The " New Thirty Year War" In the Middle East- American Led Policy of Chaos.

[JuanM67]

The New Thirty Years War in the Middle East A Western Policy of Chaos? Christian and Jews Deciding Muslim Future. Where are the Muslim Armies?

By Steven MacMillan

August 15, 2015 - "NEO " - The Middle East has been in a state of chaos for years now, with each passing year bringing a new wave of instability, carnage and human suffering to the people of the region. From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, Western foreign policy has directly caused or exacerbated much of the chaos we see in the region today and has contributed to a growing trend of instability.



A pertinent question of our time however is whether this instability and destabilization is a result of inept strategy by Western nations, or a calculated strategy by the West to intentionally create chaos, balkanize nations and increase sectarian tensions in the region?

The New Thirty Years War



Certain individuals within the US establishment have been drawing the comparison between the Middle East today and the Thirty Years War in Europe in the 17th century, with Prof. Larry Goodson of the US Army War College being one of the latest individuals to make the comparison. Even though the parallels between Europe and the Middle East are by no means exact, it has become somewhat of a talking point within Western geostrategic circles.



​

The Thirty Years War is a complex historical period, pertaining to numerous wars and conflicts fought by an array of power blocs for a variety of reasons. According to the Encyclopdia Britannica: Although the struggles that created it erupted some years earlier, the war is conventionally held to have begun in 1618, when the future Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II, in his role as king of Bohemia, attempted to impose Roman Catholic absolutism on his domains, and the Protestant nobles of both Bohemia and Austria rose up in rebellion.



The war quickly spread to embroil the majority of Europes major powers who either believed there was an opportunity to conquer neighbouring powers or were drawn into the conflict by a force invading their lands, and is regarded by historians as one of the most destructive periods in European history. Villages, towns and cities were raped and pillaged by mercenaries who were fighting for different power blocs, devastating the European continent.


The Thirty Years War was brought to an end when a series of treaties was signed in 1648 known as the Peace of Westphalia, establishing a new political order in Europe in the form of co-existing sovereign states (although some historians dispute the significance of Westphalian sovereignty). James Bissett, the former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, described the Westphalian system in a 2007speech as laying down the basic tenets of sovereigntythe principle of territorial integrity and of non-interference in the affairs of national states The Westphalian order has frequently been violated, but age has not diminished the principles themselves.


In July of 2014, the former director of policy planning for the US Department of State and the President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Richard Hass,a Zionist Muslim hating Jew, compared the Middle East of today to 17th century Europe, in his article The New Thirty Years War. Hass proclaims that the Middle East will likely be as turbulent in the future unless a new local order emerges:


For now and for the foreseeable future until a new local order emerges or exhaustion sets in the Middle East will be less a problem to be solved than a condition to be managed.


As I reported a year ago, this new local order may be in the form of a Middle Eastern Union.

Fragmenting the Middle East
Ubiquitous evidence indicates that there is an agenda by at least some strategists within the US to destroy the nation state and balkanize the region into feuding rump states, micro-states and mini-states, which will be so weak and busy fighting each other that they will be unable to unify against foreign colonial powers most notably Western multinational corporations. After a prolonged period of destruction and chaos in the region, the people of the Middle East may be so weary of the horrors of war that they will accept a Western imposed order as a means of ending the fighting, even though the very same Western forces have been responsible for creating much of the intolerable chaos.



​

The strategy of balkanization can be traced back to at least the early 1990s, when British-American historian Bernard Lewis wrote an article published in the 1992 issue of the CFRs publication, Foreign Affairs, titled:Rethinking the Middle East. He envisages the potential of the region disintegrating into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties. Even though Lewis writes in his article that this is only one possibility of many other possibilities, it is starkly similar to the situation that we see in countries such as Iraq and Libya today:


Another possibility, which could even be precipitated by fundamentalism, is what has of late become fashionable to call Lebanonization. Most of the states of the Middle EastEgypt is an obvious exceptionare of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process.


