Volgograd and the Conquest of Eurasia: Has the House of Saud seen its Stalingrad?
The events in
Volgograd are part of a much larger body of events and a multi-faceted
struggle that has been going on for decades as part of a cold war after
the Cold War—the post-Cold War cold war, if you please—that was a result
of two predominately Eurocentric world wars. When George Orwell wrote
his book 1984 and talked about a perpetual war between the fictional
entities of Oceania and Eurasia, he may have had a general idea about
the current events that are going on in mind or he may have just been
thinking of the struggle between the Soviet Union and, surrounded by two
great oceans, the United States of America.
So what does Volgograd have to do with
the dizzying notion presented? Firstly, it is not schizophrenic to tie
the events in Volgograd to either the conflict in the North Caucasus and
to the fighting in Syria or to tie Syria to the decades of fighting in
the post-Soviet North Caucasus. The fighting in Syria and the North
Caucuses are part of a broader struggle for the mastery over Eurasia.
The conflicts in the Middle East are part of this very grand narrative,
which to many seems to be so far from the reality of day to day life.
“Bandar Bush” goes to Mother Russia
For the purposes of supporting such an
assertion we will have to start with the not-so-secret visit of a
shadowy Saudi regime official to Moscow. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin
Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the infamous Saudi terrorist kingpin and former House
of Saud envoy to Washington turned intelligence guru, last visited the
Russian Federation in early-December 2013. Bandar bin Sultan was sent by
King Abdullah to solicit the Russian government into abandoning the
Syrians. The goal of Prince Bandar was to make a deal with the Kremlin
to let Damascus be overtaken by the Saudi-supported brigades that were
besieging the Syrian government forces from Syria’s countryside and
border regions since 2011. Bandar met with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and the two held closed-door discussions about both Syria and Iran
at Putin’s official residence in Novo-Ogaryovo.
The last meeting that Bandar had with
Putin was a few months earlier in July 2013. That meeting was also held
in Russia. The July talks between Prince Bandar and President Putin also
included Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Security Council
of the Russian Federation. One would also imagine that discussion about
the Iranians increased with each visit too, as Bandar certainly tried to
get the Russians on bad terms with their Iranian allies.
After Bandar’s first meeting with President Putin, it was widely reported that the House of Saud wanted to buy Russia off. Agence France-Presse and Reuters both
cited the unnamed diplomats of the Arab petro-monarchies, their March
14 lackeys in Lebanon, and their Syrian opposition puppets as saying
that Saudi Arabia offered to sign a lucrative arms contract with Moscow
and give the Kremlin a guarantee that the Arab petro-sheikdoms would not
threaten the Russian gas market in Europe or use Syria for a gas
pipeline to Europe.
Russia knew better than to do business
with the House of Saud. It had been offered a lucrative arms deal by the
Saudi regime much earlier, in 2008, to make some backdoor compromises
at the expense of Iran. After the compromises were made by Moscow the
House of Saud put the deal on ice. If the media leaks in AFP and Reuters
were not tactics or lies in the first place aimed at creating tensions
between the Syrian and Russian governments, the purportedly extravagant
bribes to betray Syria were wasted on the ears of Russian officials.
The House of Saud and the undemocratic
club of Arab petro-monarchies that form the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) have always talked large about money. The actions of these self
portrayed lords of the Arabia Peninsula have almost never matched their
words and promises. To anyone who deals with them, the House of Saud and
company are known for habitually making grand promises that they will
never keep, especially when it comes to money. Even when money is
delivered, the full amount committed is never given and much of it is
stolen by their corrupt partners and cronies. Whether it is the
unfulfilled 2008 arms contract with Russia that was facilitated with the
involvement of Iraqi former CIA asset Iyad Allawi or the overabundant
commitments of financial and logistical aid to the Lebanese and
Palestinian peoples that never materialized, the Arab petro-sheikhdoms
have never done more than talk grandly and then get their propagandist
to write articles about their generosity and splendor. Underneath all
the grandeur and sparkles there has always been bankruptcy, insecurity,
and emptiness.
