Chapter 32

Colonial Oil Politics

Rivalry of Petro Colonial Empires

“Global Clash of Races-Diplomacy of Civilizations” © (2006) Kalki Gaur

32(1) Purport

(1) Oil Prices Demands US Petro-Colonialism

Horse cannot become friendly with grass otherwise it will starve to death. Hegemon of the World no longer can avoid preemptive attacks on selected oil-producing nations, when cost of military invasion, colonial administration and political cost are way below the cost of paying for imported oil. The European Union portends the days of nation states nearing its end in 21st Century. OPEC was created by conspiring American Big Oil to profit by artificial price rise by artificially production manipulation by OPEC oil producers. American and British secret services mobilized Bedouin Wahhabi clergy to engineer their secession from Ottoman Caliphate. The CIA supported Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia to engineer the secession of Muslim republics from the Soviet Union. United States engineered Shiite fundamentalism to overthrow Shah of Iran. United States engineered the Taleban rule in Afghanistan with direct help of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. However, the Sunni terrorist attacks of 9/11 and price gouging by OPEC nations to cross $70 per barrel gave a new age of Oil Colonialism. The civilized world feels that ever rising oil price rise justifies the return of new age of Oil Colonial Empires in terrorism prone Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. Colonization of thinly populated oil-producing countries in the Middle East and Central Asia by leading oil-consuming nations and industrial powers shall provide for energy security in the populous civilized world, while causing some hardship for colonial populations in the oil-producing world. Unchecked oil-price rise shall cripple the economies of the industrialized world. The post-1500 European Colonialism was the direct result of European powers to escape from Ottoman price gauging for Indian spices essential for European meat preservation during winter months. The post-2003 new age of Oil Colonialism is the direct result of the price gauging of the Middle Eastern OPEC that artificially manipulated the price for a barrel of crude oil to triple in three years, from $25 in April 2003, to over $72 in April 2006. It would be cheaper for the United States, Germany, France, China and India to invade, occupy and administer as colonies selected oil-producing OPEC nations than paying for the imported oil bill. Thinly populated wealthy oil producing has signed their death warrants by hiking up the oil prices. The terrorism promoting oil-producing nations has signed their own death warrants failing to stop the terrorist attacks on the United States, Russia, India and China. Like the 1885 Partition of Africa, the great powers should negotiate and arrive at Partition of Oil Producing Middle East, Central Asia and Africa among major oil importing industrial powers, namely, United States, China, India, Japan, Germany, France, Britain and South Korea. The colonial occupation of thinly populated oil-producing nations by populous industrialized nations is lesser an evil than the disruption of the industrialized economies that would result, if the oil-producing nations continued to manipulate oil prices. Partition of Oil-Producing Nations into colonies of world powers is a moral imperative otherwise the civilized world shall face the specter of $100-a-barrel oil prices, which could translate into a $6-a-gallon gasoline and heating oil and worldwide Depression and end of the Industrial Civilization as we know it. American public will endorse albeit demand American imperialism and oil colonialism provided it brings back the retail price of gasoline to below $1-a-gallon for American consumers.

 

(2) Petro-Imperialism of 21st Century.

President Eisenhower harnessed the diplomatic capital of the United States in post-second world war era to unleash the decolonization of European colonial empires, because Prime Minister Winston Churchill refused to hand over half of British Empire, in lieu of British war debt to America. President George Bush released the bottled up genie of colonialism during the blatant invasion of Iraq, and unleashed a new historical age of oil-colonialism in the 21st Century. The genie of Petro-imperialism and oil colonialism cannot be put back into the bottle. Welcome to the new age of Petro-Imperialism and oil colonial empires in the 21st Century. President Bush created petro-imperialism in Iraq. President Bush gave a favorable civilian nuclear deal to India to secure India’s participation in the American goals for energy security, especially the Middle East including Iran. The role of oil in defining and distorting American foreign and domestic policy is a broad trend, not new to the Bush years, but exacerbated by Bush administration’s policies. President Bush thinks Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath. You can’t ask better than that. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion of Iraq. The pursuit of oil has for at least 30 years after the Trucial States or UAE, Bahrain and Qatar became independent of British Empire in 1971, and after the formation of OPEC oil cartel, and crude oil became one of the defining elements of American policy in the world. Bush administration, unusually dominated by the oilmen, has taken the America’s addiction to oil to a new and interesting levels. The United States has embraced a kind of “Petro-Imperialism,” the key aspect of which is the Pentagon is transformation into a global oil-protection force. The US military puts up a democratic façade, emphasizes freedom of the seas for pipeline routes and seeks to secure and protect, drill and ship oil, and does not administer everyday affairs.