If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation state.Lewis continues:

The state then disintegratesas happened in Lebanoninto a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties. If things go badly and central governments falter and collapse, the same could happen, not only in the countries of the existing Middle East, but also in the newly independent Soviet republics, where the artificial frontiers drawn by the former imperial masters left each republic with a mosaic of minorities and claims of one sort or another on or by its neighbours.


​

Speaking at the Ford School in 2013, former US secretary of state and CFR member, Terrorist war criminal German Jew Henry Kissinger, reveals his desire to see Syria balkanized into more or less autonomous regions, in addition to comparing the region to the Thirty Years War in Europe:

There are three possible outcomes. An Assad victory. A Sunni victory. Or an outcome in which the various nationalities agree to co-exist together but in more or less autonomous regions, so that they cant oppress each other. Thats the outcome I would prefer to see. But thats not the popular view. I also think Assad ought to go, but I dont think its the key.


The key is; its like Europe after the Thirty Years War, when the various Christian groups had been killing each other until they finally decided that they had to live together but in separate units. (from 27.35 into the interview).

Creating a Salafist Principality in Syria
In May of this year, Judicial Watch released a series of formerly classified documents from the US Department of Defense and Department of State after the watchdog group filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the two government agencies.


One important document contained in the release was a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report which reveals that the powers supporting the Syrian opposition Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey wanted to create a Salafist principality in Eastern Syria in order to isolate the Syrian regime:


​

Opposition forces are trying to control the Eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighbouring Turkish borders.


Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). (p.5)The document adds:



ISI [the Islamic State of Iraq] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organisations in Iraq and Syria. (p.5)

Balkanizing Iraq
Fragmenting Iraq into three separate regions has been the goal of many within the US establishment since the 2003 invasion of the country, although NATO member Turkey has vocally opposed the creation of a Kurdish state in the North. In 2006, a potential map of a future Middle East was released by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters a Zionist American Christian fanatic which depicted Iraq divided into three regions: a Sunni Iraq to the West, an Arab Shia State in the East and a Free Kurdistan in the North.


​

Even though the map does not reflect official Pentagon doctrine, it gives a glimpse into the minds of some of the top military strategists and corroborates with many other Western voices on the strategy for Iraq. As geopolitical analyst Eric Draitsernoted in a recent article for New Eastern Outlook, the President Emeritus of the CFR, Leslie Gelb, argued in a 2003 article for the NY Times that the most feasible outcome in Iraq would be a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.



Syria is shown as still being a unified country in the above map, although this may be because the Syrian proxy war did not begin until years later. Israel could also come to occupy more territory in the coming decades.



Different Country, Same Strategy The same pattern of balkanization and chaos that we see in Iraq and Syria is also true in Libya. Following the NATOs 2011 war in the North African nation, the country descended into an abyss of chaos and has essentially been split into three parts, with Cyrenaica comprising the East of the country, and the West split into Tripolitania in the Northwest and Fezzan in the Southwest.

Libya is now a failed state which is devoid of central government and is stricken by tribal warfare, where rival militias who were once fighting alongside each other are now battling against one another.



The Iranian nuclear deal could mark a new beginning for Western geopolitical strategy in the Middle East, where they would work with regional powers to promote stability and refrain from military intervention (or intervention through proxies).


Lets hope this is true, and the Jew controlled West will halt the plethora of destabilization programs it has engaged in for years.But the most probable scenario will be a continuation of the balkanization strategy that we have all come to expect; until a new local order emerges an order that will be designed by, and for, Christian Jewish Western interests of course.

 

[jaanmark]

hope for the best all come better to rest

 

[kkkkk]

This is true. Recreation of 1517 to 1648 Europe embroiled in 130 years of sectarian wars, in the Middle East is the open plan of the US think tanks to eliminte Islam, legitmize occuptaion of Israel and reduce Muslims to a cultural group from a religious giant. CIA+Mossad+RAW have alread been implementing it and all groups from Al Qaida, Boko Haram, ISIS and Taliban are the trios stooges (CIA+MOSSAD+RAW)/ creation. This is an open secret. But, rigtly a good question has been asked that where are the Muslims? Whether Muslims react or not there is always a divine scheme of things. Lets see how the divine scheme unfolds vis a vis the joint TRIO's Project,"ELIMINATE ISLA".