A week after the first meeting with
Bandar, the Kremlin responded to the media buzz about the attempted
bribe by Saudi Arabia. Yury Ushakov, one of Putin’s top aides and the
former Russian ambassador to the US, categorically rejected the notion
that any deal was accepted or even entertained by the Kremlin. Ushakov
avowed that not even bilateral cooperation was discussed between the
Saudis and Russia. According to the Kremlin official, the talks between
Bandar and Putin were simply about the policies of Moscow and Riyadh on
Syria and the second international peace conference being planned about
Syria in Geneva, Switzerland.
More Leaks: Fighting Fire with Fire?
If his objective was to get the Russians
to abandon Syria, Prince Bandar left both meetings in Russia
empty-handed. Nevertheless, his visit left a trail of unverifiable
reports and speculation. Discretion is always needed when analyzing
these accounts which are part of the information war about Syria being
waged on all sides by the media. The planted story from the Saudi side
about trying to buy the Russians was not the only account of what took
place in the Russian-Saudi talks. There was also a purported diplomatic
leak which most likely surfaced as a counter-move to the planted story
about Bandar’s proposal. This leak elaborated even further on the
meeting between Bandar and Putin. Threats were made according to the
second leak that was published in Arabic by the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir on August 21, 2013.
According to the Lebanese newspaper, not
only did Prince Bandar tell the Russians during their first July
meeting that the regimes of the GCC would not threaten the Russian gas
monopoly in Europe, but he made promises to the Russians that they could
keep their naval facility on the Mediterranean coast of Syria and that
he would give the House of Saud’s guarantee to protect the 2014 Winter
Olympics being held in the North Caucasian resort city of Sochi, on the
eastern coast of the Black Sea, from the Chechen separatist militias
under Saudi control. If Moscow cooperated with Riyadh and Washington
against Damascus, the leak discloses that Bandar also stated that the
same Chechen militants fighting inside Syria to topple the Syrian
government would not be given a role in Syria’s political future.
When the Russians refused to betray
their Syrian allies, Prince Bandar then threatened Russia with the
cancellation of the second planned peace conference in Geneva and with
the unleashing of the military option against the Syrians the leak
imparts.
This leak, which presents a veiled Saudi
threat about the intended attacks on the Winter Olympics in Sochi, led
to a frenzy of speculations internationally until the end of August
2013, amid the high tensions arising from the US threats to attack Syria
and the threats coming from Iran to intervene on the side of their
Syrians allies against the United States. Originating from the same
politically affiliated media circle in Lebanon, reports about Russian
military preparations to attack Saudi Arabia in response to a war
against Syria began to circulate from the newspaper Al-Ahed also, further fueling the chain of speculations.
A House of Saud Spin on the Neo-Con “Redirection”
Seymour Hersh wrote in 2007 that after
the 2006 defeat of Israel in Lebanon that the US government had a new
strategy called the “redirection.” According to Hersh, the “redirection”
had “brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with
Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian
conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.” With the cooperation of
Saudi Arabia and all the same players that helped launch Osama bin
Ladin’s career in Afghanistan, the US government took “part in
clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria.”
The most important thing to note is what Hersh says next: “A by-product
of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups
that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and
sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
A new House of Saud spin on the
“redirection” has begun. If there is anything the House of Saud knows
well, it is rounding up fanatics as tools at the service of Saudi
Arabia’s patrons in Washington. They did it in Afghanistan, they did it
Bosnia, they have done it in Russia’s North Caucasus, they did it in
Libya, and they are doing it in both Lebanon and Syria. It does not take
the British newspaper The Independent to publish an article titled “Mass murder in the Middle East is funded by our friends the Saudis” for the well-informed to realize this.
The terrorist bombings in Lebanon mark a
new phase of the conflict in Syria, which is aimed at forcing Hezbollah
to retreat from Syria by fighting in a civil war on its home turf. The
attacks are part of the “redirection.” The House of Saud has accented
this new phase through its ties to the terrorist attacks on the Iranian
Embassy in Beirut on November 19, 2013. The attacks were carried out by
individuals linked to the notorious Ahmed Al-Assir who waged a reckless
battle against the Lebanese military from the Lebanese city of Sidon as
part of an effort to ignite a sectarian civil war in Lebanon.
