American foreign policy suffers from fundamental constraints. Principally, whatever the parasites in control deem best for their Zionist project. This enables rivals to outmaneuver the U.S. as the military and economic power with which it dominated the globe is checked by more than just nuclear threats. Everybody used to be North Korea in the sense it was the same trick up both Russia and China’s sleeves. Not anymore.
The debacle in Ukraine serves as a horrific demonstration of the new multi-polar reality. No amount of conventional force or support by the U.S. and its vassals is going to change the outcome. This only pads the butcher’s tally. It’s impossible to hide that now. No presidential aspirant is willing to tie themselves to a time bomb despite the nonsense Americans are still being fed. Another Kabul/Saigon scene would be a nightmare on the campaign trail.
Those were heady days in the early 2000s. Saddam Hussein got pulled out of a hole, and the disaster in Iraq wasn’t clear yet. If I recall correctly, we’d just finished PT when it was announced over a loudspeaker. Everyone cheered. There was plenty of talk about how Iran was next. It was certainly in the cards. Nobody seemed cognizant that a mountainous nation comparable in size to Western Europe would be different than subduing a Baghdad-to-Basra corridor largely through covert bribery.
The grand strategy turned into a catastrophe. Iran (which used to rule the place) was able to reassert influence over the Shia in Iraq and establish an arc reaching all the way to Israel. Over a million perished and the Iraqis later signed huge oil and infrastructure deals with the Chinese. One would surmise that had to be somewhat out of spite. In some cases, they even underbid U.S. companies. Control over our foreign policy doesn’t equate to basic competence.
Like our other “enemies” who pose no threat to White Americans, the Iranians are far more capable than they’re given credit in establishment discourse. After the project failed in Iraq and moved to Syria, they allied with the Russians in a decisive effort to thwart it. Iran brought in tens of thousands of mercenaries and volunteers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, along with providing other vital support.
For religious and historical reasons, Iran regards itself as the protector of Shia Muslims. As a matter of theology, it considers all Muslim monarchies to be illegitimate. For Saudi Arabia, this made it an existential threat, as the primary reason the country exists is the Sunni (Wahhabist) House of Saud.
To make sense out of Saudi Arabia, consider what the situation would be like in the UK if it was called “Windsor Britannia” and the Royal Family had thousands of members who consider the Isles, inhabited by various tribes, its private property. Moreover, there’s a lateral succession in which agnatic primogeniture doesn’t designate the next king. This creates de-stabilizing ambitions and insecurities in a family so paranoid it won’t employ citizens as guards or allow its armed forces free access to ammunition.
Imagine if this Protestant monarchy classifies Catholics, who comprise a large percentage of the population, as heretics and represses them accordingly. What sort of complications would arise if the world’s best oil field is underneath Catholic feet? What if France declared itself the liberator of Catholics and was currently sponsoring an insurgency in Ireland with drones striking British oil infrastructure? What if the rest of the kingdom is essentially bribed to accept the legitimacy of the Windsors, who are increasingly unable to afford the practice due to population growth?
Indeed, the Saudis are in a precarious position vis-à-vis Iran. In service to Israel, the U.S. wants Iran collapsed and regime-changed. The best it could offer the Saudis was utilization for this purpose, which had extremely dubious prospects for success and posed a lethal level of risk.
The Chinese are different. They’re a major purchaser of oil from Iran. It’s also a linchpin in their Belt and Road Initiative. They’re a crucial customer of the Saudis as well, meaning they have plenty to lose from a regional conflict. Since their foreign policy is guided by their own interests rather than Zionism, that puts China in a position to facilitate a deal to everyone’s benefit. It doesn’t look like it cost them much of anything.
Both parties have more pressing issues than their mutual enmity. However, they lacked the initiative to put it on the back burner without a powerful 3rd party like China (Russia is on board, as well) to smooth things out and incentivize them to cooperate.
Yet again, the Zionists have been out-played because they don’t have anything constructive to offer and their plans keep ending in disaster. Their only recourse would be the invasion of Iran (the original plan included using rail lines through Azerbaijan, an incredible undertaking), which the U.S. no longer has the means to attempt. What else is left, a coup against Crown Prince (de facto king) Mohammed Bin Salman? That would be the most feasible option, but the Chinese and Russians would intervene to protect their client. He’s proving much more adept than he was portrayed by the U.S. media.
Sanctions and force are the only tools at America’s disposal. Sanctions have never worked. Now force isn’t, either. What’s left is whining about our values and the “rules-based international order.”
Zionists will never be able to accept defeat and reform their behavior, so that’s a factor in whether or not this will culminate in a bang or a whimper. What’s starting to happen is that some of them are altering their disguise as they’ve done in the past (Trotskyists to Neocons, for example) to keep things moving in the same direction. I resent being along for the ride, but it should be interesting to see how this transpires. They might destroy civilization, but they’ll never win. Get very worried about the former, not the latter.
I’m proud to officially announce my candidacy for the office of Dogcatcher.
It’s interesting that (clown-car) Kristol, Boot and Rubin have somehow managed to keep their names out of the news (and their tweets appear to go nowhere), nonetheless. the stench of their war-mongering point of view is all I can see in this failure of a “foreign policy”. If they had any sense at all, they’d remove themselves from society, change their names and leave the western world forever…that’s a game I play with myself sometimes, “name me 3 things a neocon will never do”
Fantastic article. It takes critical thinking and knowledge of historical events to summarize everything in few words the way you did it. Instinctually many Americans are coming to the same conclusions. All you have to look at the comment section of Hannity and Levine, two NeoCons. Their audience isn’t buying what they are selling.
Five Guns West has a good posting today:
http://fivegunswest.blogspot.com
What I, soon to be an octogenarian, find puzzling is, How did the Zionists get control of everything worth having?
bob Sykes
There is a book by former congressman Paul Findlay called ‘They dare to speak out’. That book will certainly answer your question Sir.
Good read, I stumbled upon this one back in the 90’s at a used book sale and it got me started down quite the rabbit hole.
Max Boot’s profile picture makes him look like a freakin’ dweebazoid. Fitting.
What on Earth is with that sideways turned… is that a fedora? Did he not get the memo that fedoras haven’t been cool since like, the early 2010s?