detriment of civilians. He, like during the Iraqi-Iranian war (1980-88), supports both camps and will come to the aid of the loser, whom he will betray the next day.
The losers are China and Saudi Arabia.
China's influence is limited to Iran. His triumphant march was suspended by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a visit to Israel. Beijing will not build the world's largest seawater desalination plant, and its projects in the ports of Haifa and Ashdod are doomed to failure, despite huge investments in these projects. No one will dare to eliminate the 18,000 Chinese jihadists on the Syrian-Turkish border, so the latter will remain unstable and prevent the construction of the northern section of the Silk Road. Remains the southern section, passing through the Suez Canal in Egypt, but it is controlled by the West.
And no one really knows what is happening with Saudi Arabia. Over the past three years, Prince Mohamed Ben Salman (MBS) has managed to inspire insane hope in the West and bring down all the regional powers by hanging and dismembering their opponents and then dissolving their bodies in acid. His country was forced to back down in Yemen, where it had to recklessly risk and abandon lucrative jobs, in particular the construction of the city of the future Neom, in which billionaires from all over the world were to find shelter. And the gigantic oil reserves are no longer subject to speculation and are losing their value. The largest military power in the region is now a colossus with feet of clay, agonizing in the sands of the desert that gave birth to it.
And President Trump is on the verge of achieving his goals. He thwarted the Pentagon's plan to create a state led by the terrorist organization Daesh and managed to integrate all the countries of the region into the American economic zone, except for Syria, which was lost after 2014. But the Pentagon continues its business. He managed to liquidate state structures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. His plan failed only in Syria as a result of Russia's military intervention, but also because the people of Syria have been committed to the concept of the state from time immemorial.
The elimination of state structures in Afghanistan according to the plans of the Pentagon and the withdrawal of American troops at the behest of President Trump, would go a long way during the presidential elections and mark an alliance between the two forces. But this is still far from it. The Pentagon is trying in vain to impose martial law in connection with the Covid-19 epidemic and is surreptitiously supporting antifa, which has already been introduced in Syria, where they are coordinating alleged anti-racist riots. Russia, which has never changed its position, wisely awaits the time when it can reap the harvest from its intervention in Syria.