 

(3) Great Powers Write International Law

The White House if it so decides, can legitimize Great Powers right to invade Oil-producing country to establish Colonial Empire, and if accepted by other world powers, automatically amends the International Law to make Colonial Empires as principal actors of the International System in the 21st Century, as it had been during 18th and 19th Century. America by Right of Unilateralism has right to amend International Law, to empower civilizations and world powers greater freedom to use unrestricted excessive force against oil-producing countries to establish Oil-Colonial Empires in the 21st Centruy.

One. The Unilateralist policies of President Bush and American invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea are legally valid under International Law.

Two. International Law is whatever Great Powers agree by means of Treaty. International Law is whatever President Bush determines should be part of International Law, and if other great powers or the United Nations implicitly or explicitly accept it. The International Law is not revealed by a Prophet or descends from heaven. The International Law is what great powers of the world agree what International Law is, by Treaty, proclamation or agreement. Normally the dominant power has disproportionate power to determine the International Law for the world as normally great powers accept the lead of the dominant power. Just as any legislation of the Congress and Senate acquires the force of Law when signed by the President, similarly whatever Great Powers decide becomes International Law. The United Nations legitimized American invasion of Iraq and recognized America as the Occupying Power, and this act of the United Nations heralded a new age of Colonial Empires in the 21st Century.

These are the arguments author makes in this chapter.

 

32(2) Talk Points

(1) To Support or Oppose US Colony in Iraq?

One. The post-Saddam new World Order was not clear in August 2003, when sole-superpower United States led by President Bush invaded oil-rich Iraq against the world public opinion, asserting that might is right, but soon afterwards the mighty Pentagon lost its nerves, when American soldiers started dying because of the Guerrilla war waged by the Iraqi resistance. If Pentagon lost the Iraqi war then this defeat might cost United States its status as the top super power of the world. As a result India and China would emerge as super powers and the Troika of USA, China and India would lead the world in consultation with Russia and France. If Saddam Hussein ever regained his power in Iraq, would mean the sure death of Wahhabi Al Saud monarchy of Saudi Arabia and Al Sabah Sheikhdom in Kuwait.

 

The seat of Islamic Caliphate would again shift from Semite Saudi Arabia to Aryans, may be South Asian Mughal Caliphate, which would propagate Deobandi Sunni Sect and Shiite Sufi Mysticism as the dominant doctrine of Islam replacing barbarian Wahhabi fundamentalism presently dominating Mecca and Medina. United States would not longer need the continued support of fundamentalist Wahhabi clergy for the continued domination and control over Arabian oil and gas resources. Turkey and India has seen through the pro-Wahhabi conspiracy of American colonialism, which promoted ethnic separatism and Wahhabi fundamentalism to undermine the claims of Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire over the oil and gas resources of Arabia and Caspian Central Asia. India and China emerged as the principal players in the Great Oil Game of Eurasia. Either India might send troops to Iraq to maintain American oil colonialism in Iraq to get a fair share of the oil booty, or India might join France, Russia and China to evict Pentagon from Iraq establish rival Big Oil.

 

The defeat of United States might be in the national interests of countries that feared Iraq-type attacks from United States. However, the defeat of the United States in Iraq, might derail the new age of colonial empires that took birth when President Bush conquered Iraq, without much loss of lives. The defeat of American colonialism might be in the interest of France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Japan and China, as it would allow these Eurasian countries to exploit Iraqi oil and gas resources profitably, in competition with the American Big Oil. Jury is out and world leaders would decide their policies, in terms of the oil interests. The ground realities would determine the oil policies. The question for the diplomats of India, France, Germany, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia and China is: Whether the defeat of Pentagon and return of Saddam Hussein protect their national interests more than the victory of the Pentagon’s first colonial occupation of oil-rich Iraq?