Al-Assir’s rise, however, was
politically and logistically aided by the House of Saud and its
shameless Hariri clients in Lebanon. He is also part of the same
“redirection” policy and current that brought Fatah Al-Islam to Lebanon.
This is why it is no surprise to see Hariri’s Future Party flag flying alongside Al-Qaeda flags
in Lebanon. After Al-Assir’s failed attempt to start a sectarian
Lebanese civil war, he went into hiding and it was even alleged that he
was taken in by one of the GCC embassies.
In regard to the House of Saud’s roles
in the bombings in Lebanon, Hezbollah would confirm that the attack on
the Iranian Embassy in Beirut was linked to the House of Saud.
Hezbollah’s leadership would report that the Abdullah Izzam Brigade,
which is affiliated to Al-Qaeda and tied to the bombings, is directly
linked to the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, the Saudi agent, Majed
Al-Majed, responsible for the attack would be apprehended by Lebanese
security forces in late-December 2013. He had entered Lebanon after
working with Al-Nusra in Syria. Fars News Agency, an Iranian
media outlet, would report on January 2, 2014 that unnamed Lebanese
sources had also confirmed that they had discovered that the attack was
linked to Prince Bandar.
Wrath of the House of Saud Unleashed?
A lot changed between the first and
second meetings that Prince Bandar and Vladimir Putin had, respectively
in July 2013 and December 2013. The House of Saud expected its US patron
to get the Pentagon involved in a conventional bombing campaign against
Syria in the month of September. It is more than likely that Riyadh was
in the dark about the nature of secret negotiations that the US and
Iran were holding through the backchannel of Oman in the backdrop of
what appeared to be an escalation towards open war.
Bandar’s threat to reassess the House of
Saud’s ties with Washington is probably a direct result of the US
government keeping the House of Saud in the dark about using Syria as a
means of negotiating with the Iranian government. US officials may have
instigated the House of Saud to intensify its offensive against Syria to
catalyze the Iranians into making a deal to avoid an attack on Syria
and a regional war. Moreover, not only did the situation between the US
and Iran change, Russia would eventually sign an important energy
contract for Syrian natural gas in the Mediterranean Sea. The House of
Saud has been undermined heavily in multiple ways and it is beginning to
assess its own expendability.
If one scratches deep enough, they will
find that the same ilk that attacked the Iranian Embassy in Beirut also
attacked the Russian Embassy in Damascus. Both terrorist attacks were
gifts to Iran and Russia, which served as reprisals for the Iranian and
Russian roles in protecting Syria from regime change and a destructive
war. It should, however, be discerned if the House of Saud is genuinely
lashing out at Iran and Russia or if it being manipulated to further the
goals of Washington in the US negotiations with Tehran, Moscow, and
Damascus.
In the same manner, the House of Saud
wants to generously reward Hezbollah too for its role in protecting
Syria by crippling Hezbollah domestically in Lebanon. Riyadh may
possibly not want a full scale war in Lebanon like the Israelis do, but
it does want to neutralize and eliminate Hezbollah from the Lebanese
landscape. In this regard, Saudi Arabia has earnestly been scheming to
recruit Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman and the Lebanese military
against Hezbollah and its supporters.
The Saud grant of three billion dollars
to the Lebanese Armed Forces is not only blood money being given to
Lebanon as a means of exonerating Saudi Arabia for its role in the
terrorist bombings that have gripped the Lebanese Republic since 2013,
the Saudi money is also aimed at wishfully restructuring the Lebanese
military as a means of using it to neutralize Hezbollah. In line with
the House of Saud’s efforts, pledges from the United Arab Emirates and
reports that NATO countries are also planning on donating money and arms
to the Lebanese military started.
In addition to the terrorists bombings
in Lebanon and the attack on the Russian Embassy in Damascus, Russia has
also been attacked. Since the Syrian conflict intensified there has
been a flaring of tensions in Russia’s North Caucasus and a breakout of
terrorist attacks. Russian Muslim clerics, known for their views on
co-existence between Russia’s Christian and Muslim communities and
anti-separatist views, have been murdered. The bombings in Volgograd are
just the most recent cases and an expansion into the Volga of what is
happening in the North Caucasus, but they come disturbingly close to the
start of the Winter Olympics that Prince Bandar was saying would be
“protected” if Moscow betrayed Syria.
