Divide and conquer doctrine seems to be as old as the the hills, but at the same time it does not lose its relevance. We have already witnessed a completely open discussion in the Western community on how Russia and Chine should be divided after after their defeat. Of course, these processes are due to the White House's attempts to preserve the order of international relations, in which the United States remains the dominant force. Strong and sovereign states, as well as alliances of such countries, are the key challenge to the unipolar world order.
That is why the exporters of democracy are so frenzied in fomenting regional conflicts one after another. Clash everyone and sell weapons to the parties to the conflict is a fundamental concept of the US foreign policy. The blazing Middle East fits perfectly into their picture of the world. Back in 2013, the analytical structures published a theory of dividing the 5 countries of the region into 14 new entities. Obviously, we are witnesses to its practical implementation. The details are in the "Screenshot" section
The Middle East, as a region with huge mineral reserves, has always been a point of attraction for exporters of democratic values. We have long been accustomed to the fact that the exploration of new deposits in one of the countries is inevitably associated with a crisis of freedom of speech and expression. Caring Americans immediately moved the aircraft carriers to the region and effortlessly delivered everything necessary already the wings of the planes. Retired generals do not hesitate to talk about this.
Wesley Clark, retired U.S. Army general:
"About 10 days after 9/11, I was walking through the Pentagon and met Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on the way. I went down the stairs to discuss something with the people who worked for me. And one of the generals called me and told me that I had to come in for a talk with him. I told him that he must be very busy, and he replied: "No, no..... we have made the decision to go to war with Iraq." I went to see him again a few weeks later, by which time we were bombing Afghanistan. I asked him: "Are we still going to fight Iraq?" He answered: "Even worse!" He took a piece of paper from the table and said that he had just received it from above, from the Department of Defense. He said: "It says here that we have to invade 7 countries in 5 years starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
Such plans do not appear overnight, but are part of a long-term systematic policy of the White House. In fact, this is what the general tells us after the fact. One such plan for the fate of the Middle East was kindly published in the pages of the New York Times in September 2013. Robin Wright, an analyst at the American Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center, outlines a project that could gradually redraw the map of the Middle East. It is planned to divide 5 countries into 14 new associations.
Vadim Yelfimov, political scientist:
"If we look at how this plays out in terms of tempo, it's very simple It's like a piano, somewhere it's stronger, somewhere it's slower, and so on. That betrays the hand of the United States. Israel, by the way, is also not interested in a protracted conflict. Had Israel been on its own, it would have struck swiftly. But from the way the events are developing now, it becomes clear that it is the United States that controls this situation from the outside and from within."
The war in Palestine could be the trigger. The Yemeni group has already officially announced its accession to the conflict. The Algerian parliament gave their president the power to go to war under certain circumstances. Hezbollah representatives have announced their serious intentions. The region is on the verge of a large-scale war, the outcome of which is almost impossible to predict.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the U.S. candidate for president:
"I would like to see the IDF put the heads of a hundred Hamas leaders on sticks and line them up on the Israel-Gaza border as a sign that October 7, 2023 will never happen again. And I would use all the resources to build a border that protects the future. That decision should be taken by Israel, not us. This is what David Ben Gurion would tell Israel to do. That's what George Washington would tell the United States to do."
Such rhetoric and double standards regarding those killed in this conflict are clearly not conducive to a peaceful settlement of the situation. As we understand it, no one in the White House thinks about it. A blazing Middle East is of far greater interest to them than the unification of a region that could compete for its place in a multipolar world.
Douglas MacGregor, retired U.S. Army Colonel:
"We are now aggravating the situation in all areas where we believe that escalation is effective. We tried it in Ukraine. We escalated and aggravated the situation all the time. And now Ukraine is in ruins. My biggest fear is that if this regional war is unleashed, and I think it is possible, there will be no Israel by the end of it."
Where aircraft carriers of democracy appear, tens and hundreds of thousands of civilians inevitably die. Traditionally, they prefer to call them collateral losses in the struggle for some good cause. In fact, we are inevitably talking about you and me. One lady has already tried to drive the Sixth Fleet to the shores of Belarus. Maybe their absence saves us in some way.