 

(2) Oil Dreams of Turkey, India, Iran, France

Two. The diplomats of France, Germany, Turkey and India seek to define their national interests in terms of oil in Iraq. Secular Turkey, India and Imperial Iran realized that being secular, liberal, modern and tolerant didn’t endear Turkey, India and Iran to American policy makers, who preferred fundamentalist, intolerant regimes to democratic tolerant governments.

 

First, the secular Turkey realized that United States promoted secular policies of the CIA-spy Kemal Pasha Ataturk and the military dictatorships in Turkey to destroy the claims of the Ottomans on the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. United States on one hand promoted the extreme fundamentalism of Saudi Wahhabism to promote Arab separatism in name of Islam to disintegrate the Ottoman Islamic Empire, and on other hand promoted the secular Kemalism and militarism to destroy the Ottoman Islamic legacy in Turkey. Secular Turks realized that being secular didn’t endear them to the American oil colonialism, which continued to prefer barbarian Wahhabi fundamentalism to Kemalist secularism as the preferred ideology for the newly emerged Islamic nations.

 

Second, the secular India realized that British and American oil interests promoted secular socialistic regimes in Indian Empire and fundamentalist Islam and military dictatorships in Pakistan to severe Indian Empires geographical ties with the oil-rich Iran, as Indian Empire before 1947 controlled 100% of Iranian oil and 49% of Iraqi oil. The secular democratic India realized that being secular and democratic didn’t endear India to United States, who continued to prefer military dictatorship in Pakistan and intolerant Wahhabi fundamentalism to democratic, tolerant, secular, liberal India.

 

Third, the secular Shah of Iran Mohammed Riza Pahlavi realized that being pro-American, liberal, secular and modern didn’t endear Shah of Iran to Pentagon and the CIA, who engineered the Shiite fundamentalist revolt and placed Ayatollah Khomeini as dictator of Iran, and ruled out the military coup and democratic prime ministership of Bani Sadr. Fourth, the France realized that United States purposely undermined French empire in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Syria, Lebanon, and French Africa. United States supported Islamic fundamentalists to wage wars on India, Algeria, and Egypt. United States supported Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, who murdered with the consent of the West 2,000,000 Buddhists in Cambodia. It is no accident that the oil interests of Turkey, Iran, India, and France in 2003, apparently conflict with American oil interests in Iraq. In post-Cold War age the rivalry of conflicting oil interests created new allies and rivals in Europe and Asia.

 

(3) Oil Achilles Heel of US Dominance

Three. The United States deployed NATO to keep France and Germany under control and subjugation under the camouflage of Atlantic Partnership throughout the Cold War.

 

First, the primary purpose of the NATO was to maintain Geopolitical dominance of the United States over Western Europe. The Pentagon hyped the Soviet threat to Western Europe primarily to tighten the US dominance of France, Germany, Britain and Italy. The Western European colonial empires survived intact after the Second World War and still the colonial powers agreed to become satellites of the United States, guided by the fear that Soviet Communism threatened their private property in Western Europe, even when Soviet Union presented no threat to the Europe.

 

Second. The blunt invasion of Iraq by President Bush exposed to the world that the economic dominance of the United States depended on the American control over the oil and gas resources of the Arabian Gulf and the continued use of US dollar as the official currency of the global oil trade. France, Germany and Belgium realized Europe could rival United States as the Super Power simply by promoting Euro as the co-reserve currency of the world and Euro as the official currency of the global oil trade. If the OPEC prices set in Euro besides dollar than dollar could have a precipitous fall and United States would decline. France, Germany, Russia, China and India realized that control over the oil and gas resources of the Arabian Gulf is the Achilles’ Heel of the United States and it stands to reason that the principal goal of the wars and clash in the 21st Century would focus on denying the United States the control over oil producing countries.