 

[Shanzeh]

This is true. Recreation of 1517 to 1648 Europe embroiled in 130 years of sectarian wars, in the Middle East is the open plan of the US think tanks to eliminte Islam, legitmize occuptaion of Israel and reduce Muslims to a cultural group from a religious giant. CIA+Mossad+RAW have alread been implementing it and all groups from Al Qaida, Boko Haram, ISIS and Taliban are the trios stooges (CIA+MOSSAD+RAW)/ creation. This is an open secret. But, rigtly a good question has been asked that where are the Muslims? Whether Muslims react or not there is always a divine scheme of things. Lets see how the divine scheme unfolds vis a vis the joint TRIO's Project,"ELIMINATE ISLA".

شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ

کيا آپ واقعی ايمانداری سے يہ سمجھتے ہيں کہ امريکی حکومت اسلام کے خاتمے کے مشن پر ہے، ايک ايسا مذہب جس کے پيروکار دنيا ميں ايک بلين سے زيادہ ہيں اورجس ميں کئ ملين امريکی شہری بھی شامل ہيں؟

کوئ بھی سازش، چاہے وہ کتنی ہی پيچيدہ اور مکمل کيوں نا ہو دنيا بھر ميں ايک بلين سے زائد افراد کو ختم نہيں کر سکتی، اور خاص طور پر مجرموں کے ان چند گروہوں کے طفيل جن کی سوچ اور جن کے نظريے کو قريب تمام ہی اہم اسلامی حکومتوں، دانشوروں اور تنظيموں کی جانب سے يکسر مسترد کيا جا چکا ہو۔

اور اگر آپ کے مفروظے ميں ذرا سی بھی صداقت ہے تو پھر آپ اس مسلسل حمايت اور تعاون کو کيا کہيں گے جوپاکستان اور سعودی عرب سميت قريب تمام اہم اسلامی ممالک کی جانب سے ہميں فراہم کی جا رہی ہے۔

آج اگر پاکستان کے مسلمان جمعہ کی نماز کی ادائيگی جيسے اہم مذہبی فريضے کو انجام دينے کے ليے مساجد ميں جاتے ہوۓ فکر محسوس کرتے ہيں تو اس کا ذمہ دار امريکہ نہيں ہے۔ ملک کے طول و عرض ميں سينکڑوں کی تعداد ميں خودکش حملوں، بم دھماکوں اور پاکستانی عورتوں، مردوں اور بچوں کے بے رحم قتل کا ذمہ دار امريکہ نہيں ہے۔ اور يقينی طور پر امريکہ مذہب کے حوالے سے پائ جانے والی عدم روادری کی سوچ، برداشت کے فقدان اور اس جنونی مذہبی رجحان کا ذمہ دار بھی نہيں ہے جس نے سياسی ۔قائدين، مذہبی سکالرز اور معصوم بچوں کو بھی نہیں بخشا

يہ غير حقيقی اور غير منطقی بحث جو اکثر اردو فورمز پر موجود ہے جس کے تحت امريکہ پر آئ ايس آئ ايس، ٹی ٹی پی سميت ديگر دہشت گرد تنظيموں اور ان کے قا‏ئدين کی پشت پنائ کا لغو دعوی کيا جاتا ہے، اسے پڑھ کر بے ساختہ يہ سوال سامنے آتا ہے کہ يہ قائدين اور جنگجو کس دليل اور محرک کے تحت اس بات پر مجبور ہو سکتے ہيں وہ اپنے اس "دشمن" کے ايما پر اپنی جانوں کو خطرات ميں ڈالنے پر آمادہ ہو جائيں جو نا صرف يہ کہ اپنے تمام تر وسائل استعمال کر کے انھيں ختم کرنے کے درپے ہے بلکہ عالمی سطح پر بھی اور علاقائ سطح پر بھی اپنے شراکت داروں اور اتحاديوں کے ساتھ مل کر بے شمار قدغنوں اور پابنديوں کے ذريعے ان کا ناطقہ بند کر رہا ہے؟