Can the House of Saud Stand on its Own Feet?
It is a widely believed that you will
find the US and Israelis pulling a lot of the strings if you look behind
the dealings of the House of Saud. That view is being somewhat
challenged now. Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Saudi
Arabia’s ambassador to the UK, threatened that Saudi Arabia will go it
alone against Syria and Iran in a December 2013 article. The letter,
like the Saudi rejection of their UN Security Council seat, was airing
the House of Saud’s rage against the realists running US foreign policy.
In this same context, it should also be
noted for those that think that Saudi Arabia has zero freedom of action
that Israeli leaders have stressed for many years that Tel Aviv needs to
cooperate secretly with Saudi Arabia
to manipulate the US against Iran. This is epitomized by the words of
Israeli Brigadier-General Oded Tira: “We must clandestinely cooperate
with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran.”
Along similar lines, some may point out that together the House of Saud and Israel
got France to delay an interim nuclear agreement between the Iranians
and the P5+1 in Geneva. The House of Saud rewarded Paris through
lucrative deals, which includes making sure that the grant it gives to
the Lebanese military is spent on French military hardware. Saad Hariri,
the main Saudi client in Lebanon, even met Francois Hollande and French
officials in Saudi Arabia in context of the deal. Appeasing the House
of Saud and Israel, French President Hollande has replicated France’s
stonewalling of the P5+1 interim nuclear deal with Iran by trying to
spoil the second Syria peace conference in Geneva by saying that there
can be no political solution inside Syria if President Bashar Al-Assad
stays in power.
Again, however, it has to be asked, is
enraging Saudi Arabia part of a US strategy to make the Saudis exert
maximum pressure on Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus so that the United
States can optimize its gains in negotiations? After all, it did turn
out that the US was in league with France in Geneva and that the US used
the French stonewalling of an agreement with Iran to make additional
demands from the Iranians during the negotiations. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed that the US negotiation team had
actually circulated a draft agreement that had been amended in response
to France’s demands before Iran and the other world powers even had a
chance to study them. The draft by the US team was passed around, in
Foreign Minister Lavrov’s own words, “literally at the last moment, when
we were about to leave Geneva.”
Instead of debating on the level of
independence that the House of Saud possesses, it is important to ask if
Saudi Arabia can act on its own and to what degree can the House of
Saud act as an independent actor. This looks like a far easier question
to answer. It is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia can act on its own in
most instances or even remain an intact state. This is why Israeli
strategists very clearly state that Saudi Arabia is destined to fall
apart. “The entire Arabian Peninsula is a natural candidate for
dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is
inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia,” the Israeli Yinon Plan deems.
Strategists in Washington are also aware of this and this is also why
they have replicated models of a fragmented Saudi Arabia.
This gives rise to another important question: if they US assess that
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a sustainable entity, will it use it
until the burns out like a flame? Is this what is happening and is Saudi
Arabia being sacrificed or setup to take the blame as the “fall guy” by
the United States?
Who is Hiding Behind the House of Saud?
Looking back at Lebanon, the messages
from international media outlets via their headlines is that the
bombings in Lebanon highlight or reflect a power struggle between the
House of Saud and Tehran in Lebanon and the rest of the region. Saying
nothing about the major roles of the US, Israel, and their European
allies, these misleading reports by the likes of journalists like Anne
Barnard casually blame everything in Syria and Lebanon on a rivalry
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, erasing the entire history behind what
has happened and casually sweeping all the interests behind the
conflict(s) under the rug. This is dishonest and painting a twisted
Orientalist narrative.