 

Third. The continued prosperity of United States depended on American domination of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, then India and China could also break the cycle of poverty and underdevelopment by militarily taking over certain oil-producing countries. President Bush’s colonization of Iraq resulted in the universal enlightenment that the path to super power status lies in the occupation of some oil-producing nation by oil-importing economic powers. What Untied States did in Iraq, democratic oil-importing India could do much better and more efficiently. Because of President Bush’s policies the conquest and colonialism of the oil-producing countries became a fair game for the world powers and rising great powers.

 

(4) Oil Colonial Empires of 21st Century

Colonial Empires of 21st Century would be built on oil and gas resources of the oil colonies. Oil determined post Second World War diplomacy. America undermined British Empire to gain permanent control over Arabian Gulf oil. America teamed up with Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices in 1980s to breakup the Soviet Union. America promoted Wahhabi fundamentalism and overthrew the regime Shah of Iran to enable Saudi Arabia emerge as top leader of the Islamic world. America destroyed Iraq and Iran as in 1980 they were poised to become developed nations, because of their oil incomes. India can create a Hindu Empire in the Middle East if India could prove that it could protect the interests of the American Big Oil in the Gulf. When the American invasion of Iraq ended in the victory of American and British colonialism, America realized that the diplomatic divide that opened up between the United States and continental Europe, brought the NATO Atlantic alliance to a definitive end. Erdogan’s Turkey realized that being secular didn’t endear Turkey to secular United States, who preferred to impose Semite Wahhabi fundamentalism on non-Semite Iraq and America refused to share Iraqi oil loot with Turkey and secular non aligned Iraq might end up partitioned like secular non-aligned Yugoslavia. The Best option Turkey had was to team up with France, Germany, Russia, Iran and India to restore the dominance of the Civilized Islam over Semite Wahhabi fundamentalist oil-rich Arabia.

 

(5) Iraq War Manageable

American, British, Israeli and Saudi invasions of Iraq didn’t turn out to be the proverbial hair that broke the back of the camel and started the Third World War. America’s rape of Iraqi oil might destroy the stable international system and the durable balance of power created after the Second World War, which remained stable even after the demise of the Soviet Union, because it accepted the right of Non Aligned Nations to remain out both the Camps. American destroyed the Non Alignment policies of Indonesia, Egypt, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Laos, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Iraq and conspired to undermine Non Alignment policies of Syria, Libya, Algeria, South Africa, Malaysia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

 

(6) Possible Outbreak of World War III

Protestant American, Semite Israeli and Wahhabi Saudi invasions of secular, Non Aligned, non-Wahhabi, non-Semite oil-rich Iraq caused severe ruptures in the international system and it could threaten the outbreak of the Third World War, just as the violation of neutrality of Belgium by Nazi Army started the Second World War. The world appeased American Hyper power in its invasions of Panama, Yugoslavia, Haiti, and Afghanistan, just as Chamberlain had appeased Hitler by accepting Hitler’s expansionism in Central Europe.

 

(7) Pentagon Threatens Non Aligned Nations

After Vietnam War president Nixon and Henry Kissinger exploited the simmering Sino-Soviet rift into Sino-American strategic alliance and Most Favored Trading Nations status to China. America’s invasions of Iraq could result in the Russia’s alliance with Germany and France to cause permanent rift in the NATO alliance. Islamic regimes of secular Aryan Turkey and Shiite Aryan Iran might explore closer ties with Aryan Pakistan and Aryan India, the fellow Asian powers to check the American oil colonialism in the Arabian Peninsula and Central Asia. The Non Aligned secular India might review its ties with United States, after realizing that United States purposely targeted secular Non Aligned nations, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Syria aiming to force these Non aligned Nations join the American Camp.

 

(9) Menace of US-Wahhabi Alliance

United States historically supported fundamentalist religious forces to overthrow or undermine the secular regimes seeking to impose fundamentalist regimes in Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Algeria. The non-Anglo Saxons France and Germany, the non-Semite Muslim Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, the Aryan Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, and Non Aligned Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Algeria and India suddenly realized that their national interests coincide in their opposition to American colonial occupation of non-Aligned, non-Wahhabi, secular, oil-rich Iraq.

