 |
| Adults discussing geopolitics. |
Countries that are good at war are good at peace. Unfortunately America has been adept at neither, and its fleeting elevation to global hegemon status was mainly due to unusually good luck and the fact that its main rivals all cancelled each other out for a convenient period.
Now that window of opportunity, which opened in 1945, appears to be closing. There could be no surer sign of this than the recent Ankara summit, at which the leaders of Russia, Iran, and Turkey came together to arrange the fate and future of Syria.
America was noticeably absent, and the reason for that was because, as the still-acknowledged "world hegemon," it would have been deeply humiliating for America to attend, hence Trump's recent dismissive statement on Syria, which was along the lines of "Nah, we're not interested in Syria anymore—pulling out."
But just looking at Syria, are we supposed to believe that the US government is not interested in it? Don't make me laugh! Of course it is. In fact, the US government is probably obsessed with Syria. After all, it is right next to their main ally, Israel, whose co-ethnics in the USA still supply over a third of political donations to its deeply corrupt and undemocratic political system. Syria also controls a vital area of territory linking the oil fields of the Middle East to the Mediterranean. How could the US not be interested in Syria?
If Trump had attended the Ankara Summit with Erdogan, Rouhani, and Putin, they would have had to have offered him the kiddie chair because that would be commensurate with America's shrunken role in the conflict.
When the Arab Spring kicked off in 2011, America was firmly in the driving seat in pole position. Turkey was still a cowed and obedient member of the Western alliance, minding its Ps and Qs and hoping to be allowed into the EU. Russia and Iran, meanwhile, were focused elsewhere. In fact, up until Putin apparently read this article, "The Failure of Putin," the Russians weren't particularly interested even in saving their old ally Bashar al-Assad.
As chaos spread throughout the Middle East, America was in the perfect position to bolster its power and influence by shoring up certain regimes and gently pushing other ones—as long as it made the right decisions. It didn't.
Undoubtedly influenced by some of the well-funded lobbies in Washington, the US government made nothing but wrong decisions. In the case of Syria, they ended up backing first proto-ISIS, which was fine with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but a hard sell anywhere else.
Following this debacle the State Department and the Pentagon then loaded its political hopes onto the region's eternal whipping boy, the Kurds.
Now the Kurds are no better or worse than anyone else in the kebab-o-sphere, but their big problem is that their independence raises serious existential issues for all the big surrounding states, including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In fact, if you wanted a quick way to alienate or galvanise these four states against you, the quickest way would be to come out in support of the Kurds, which the Americans, being such geopolitical geniuses, promptly did.
At present, America has a zone of ex-Isis territory in Northern Syria that is weakly held by Kurds, supported by around 2,000 US troops or more, as well as a small bit of desert near the Jordanian border.
Opposed to this, a resurgent Syria is claiming back its sovereign territory, now that the ISIS Caliphate—America's present excuse for being in the country—has collapsed. In this Syria is now backed up by a united front of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Russia.
Meanwhile, US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia are looking weak, and, after supporting ISIS, have lost any moral right to take a hand in Syria. In short, America's only option is to keep pissing everybody off by continuing to support the Kurds, or to get out of the mess they created, which will mean leaving their erstwhile allies in the lurch.
I think we all know what America will do.
The solution that the grown-ups will decide on will be this: A resumption of all the pre-war, pre-Arab Spring borders, but with some local autonomy for Iraqi Kurds and Syrian Kurds under the control of Kurdish organisations that Assad, Erdogan, and the Iraqis approve of. This will mean groups like the Iraq-based Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) will find favour, while unacceptable Kurdish groups like the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) will find themselves under a bus.
Indeed, the complexities of the situation was the reason why Assad proved to be the right horse in this race, as opposed to, say, the US's first choice, namely radical Sunni jihadis—because the Assad regime has a track record of working with Syria's many minorities. This is not suprising really, as Assad is himself part of the country's Alawite minority.
America meanwhile will be effectively pushed out of much of the Middle East. But not just militarily and diplomatically. While all this was going on, guess what else happened? Yes, China launched the "oil yuan," dealing a major blow to yet another pillar of the American Empire, the petrodollar.
Every empire dies for internal and external reasons. In the case of Rome, the internal reason was adverse economic factors that impacted adversely on demographics, while the external reason was opening the gates of the empire to the German foederati in the hope that they would occupy the empty spaces of the Empire and help defend its borders. They didn't.