The outlets trying to make it sound like
all the Middle East’s problems are gravitating around some sort of
Iranian and Saudi rivalry might as well write that “the Saudis and
Iranians are the sources behind the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the
sources behind the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq that crippled the
most advanced Arab country, the ones that are blockading medication from
reaching Gaza due to their rivalry, the ones who enforced a no-fly zone
over Libya, the ones that are launching killer drone attacks on Yemen,
and the ones that are responsible for the billions of dollars that
disappeared from the Iraqi Treasury in 2003 after Washington and London
invaded that country and controlled its finances.” These outlets and
reports are tacitly washing the hands of actors like Washington, Tel
Aviv, Paris, and London clean of blood by trying to construct a series
of false narratives that either blame everything on a regional rivalry
between Tehran and Riyadh or the premise that the Sunni Muslims and Shia
Muslims are fighting an eternal war that they are biologically
programmed to wage against one another.
Arabs and Iranians and Shias and Sunnis
are tacitly painted as un-human creatures that cannot be understood and
savages to audiences. The New York Times even dishonestly
implies that the Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims in Lebanon are killing
one another in tit-for-tat attacks. It sneakily implies that Hezbollah
and its Lebanese rivals are assassinating one another. Bernard, its
reporter in Lebanon who was mentioned earlier, along with another
colleague write:
In what have been seen as tit-for-tat attacks, car bombs have targeted Hezbollah-dominated neighborhoods in the southern suburbs of Beirut and Sunni mosques in the northern city of Tripoli.On Friday, a powerful car bomb killed Mohamad B. Chatah, a former Lebanese finance minister who was a major figure in the Future bloc, a political group that is Hezbollah’s main Sunni rival.
The New York Times is cunningly
trying to make its readers think that Hezbollah was responsible for the
bombing as part of a Shiite-Sunni sectarian conflict by concluding with
an explanation that the slain former Lebanese finance minister belonged
to “Hezbollah’s main Sunni rival” after saying that the bombings in
Lebanon “have been seen as tit-for-tat attacks” between the areas that
support Hezbollah and “Sunni mosques” in Tripoli
The US and Israel wish that a
Shiite-Sunni sectarian conflict was occurring in Lebanon and the rest of
the Middle East. They have been working for this. It has been them that
have been manipulating Saudi Arabia to instigate sectarianism. The US
and Israel have been prodding the House of Saud—which does not represent
the Sunni Muslims, let alone the people of Saudi Arabia which are under
its occupation—against Iran, all the while trying to conceal and
justify the conflict being instigated as some sort of “natural” rivalry
between Shiites and Sunnis that is being played out across the Middle
East.
It has been assessed with high
confidence by outsiders concerned by the House of Saud’s inner dealings
that Prince Bandar is one of the three Al-Saud princes managing Saudi
Arabia’s security and foreign policy; the other two being Prince
Abdulaziz bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the Saudi deputy foreign
minister and one of King Abdullah’s point men on Syria due to his ties
to Syria from his maternal side, and Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin
Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the interior minister. All three of them are tied to
the United States more than any of their predecessors. Prince Bandar
himself has a long history of working closely with the United States,
which explains the endearing moniker of “Bandar Bush” that he is widely
called by. “Chemical Bandar” can be added to the list too, because of the reports about his ties to the Syrian chemical weapon attacks in Ghouta.
As a US client, Saudi Arabia is a source
of instability because it has been conditioned hence by Washington.
Fighting the terrorist and extremist threat is now being used by the US
as a point of convergence with Iran, which coincidently has authored the
World Against Violence and Extremism (WAVE) motion at the United
Nations. In reality, the author of the regional problems and instability
has been Washington itself. In a masterstroke, the realists now at the
helm of foreign policy are pushing American-Iranian rapprochement on the
basis of what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor
of the US, said would be based on Tehran and Washington working
together to secure Iran’s “volatile regional environment.” “Any eventual
reconciliation [between the US and Iranian governments] should be based
on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what
currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran,” he
explains. The point should not be lost either that Brzezinski is the man
who worked with the Saudis to arm the Afghan Mujahedeen against the
Soviets after he organized an intelligence operation to fool the Soviets
into militarily entering Afghanistan in the first place.
The House of Saud did not work alone in
Afghanistan during the Cold War either. It was rigorously backed by
Washington. The United States was even more involved in the fighting. It
is the same in Syria. If the diplomatic leak is to be believed about
the meeting between Bandar and Putin, it is of merit to note that
“Bandar Bush” told Putin that any “Saudi-Russian understanding” would
also be part of an “American-Russian understanding.”
