by Kevin Barrett (News & Analysis, Crescent International Vol. 47, No. 3, Sha'ban, 1439)
Some call it the US empire. Others, more accurate, follow geopolitical analyst The Saker in calling it the Anglo-Zionist empire — for its capitals are not just Washington, New York, and Hollywood, but also London and Tel Aviv.
Whatever one calls it, the self-appointed unipolar global hegemon seems to have made Samuel Huntington’s forecast of a “clash of civilizations” a self-fulfilling prophecy. In 2001, the Empire launched a long-term war on Islam — a campaign whose primary beneficiary was Israel — with its 9/11 false flag operation. Then Barack Obama and his mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski, recognizing the foolishness of that crusade, tried to “pivot to Asia.” The pivot’s main purpose was to confront a rising China, using a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military power. In 2017, Donald Trump took over and forfeited both diplomatic power (by playing the buffoon) and economic power (by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership) — leaving military power, coupled with an ineffectual trade war, as the Empire’s only Asian option.
Meanwhile, Syria, one of the “seven countries in five years” targeted by the 9/11 false flag, proved resistant to regime change. Iran, the next domino on the neocon hit list, stepped up to support Damascus. So did Russia. The war on Syria lost momentum and fizzled out.
The Empire’s failure in Syria exposed it as a toothless tiger. In a desperate attempt to wrest global annihilation from the jaws of defeat, the Empire’s masters began playing nuclear brinksmanship with Russia, raising the very real prospect of a World War III that would likely kill hundreds of millions of people and put an end to most of what passes for modern “civilization.” US forces have targeted Russians in Syria, killing hundreds of mercenaries and forcing Putin to threaten to sink any US ships that attack official Russian troops based there. Tensions recently reached a crescendo with the Skripal/Douma coordinated false flag publicity stunts.
Simultaneously, on the Chinese front, tensions over Korea — where the Empire’s occupation of the southern half of the country has long been a thorn in the side of China — have combined with jockeying in the South China Sea to raise tensions higher than they have been at any time since Deng Xiaoping began reforming the country in the 1980s.
Such considerations raise the question: will the Empire launch (or blunder into) a war against Russia and/or China, despite the likelihood that such a war would amount to civilizational suicide? To understand why this terrible and absurd prospect is a real one, we need to understand the worldview of the Empire’s “Platonic guardians.” These are the people who, like the famous guardians in Plato’s Republic, task themselves with protecting their states from foreign and domestic enemies, and believe that lying and murder, including the mass murder of innocents, are noble means to that end.
The Guardians of today’s declining Unipolar Empire oscillate between opposite poles of hard-nosed geopolitical realism on the one hand, and messianic fanaticism on the other. Some, like the late Brzezinski, lean toward the realism side; while others, notably the so-called neoconservatives, are card-carrying messianic fanatics. Unfortunately, neither the realists nor the neocons respect any moral limits. Like the vast majority of today’s Western elites, they are atheists, followers of Machiavelli and Nietzsche who believe there is no metaphysical grounding for ethics and morality.
Both the realists and the fanatics accept the geopolitical paradigm founded by Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (1890) and Mackinder’s The Geographical Pivot of History (1904). According to this paradigm, it is only by a fluke of history that Britain, a small island in the Atlantic, followed by the slightly larger island of North America, managed to found globe-straddling empires dominating the vast supercontinent of Eurasia-Africa. Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard (1998) underlines the difficulty of ruling the world from North America, and suggests that radical measures, such as a Pearl Harbor style event selling the illusion of a “massive, direct external threat” to the gullible public, would be necessary to mobilize sufficient military resources to prolong the Empire’s dominance for even a few more decades.
Ironically, the massive military mobilization following 9/11 may have hastened, rather than delayed, the Empire’s decline and fall. That mobilization was hijacked by neoconservative Zionist fanatics who, despite their high positions in the US government, harbor undisguised loyalty to Israel. These ideologues are driven by a messianic madness that is consciously or unconsciously rooted in distorted interpretations of the distorted extant version of the Torah (Old Testament), as explained by Laurent Guyénot in his magisterial From Yahweh to Zion. They profess a noxious witch’s brew concocted from a toxic mixture of Israeli exceptionalism and its only slightly less rabid twin, American exceptionalism.
The neocons, to Brzezinski’s chagrin, wasted American blood, treasure, and prestige on a bloody attempt to destroy the Muslim East on behalf of the Zionist entity. Meanwhile Russia, which had been plundered and reduced to Third-World status during the 1990s, rebuilt and rearmed; China charted a course of long-term double-digit economic growth which, in tandem with a military buildup it can easily afford, put it on course to eclipse the US as the world’s biggest power by around 2030. Worst of all, from the Empire’s perspective, was that its post-9/11 bellicosity drove Russia, China, and Iran into a de facto alliance to defend the emerging multipolar world. Brzezinski’s imperial imperative number one — “prevent the barbarians from uniting” — had been turned on its head; the “barbarians” (meaning independent powers outside the Empire) have been forced to unite!
Today, the declining Anglo-Zionist Empire believes it still possesses an irresistible military force. Yet the inexorable rise of an economically-united and militarily-powerful Eurasia is an immovable object. Which will prevail, and how?
Whatever military edge the Anglo-Zionists may once have possessed is rapidly eroding. Russia, China, and Iran are rapidly modernizing and taking advantage of asymmetric warfare opportunities offered by advances in anti-ship missiles. Today the globe-straddling US Navy, built in response to Admiral Mahan’s outdated observations about the importance of sea power, is a fleet of sitting ducks. And the Empire’s prospects for winning a land war on the Eurasian continent are even more remote than the chances of its ships surviving more than a few hours of all-out war.
The Empire’s only real military card, its ace in the hole, is its purported nuclear first strike capability. US-NATO planners have been bullying the world for decades with nuclear first strike threats, and they continue to underline their ongoing threat against Moscow by ringing Russia with first-strike systems. Naturally the Russians have responded with new weapons designed to deter a US first strike by ensuring that massive retaliation would ensue.
So the underlying dynamic driving the Empire’s increasingly harsh policies toward Russia and China is a “use it or lose it” imperative: fight World War III now while there is still a chance of “victory” (however pyrrhic), or surrender to reality and accept the Empire’s slow demise. Unfortunately, those who, like the late Brzezinski, have counseled patience in the face of the inevitable are currently sidelined, while such arch-neocon lunatics as John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Benjamin Netanyahu (whose influence is exerted through Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner) are riding high.
Top Russian officials are saying the current moment is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis. On April 11, Donald Trump endorsed that view, tweeting that “Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War.”
Despite the mad messianic fantasies of the Zionists and exceptionalists, one thing is clear to all rational, well-informed analysts: We will have a multipolar world, or none at all. By ignoring the advice of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and failing to insist that power be reserved for the best rather than the worst, we have set ourselves up for planetary disaster.