 

(10) Interests of Turkey & Iran in Iraq

How would Turkey and Iran respond to the American invasions of Iraq? President Bush’s invasions of oil-rich Iraq to establish direct American oil colony created a new world order, which recognized the legitimacy of the Oil Colonial Empires, where colonial powers exercised total control over the economic, military and foreign policy affairs and the colonial titular rulers exercised total control over religious and cultural affairs.

 

(11) Colonial Empires as Units of World Order

Seventh, the world we have created is the product of our thinking and it cannot be changed without changing our thinking. However, when the dominant thinking of the leading power changed, the world and the world order also changed. Without passing moral judgment of President Bush’s actions, the dominant thinking of the Bush Administration has the power to create a new world, a new world order, where Colonial Empires, not the smaller independent sovereign states would be the actors and entities of the international system. President Bush’s America has the moral authority and military power to impose a new order and once it becomes a stable world order, it would acquire a legitimacy of its own.

 

(12) Turkey’s Islamic Oil Ambitions

New Islamic government of Turkey, headed by Prime Minister Erdogan justified in rejecting the defense arrangements entered into by its secular Kemalist military dictators as they neither represented the will of the people, nor followed the time-tested foreign policy interests of the Ottoman Empire. New Islamic government of Turkey would assert its Ottoman legacy and assert Turkey’s new role in the Islamic Caliphate and would not support Christian America’s war on Muslim Iraq, which had been its colonial possession.

 

(13) US-led NATO Chaperon of Europe

United States historically pursued the policy of Geopolitical dominance in Europe, Middle East, Americas and Africa. The historic purpose of the NATO had been to Chaperon Western Europe, especially France, Germany and Italy. United States should adopt the new Diplomacy of Offshore Balancing which would recognize the rise and fall of nations and allow regional powers to maintain peace and security in their regions, where they would be allowed to exercise regional dominance, in exchange for their consent and acceptance of American oil colonies over oil-producing OPEC countries.

 

(14) Interests of France Germany and Turkey

The geopolitical interests of France, Germany and Turkey might coincide in Iraq and they might agree to jointly oppose American oil colonialism in Iraq. It might be in the national interest of Turkey to takeover Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields in Northern Iraq to deny America’s occupation over all of Iraq and France and Germany might support Turkey’s occupation of Northern Iraq. Russia and China could also support Iran and provide military hardware and weapons to the Iraqi rebels in Kurd and Shiite majority regions to weaken the America’s colonial hold over Iraq. Russia should do in Iraq what America did in Afghanistan. Iran could play in Iraq the role Pakistan played in Afghanistan. Iran could become a conduit for support to Iraqi resistance. Russia, China, India, France and Germany could align with Iran to militarily check the eastward expansion of American oil imperialism in Iraq.

 

(15) US Policy of Geopolitical Dominance

United States pursued the policy of Geopolitical dominance in Europe throughout the Cold War and the principal purpose of the NATO had been to chaperon France and Germany and to keep Germany divided. The Diplomacy of Offshore Balancing would replace the American policy of geopolitical dominance after the demise of the NATO Atlantic alliance in the aftermath of the Iraq war, and it would allow other world powers to establish spheres of influence of their own, so long as they do not threaten the preeminence of the United States. This is the argument author develops in this chapter.

 

32(3) 2003 New World Order

(1) Interconnectedness of Diplomacy

Each smallest act of valor against American colonialism in Iraq reverberated across great distances and spans of time, affecting lives of the millions of Asian freedom seekers in the Middle East. Many Muslim women thought American conquest of Iraq to be the beginning of the end of their bondage to men under barbarian Wahhabi Shariah. Many secular Muslims viewed it to be the beginning of their bondage to Wahhabi fundamentalism. Many American oil company executives viewed it to be the start of the age of cheap oil, as American conquerors would be able to get oil from Iraqi fields at royalty of $1 per barrel. Each smallest as well as largest act of meanness, American colonialism and aggression reverberated across great distances and spans of time, affecting international diplomacy and lives of diplomats unknown to the one whose malevolent spirit was the source of this evil, destabilizing echo, because meanness is passed on and grows each time it’s passed, until a simple act of anti-colonial resistance and resistance against colonial aggression and foreign exploitation becomes an act of selfless courage years later and far away, from the original scene of battle front. Likewise, each small act of kindness and opposition to the American oil colonialism, each expression to the need of the international system to hold American in check, each act of the concert of world powers reverberated across the entire international system, affecting the diplomats of world powers, unknown to the preeminent power, which might some day create a web of international alliances that would immobilize the American Bully in the Spider’s Web woven by the diplomats of the Concert of World Powers.