Has the “Redirection” Seen its Stalingrad?
Volgograd was called Stalingrad for a
part of Soviet history, in honour of the Republic of Georgia’s most
famous son and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. It was Volgograd, back then
called Stalingrad, where the Germans were stopped and the tide of war in
Europe was turned against Hitler and his Axis allies in Europe. The
Battle of Stalingrad was where the Nazis were defeated and it was in the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where the bulk of the fighting against
the Germans was conducted. Nor is it any exaggeration to credit the
Soviets—Russian, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Tartar, Georgian, Armenian,
Ukrainian, Belarusian, Chechen, and all—for doing most of the fighting
to defeat the Germans in the Second World War.
Judging by the bellicose 2013 New Years Eve speech
of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the terrorist attacks in Volgograd
will be the start of another Battle of Stalingrad of some sorts and the
launch of another Russian “war on terror.” Many of the terrorists that
Russia will go after are in Syria and supported by the House of Saud.
The opponents of the Resistance Bloc
that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian resistance groups form
have called the battlefields in Syria the Stalingrad of Iran and its
regional allies. Syria has been a Stalingrad of some sorts too, but not
for the Resistance Bloc. The alliance formed by the US, Britain, France,
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel has begun to unravel in its
efforts to enforce regime change in Syria. The last few years have
marked the beginning of a humiliating defeat for those funding
extremism, separatism, and terrorism against countries like Russia,
China, Iran, and Syria as a means of preventing Eurasian cohesion.
Another front of this same battle is being politically waged by the US
and the EU in the Ukraine in a move to prevent the Ukrainians from
integrating with Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan.
Volgograd and the Conquest of Eurasia
While speculation has been entertained
with warning in this text, most of what has been explained has not been
speculative. The House of Saud has had a role in destabilizing the
Russian Federation and organizing terrorist attacks inside Russia.
Support or oppose the separatist movements in the North Caucasus, the
point is that they have been opportunistically aided and used by the
House of Saud and Washington. Despite the authenticity of the narrative
about Bandar’s threats against Russia, Volgograd is about Syria and
Syria is about Volgograd. Both are events taking place as part of the
same struggle. The US has been trying to encroach into Syria as a means
of targeting Russia and encroaching deeper in the heart of Eurasia.
When George Orwell wrote 1984
he saw the world divided into several entities at constant or “eternal”
war with one another. His fictitious superstates police language, use
total surveillance, and utterly manipulate mass communication to
indoctrinate and deceive their peoples. Roughly speaking, Orwell’s Oceania is
formed by the US and its formal and informal territories in the Western
Hemisphere, which the Monroe Doctrine has essentially declared are US
colonies, confederated with Britain and the settler
colonies-cum-dominions of the former British Empire (Australia, Canada,
Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa). The Orwellian concept of Eurasia is an amalgamation of the Soviet Union with continental Europe. The entity of Eastasia
on the other hand is formed around China. Southeast Asia, India, and
the parts of Africa that do not fall under the influence of Oceanic
South Africa are disputed territory that is constantly fought for.
Although not specifically mentioned, it can be extrapolated that
Southwest Asia, where Syria is located, or parts of it are probably part
of this fictional disputed territory, which includes North Africa.
If we try to fit Orwellian terms onto the present set of global relations, we can say that Oceania has made its moves against Eurasia/Eastasia for control of disputed territory (in the Middle East and North Africa).
1984 is not just a novel, it is a warning from the farseeing Orwell. Nonetheless, never did he imagine that his Eurasia would make cause with or include Eastasia through a core triple alliance and coalition comprised of Russia, China, and Iran. Eurasia will finish, in one way or another, what Oceania
has started. All the while, as the House of Saud and the other rulers
of the Arab petro-sheikhdoms continue to compete with one another in
building fancy towers, the Sword of Damocles is getting heavier over
their heads.
About the author:
An award-winning author and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is the author of The Globalization of NATO (Clarity Press) and a forthcoming book The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of Africa. He has also contributed to several other books ranging from cultural critique to international relations. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy.Related content:
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole
responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on
Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect
statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not
modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For
publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca
Copyright © Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment