The difficulty in understanding the current geopolitical situation often depends on the
interpretative framework that is used to decipher events. I believe that the world-systems
theory (Wallerstein, Arrighi) that defines the current crisis in the hegemony of the
centre - the USA, a country that historically created the structure of the world market
and the relation of inter-State power that has been woven since 1945 - is the one which
more than any other is able to explain the complexity of the redefinition of the
relationships of power and balances, the redefinition of alliances and new strategic
areas. ---- Europe and the Mediterranean have become zones of mere support as Russia has
inserted itself as a producer of raw materials into world trade and enjoys the role of a
military and atomic power limited to its geographic area, while the areas of future
turbulence are in sub-Saharan Africa, as far as the potential for raw matrerials is
concerned, and the Pacific area around the emerging economic power that is China and its
needs for growth as a geopolitical power.
Taking on the role of an imperialist power is not cheap and given the USA's fair-sized
public debt (which, by the way, is similar to that of the Second World War, as a
percentage of GDP), it is trying to involve and delegate the role of active, operative
vassals to regional nations. This function in the area of the Middle East is currently
carried out by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. After the coup d'?tat in Egypt and the
destitution of Morsi, Saudi Arabia is the one that is hegemonizing the area, downscaling
its "competitors" thanks to its many-sided strategy of blocking any inclinations towards
democracy in which the masses participate, thus guaranteeing the stability that in their
culture is feudal/castal, without rights and therefore contrary even to the Islam of the
Muslim Brotherhood, which (badly) integrates religion and democracy. Indeed they were
active in the harsh repression in Bahrain, in the opposition movements in Yemen who mingle
with the mostly Shi'ite population. The emir of Qatar has abdicated in favour of his
eldest son, Tamim, in admittance of the defeat of his idea for an open Islam, the sort
promoted by the Brotherhood, who they support. And Turkey too, after the mobilizations of
the last weeks, is in economic difficulty thanks to the flight of foreign investment
funds, growing inflation and depreciation of the lira, something similar to what is
happening in India and Indonesia (the next "perfect storm"?).
Since July 2012, the head of the Saudi secret services (and secretary of the National
Security Council) has been a prince, Bandar bin Sultan, a strongman with a precise
strategy of strengthening Saudi Arabia and carrying out an active counter-revolution by
using religious differences in order to generate an explicit civil war against the
Shi'ites, a new front on which to mobilize the Sunni masses, thus counteracting the "Arab
Springs". The Califate against democracy! Bandar has excellent relations with the West: an
ambassador to the USA for 22 years, close friends with Bush Sr. and considerable arms
trade relations with Thatcher. It is said that he was behind the recent car bombs in Iraq
and Lebanon. In Syria he supports Jabhat al-Nusra with arms (Croatia has increased its
arms exports by 50%) and billions of dollars: this group is linked to al-Qaeda and is made
up of thousands of foreign mercenaries, fighters from many war fronts, and is thus
extremely operative. It has been the main catalyst over the past year. In "Il Manifesto"
of 30 August 2013, M. Giorgi calls them "al-Qaeda 2" - movementist, horizontal, against
the Kurds, the Alawites and secular nationalism, supporters of the Califate from Damascus
to Iraq, less hostile to the USA and the West. One leader, Shaker Wahiyib al-Fahdawi,
boasts of the fact that he does not mask his face and that he kills any Shi'ite that
crosses his path.
By now the clash in Syria is one between religions, also because the Free Syrian Army,
made up of ex-military personnel, is extremely weak despite being trained by the Americans
in Jordan. Made it is for this reason that after his meeting with the Syrian "democrats"
Hollande seemed a little less keen on bombing. The various armed groups have only light
weapons and a few tanks salvaged during combat, but with no possibility of providing
maintenance.
Assad's army enjoys the support of a fairly well-equipped air force, a large number of
land-to-air and land-to-sea missiles, albeit not of the latest generation, armoured
vehicles and with the help of the Iranian military and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, they
can stand up to the contenders in the redefinition of the zones of influence.
The intervention of American ships and missiles would seem to be a form of "relief", i.e.
counteraction, in order to destroy predominant military positions. But three days and
around 150 cruise (Tomahawk) missiles - at $1,500,000 each - has only a temporary effect.
The desired destructuring effect could only come after weeks and weeks. Thus, seeing that
no-one believes in humanitarian wars, not even the Labour Party in Britain, the true
motive would seem to be the cooperation that is needed and has been requested (by the
Saudis) in order to limit Assad's superiority. One thing is certain - seeing the USA
helping out al-Qaeda is paradoxical.
Monte
PS. To celebrate his new appointment in July 2012, Bandar organized a bomb attack on
Syrian officials. They responded with another attack in which his lieutenant died and it
seemed for a time that he himself had died, too.
Bandar recently met Putin to whom he proposed contracts for $15 billion's worth of arms in
order to isolate Assad, plus other goodies, including control over the Chechens at the
upcoming Games in Russia. Journalistic (sic!) versions of the meeting have it on the one
hand that they came to an agreement, or on the other hand that Putin blew his top and
promised to bombard the Saudi capital.
Related Link: http://www.fdca.it
Home »
» Anarkismo.net: What's going on in Syria? by Monte - FdCA (it)