 

The chain of events unleashed by President Bush’s war on Iraq, reinforced what Geopoliticians and machiavellian diplomats believed about the uncanny interconnectedness of things and about the profound and mysterious meanings in all our international behavior and great power diplomacy. A misdirected Iraq couldn’t be put on a right road quickly or without struggle. For all of President Bush’s appealing talk of a miraculous moment of transformation of post-Saddam Iraq, and Germany’s sudden support to American conquest of Iraq and France’s acquiescence of American oil colonialism in Iraq, in exchange for the fair share of post-conquest contracts in Iraq, nothing had happened to change apprehensions of Iran, India and Russia to dangers of Pax Americana. Nevertheless, for reasons that geopolitics could not explain, every aspect of the international situation- the menace of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate, the dreams of Islamic neo-Ottoman Caliphate, the dreams of Arab Muslim women to overthrow Wahhabi bondage and terrorism, the dreams of Papacy and Russian Orthodoxy to reclaim Egypt, Libya, Turkey, Syria and Algeria to the folds of Christianity, and fear psychosis of Zionist Cabal, the proselytizing ambitions of Christian religious right conservative conspiracy- suddenly seemed full of meaning, mystery and moment. American Oil Colonial administration in Iraq would allow American companies loot the oil of Iraq and Iraqi’s might not get even $1 per barrel. India might support American oil colonialism in Iraq, provided America imposed its colonial rule over Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. India would be forced to oppose American oil colonialism if United States invaded Iran after consolidating its colonial occupation of Iraq.

 

(2) Role of India in American Oil Colonialism

India would oppose American oil colonialism over Iraq, if it resulted in the imposition of Wahhabi Shariah and Mecca Caliphate over Iraq. India would also oppose United States if America invaded Syria at the insistence of Israel. India would support American secular oil imperialism in the Middle East but oppose the advent and rise of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate in the Middle East. India would prefer the rise of Islamabad Caliphate, Neo-Ottoman Caliphate and Persian Caliphate to challenge the Wahhabi Caliphate. India would oppose American oil colonialism, if after conquering Iraq the United Stated moved its armed forces against Iran and Syria to bring them under the yoke of Mecca Caliphate. India would whole-heartedly support the American imperial designs to bring Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE under the direct colonial rule of the United States Big Oil. Russia, China and India might come to the aid of Iran, in the event American Empire expanded eastward after the conquest of Iraq.

 

(3) World Order is Product of Our Thinking

The world is the product of the thinking of the leaders of the world powers. The dominant thinking of the diplomats of the great powers create the new world, by establishing new rules of the conduct of diplomacy and relationship among great powers. Great powers not the small powers decide about the changes that should be brought into the old world order and what the new world order should look like. The new world order becomes legitimate whenever great powers agree about the natures of the changes in the world order. Dominant world powers have a right to change the world system by mutual consent. President George W. Bush as the democratic leader of the superpower United States has the right to create a new world order that accepted the right of the Great Powers undertake preemptive strikes to establish colonies over oil-producing countries. Howsoever, France, Germany and Russia opposed President Bush’s war on oil-rich Iraq to establish American Oil Colony over Iraq, they did not dispute the right of the leader of the leading super power to create a new world order, where colonial empires might become the legal entities of the new international system, if Pentagon secured convincing victory in the war and other world powers chose not to militarily oppose America’s victory in the Iraq war. As the leader of the top super power of the world, President Bush has the moral authority to create a new world order, in which the colonial empires and great powers could replace numerous independent sovereign nation states as legitimate entities constituting the new world order. If leaders of Russia, France, Germany, China and India accept the legitimacy of the colonial empires, the 21st Century would become the replica of the 19th and 18th century colonial world order, and world would never be the same again. The great power diplomacy in the 2003 would determine the nature of the world order in the 21st Century. The year 2003 could turn out to be a turning point in the history. Any imperial act or diplomatic behavior of the great powers becomes legitimate and create new world order, if that act or behavior accepted or condoned by other rival super power and other world powers.