اور يہی نقطہ طالبان کو "امريکی اثاثے" قرار دينے کے حوالے سے بھی ہے۔ ہم کيونکر ہزاروں کی تعداد ميں اپنے فوجيوں کی قربانی اور ايک دہائ سے زيادہ عرصے تک اپنے فوجی وسائل ان افراد کے خلاف کاروائ کے ليے کھپائيں گے جو ماضی ميں مبينہ طور ہمارے ايجنڈے کی تکيمل پر آمادہ رہے ہيں؟

کوئ بھی ذی شعور اور منطقی سوچ رکھنے والا شخص ان کھوکھلے دلائل کو تسليم نہيں کر سکتا جو نا صرف يہ کہ غير حقيقی ہيں بلکہ بنيادی اور منطقی جانچ پڑتال کی کسوٹی پر بھی پورا نہيں اترتے۔

شانزے خان ڈيجيٹل آؤٹ ريچ ٹيم يو ايس اسٹيٹ ڈيپارٹمينٹ

[email protected]


www.state.gov


https://twitter.com/USDOSDOT_Urdu


http://www.facebook.com/USDOTUrdu

​

 

[JuanM67]

Insouciance Rules The West

By Paul Craig Roberts

August 20, 2015 "Salon" - Europe is being overrun by refugees from Washingtons, and Israels, hegemonic policies in the Middle East and North Africa that are resulting in the slaughter of massive numbers of civilians. The inflows are so heavy that European governments are squabbling among themselves about who is to take the refugees.

Hungary is considering constructing a fence, like the US and Israel, to keep out the undesirables. Everywhere in the Western media there are reports deploring the influx of migrants; yet nowhere is there any reference to the cause of the problem.
The European governments and their insouciant populations are themselves responsible for their immigrant problems.

For 14 years Europe has supported Washingtons aggressive militarism that has murdered and dislocated millions of peoples who never lifted a finger against Washington. The destruction of entire countries such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and now Syria and Yemen, and the continuing US slaughter of Pakistani civilians with the full complicity of the corrupt and traitorous Pakistani government, produced a refugee problem that the moronic Europeans brought upon themselves.

Europe deserves the problem, but it is not enough punishment for their crimes against humanity in support of Washingtons world hegemony.
In the Western world insouciance rules governments as well as peoples, and most likely also everywhere else in the world. It remains to be seen whether Russia and China have any clearer grasp of the reality that confronts them.

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency until his retirement in August 2014, has confirmed that the Obama regime disregarded his advice and made a willful decision to support the jihadists who now comprise ISIS. (https://medium.com/insurge-intellig...m-us-support-for-al-qaeda-in-iraq-a37c9a60be4 ) Here we have an American government so insouciant, and with nothing but tunnel vision, empowering the various elements that comprise Washingtons excuse for the war on terror and the destruction of several countries. Just as the idiot Europeans produce their own refugee problems, the idiot Americans produce their own terrorist problems. It is mindless. And there is no end to it.

Consider the insanity of the Obama regimes policy toward the Soviet Union. Kissinger and Brzezinski, two of the left-wings most hated bogymen, are astonished at the total unawareness of Washington and the EU of the consequences of their aggression and false accusations toward Russia. Kissinger says that Americas foreign policy is in the hands of ahistorical people, who do not comprehend that we should not engage in international conflicts if, at the beginning, we cannot describe an end.

Jew Kissinger criticizes Washington and the EU for their misconception that the West could act in Ukraine in ways inconsistent with Russian interests and receive a pass from the Russian government.

As for the Idiotic claim that Putin is responsible for the Ukrainian tragedy, Kissinger says:

It is not conceivable that Putin spends sixty billion euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding Olympic ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization

. ( http://sputniknews.com/world/20150819/1025918194/us-russia-policy-history-kissinger.html )

Dont expect the low-grade morons who comprise the Western media to notice anything as obvious as the meaning Kissingers observation.

Brzezinski has joined Kissinger in stating unequivocally that Russia must be reassured that Ukraine will never become a NATO member.

(http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150630/1024022244.html )

Kissinger is correct that Americans and their leaders are ahistorical. The US operates on the basis of a priori theories that justify American preconceptions and desires. This is a prescription for war, disaster, and the demise of humanity.

Even American commentators whom one would consider to be intelligent are ahistorical. Writing on OpEdNews (8-18-15) William Bike says that Ronald Reagan advocated the destruction of the Soviet Union.

Reagan did no such thing. Reagan was respectful of the Soviet leadership and worked with Gorbachev to end the Cold War. Reagan never spoke about winning the Cold War, only about bringing it to an end. The Soviet Union collapsed as a consequence of Gorbachev being arrested by hardline communists, opposed to Gorbachevs policies, who launched a coup. The coup failed, but it took down the Soviet government. Reagan had nothing to do with it and was no longer in office

Some ahistorical Americans cannot tell the difference between the war criminals Clinton, Bush, Cheney, and Obama, and Jimmy Carter, who spent his life doing, and trying to do, good deeds. No sooner do we hear that the 90-year old former president has cancer than Matt Peppe regals us on CounterPunch about

Jimmy Carters Blood-Drenched Legacy (8-18-15). Peppe describes Carter as just another hypocrite who professed human rights but had a penchant for bloodshed. What Peppe means is that Carter did not stop bloodshed initiated by foreigners abroad. In other words Carter failed as a global policeman. Peppes criticism of Carter, of course, is the stale and false neoconservative criticism of Carter.

Peppe, like so many others, shows an astonishing ignorance of the constraints existing policies institutionalized in government exercise over presidents. In American politics, interest groups are more powerful than the elected politicians. Look around you.

The federal agencies created to oversea the wellbeing of the national forests, public lands, air and water are staffed with the executives of the very polluting and clear-cutting industries that the agencies are supposed to be regulating. Read CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clairs book, Born Under A Bad Sky, to understand that those who are supposed to be regulated are in fact doing the regulating, and in their interests. The public interest is nowhere in the picture.
Look away from the environment to economic policy. The same financial executives who caused the ongoing financial crisis resulting in enormous ongoing public subsidies to the private banking system, now into the eight year, are the ones who run the US/ Jewish Treasury and Federal Reserve.

Without a strong movement behind him, from whose ranks a president can staff an administration committed to major changes, the president is in effect a captive of the private interests who finance political campaigns. Reagan is the only president of our time who had even a semblance of a movement behind him, and the Reaganites in his administration were counterbalanced by the Bush Establishment Republicans.

During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had a movement behind him consisting of New Dealers. Consequently, Roosevelt was able to achieve a number of overdue reforms such as Social Security.

Nevertheless, Roosevelt did not see himself as being in charge. In The Age of Acquiescence (2015), Steve Fraser quotes President Roosevelt telling Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau at the end of 1934 that the people I have called the money changers in the Temple are still in absolute control. It will take many years and possibly several revolutions to eliminate them.

Eight decades later as Nomi Prins has made clear in All The Presidents Bankers (2014), the money changers are still in control. Nothing less than fire and the sword can dislodge them.

Yet, and it will forever be the case, America has commentators who really believe that a president can change things but refuses to do so because he prefers the way that they are.

Unless there is a major disaster, such as the Great Depression, or a lessor challenge, such as stagflation for which solutions were scarce, a president without a movement is outgunned by powerful private interest groups, and sometimes even if he has a movement.

Private interests were empowered by the Republican Supreme Courts decision that the purchase of the US government by corporate money is the constitutionally protected exercise of free speech.

To be completely clear, the US Supreme Court has ruled that organized interest groups have the right to control the US government.Under this Supreme Court ruling, how can the United States pretend to be a democracy?How can Washington justify its genocidal murders as bringing democracy to the decimated?Unless the world wakes up and realizes that total evil has the reins in the West, humanity has no future.

Source