In America's case the internal reason for the failure of its empire was that it was too democratic, materialistic, and deracinated to create a true imperial class. The external reason was its inability to make the correct geopolitical decisions. This may have has something to do with all its foreign policy being funnelled through a Neocon-filter dedicated to serving the ethnic interests of its political donor class.
Become a Patron!
Now that window of opportunity, which opened in 1945, appears to be closing. There could be no surer sign of this than the recent Ankara summit, at which the leaders of Russia, Iran, and Turkey came together to arrange the fate and future of Syria.
America was noticeably absent, and the reason for that was because, as the still-acknowledged "world hegemon," it would have been deeply humiliating for America to attend, hence Trump's recent dismissive statement on Syria, which was along the lines of "Nah, we're not interested in Syria anymore—pulling out."
On a side note, this constant talk of America pulling out of things—NATO, NAFTA, TPP, Syria, etc.—is becoming a bit of a motif of the Trump presidency, and may allude to deeper trends under the surface.
If Trump had attended the Ankara Summit with Erdogan, Rouhani, and Putin, they would have had to have offered him the kiddie chair because that would be commensurate with America's shrunken role in the conflict.
When the Arab Spring kicked off in 2011, America was firmly in the driving seat in pole position. Turkey was still a cowed and obedient member of the Western alliance, minding its Ps and Qs and hoping to be allowed into the EU. Russia and Iran, meanwhile, were focused elsewhere. In fact, up until Putin apparently read this article, "The Failure of Putin," the Russians weren't particularly interested even in saving their old ally Bashar al-Assad.
As chaos spread throughout the Middle East, America was in the perfect position to bolster its power and influence by shoring up certain regimes and gently pushing other ones—as long as it made the right decisions. It didn't.
Undoubtedly influenced by some of the well-funded lobbies in Washington, the US government made nothing but wrong decisions. In the case of Syria, they ended up backing first proto-ISIS, which was fine with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but a hard sell anywhere else.
 |
| So much freedom here it hurts. |
Now the Kurds are no better or worse than anyone else in the kebab-o-sphere, but their big problem is that their independence raises serious existential issues for all the big surrounding states, including Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In fact, if you wanted a quick way to alienate or galvanise these four states against you, the quickest way would be to come out in support of the Kurds, which the Americans, being such geopolitical geniuses, promptly did.
At present, America has a zone of ex-Isis territory in Northern Syria that is weakly held by Kurds, supported by around 2,000 US troops or more, as well as a small bit of desert near the Jordanian border.
 |
| Fun while it lasted: America's chosen allies for the last few years. |
Meanwhile, US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia are looking weak, and, after supporting ISIS, have lost any moral right to take a hand in Syria. In short, America's only option is to keep pissing everybody off by continuing to support the Kurds, or to get out of the mess they created, which will mean leaving their erstwhile allies in the lurch.
I think we all know what America will do.
The solution that the grown-ups will decide on will be this: A resumption of all the pre-war, pre-Arab Spring borders, but with some local autonomy for Iraqi Kurds and Syrian Kurds under the control of Kurdish organisations that Assad, Erdogan, and the Iraqis approve of. This will mean groups like the Iraq-based Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) will find favour, while unacceptable Kurdish groups like the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) will find themselves under a bus.
Indeed, the complexities of the situation was the reason why Assad proved to be the right horse in this race, as opposed to, say, the US's first choice, namely radical Sunni jihadis—because the Assad regime has a track record of working with Syria's many minorities. This is not suprising really, as Assad is himself part of the country's Alawite minority.
America meanwhile will be effectively pushed out of much of the Middle East. But not just militarily and diplomatically. While all this was going on, guess what else happened? Yes, China launched the "oil yuan," dealing a major blow to yet another pillar of the American Empire, the petrodollar.
Every empire dies for internal and external reasons. In the case of Rome, the internal reason was adverse economic factors that impacted adversely on demographics, while the external reason was opening the gates of the empire to the German foederati in the hope that they would occupy the empty spaces of the Empire and help defend its borders. They didn't.
In America's case the internal reason for the failure of its empire was that it was too democratic, materialistic, and deracinated to create a true imperial class. The external reason was its inability to make the correct geopolitical decisions. This may have has something to do with all its foreign policy being funnelled through a Neocon-filter dedicated to serving the ethnic interests of its political donor class.
Become a Patron!