 

(4) Lure of Black Gold Caused Deep Divide

The lure of Iraqi oil loot caused permanent rift in the Western Catholic Protestant world, when France, Germany and Belgium raised the banner of revolt against le Anglo Saxon colonial invasions over Iraq. The NATO solidarity crumbled over Iraqi Black gold when Americans refused to share Iraqi oil loot with German and French companies. The lure of Iraqi loot caused permanent rift between Turkey and American oil colonialism when United States refused to share Iraqi oil loot with Turkey and refused Turkey’s continued exploitation of the Mosul oil shipped through Turkey overland. Military rulers of Turkey and Pakistan realized that their ally America would not share Iraqi oil loot with them, and still expected they would militarily support American oil colonialism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The Bush-Putin understanding collapsed, when president Putin realized that Russia would lose $ 8 billions of the Iraqi debt and $ 5 billion in cancellations of oil exploration contracts Russian oil companies signed with Iraq.

 

(5) US Policy of Deception in Afghanistan

India suspects that President Bush waged war on Afghanistan to protect rather than neutralize Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. United States and Indian relations took tumbling when India realized that United States specially invaded Non Aligned Afghanistan and Non Aligned Iraq to bring them under control of Wahhabi rule and to establish American oil colonies and to force Non Aligned Nations into the American Camp. The secular Turkey, and India realized that being secular, democratic and religiously tolerant society didn’t endear Turkey and India to United States, who preferred intolerant Wahhabi fundamentalist regimes to tolerant secular societies. Aryan Turkey, Aryan Iran, Aryan Kurds, Aryan Afghanistan, and Aryan Pakistan realized that United States, Britain and Israel only wanted to enhance the prosperity and power of Semite Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and would militarily and politically oppose the rise of other non-Semite Aryan Islamic powers. The American conquest of Iraq created deep rifts that crossed religious, racial, and foreign divides.

 

(6) Big Oil Neo-Conservatives Zionists Pact

Israel and the Zionist lobby joined forces with Republican Neo-conservatives and American Big Oil to invade secular, modern Iraq to establish American oil colony and subsequently to invade secular modern Syria to remove the menace of militant Islamic terrorism to Semite fundamentalist Israel and Semite Wahhabi fundamentalist Saudi Arabia and to serve the religious interests of Christian religious right conservative conspiracy. America waged war on Iraq to loot Iraqi oil so that America could enrich American companies, just as Inca and Maya gold enriched colonial Spain. France, Germany, and Turkey would join the anti-American Camp because America not prepared to share its loot of Iraqi oil with them. Russia would exploit the growing split in the Western alliance by joining France and Germany in opposing American oil colonialism in Iraq.

 

(7) USA Imposed Wahhabi Dominance

United States impressed upon Egypt's President Anwar Sadat to expel Russian military advisers, as only America could guarantee Iraqi-Egyptian peace, and United States replaced Soviet Union as the dominant alliance partner in the Middle East. Russia could replace United States as the dominant alliance partner by emerging as the principal defender of Arab independence from American and Israeli colonialism. American invasions on Iraq to establish oil colony could be followed by American invasions of Syria to remove Islamic militant threats to Israel. Iran could be the next victim of American oil colonialism. India and Russia would not remain neutral in case America targeted Iran after the conquest of Iraq. America’s invasions of secular modern Non-Aligned Iraq could result in the imposition of Wahhabi rule over Iraq and transform the secular Non Aligned Iraq into theocratic Wahhabi colony of America. America’s invasions of Syria could also transform secular modern Non Aligned Syria into fundamentalist Wahhabi fundamentalist American colony of Iraq. America’s proposed victory over Iraq, Syria and Iran could mean the victory of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate over rival centers of Islam, namely, Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran.

 

(8) Pro-Wahhabi Gazi Sharon & Gazi Bush

Protestant President Bush and Jewish Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should be honored with titles of Wahhabi Gazi if they could establish Wahhabi rule over Iraq and Syria to bring Iraq and Syria under control of barbarian, fundamentalist, terrorist Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate. Just as Sunni Muslims desecrated the Orthodox Christian Holiest monasteries in Kosovo Yugoslavia and Church of Nativity in the Bethlehem Israel, the Christian forces desecrated the Shiite holiest cities of Karbala and Najaf to the great delight of Sunni Wahhabi Mecca. No wonder Iraq, Syria and Iran would nurture great grievances against Sunni Wahhabi Mecca and might join forces with foreign invaders that may bring fundamentalist Sunni Wahhabi Saudi Arabia under secular, pro-woman, liberal, Christian rule or secular Communist rule. Wahhabi rule over Iraq and Syria would force secular Iraqis and Syrians join forces with Communist China to impose Communist regime in Saudi Arabia, so that New Mongol Empire might destroy the Mecca Caliphate to repeat the destruction of Baghdad Caliphate by Mongol Empire in 1258. Mecca Caliphate’s support to American conquest of Iran would result in the repeat of the Iranian Emperor Nadir Shah’s conquest and destruction of Baghdad in 1401, by Shiite conquest of Mecca with the supporters of anti-Mecca coalition.

 

(9) Turkey Iran Pakistan Oppose America

Islamic governments of Turkey, Iran and Pakistan found to their dismay that American oil colonialism not prepared to share loot of Iraqi oil with them. American oil colonialism imposed the fundamentalist Islamic rule over Iran when it overthrew the Pahlavi Monarchy and replaced it by fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. American oil colonialism imposed the military dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf and Islamic militants when it overthrew the government of Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief of Pakistan, because his family wanted a bigger slice of the profits of the Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil/gas pipeline. American oil colonialism expected Post-Ottoman Muslim Turkey to allow United States invade Muslim Iraq through Turkey, even when American colonialism refused to share the Iraqi oil loot with Turkey. Shiite Iran realized that United States would support only Semite Saudi Arabia and its brand of Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalism, not Iranian variant of Shiite fundamentalism. No wonder that the Shiite Iraqi’s would not support American conquest of Iraq, if it meant the continued tyranny of Arab Wahhabi Sunni tribes representing only 15% of the Iraqi population, over Shiite Arabs representing 65% of Iraqi population. No wonder that non-Semite Sunni Kurds representing 25% of Iraqi population that speak language similar to Persian and ethnically Aryans, would not support American occupation of Iraq, if it meant the imposition of the Semite Wahhabi rule over Iraq. Iran would have no option but to join forces with Russia and India to destabilize American oil colonial occupation troops in post-Saddam Iraq.

 

Turkey may join forces with Iran to enhance the role played by leading Islamic powers in opposing the predator religious intolerance of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate and American oil colonialism. Historically the Byzantine Empire, East Roman Empire and Persian Empire learnt to balance the rivalry between the two rival empires, not undermine the dominance of the imperial rule of these emperors over their respective colonial imperial territories. If Turkey and Iran could harmonize their respective regional ambitions, they could jointly rule over Northern Iraq and exploit the Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields in direct competition of the American oil colonialism. France, Germany and Belgium would like to profit by marketing the Turki oil extracted from Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields to undermine the monopoly of American oil colonialism over Iraqi oil. Sunni Turkey and Shiite Iran would cooperate to deny Christian America and Zionist Israel control over Muslim Iraqi oil. France, Belgium and Germany would support the imperial ambitions of Turkey and Iran over North Iraq, as it would weaken American military control over Iraq. Russia and China could also step in and supply military hardware to the Aryan Sunni Kurd and Shiite Arab freedom fighters to support the ongoing civil war in Iraq, just as United States provided arms and financial support to the Sunni Mujahideens fighting Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan, during Reagan Administration, if Russia and China promised certain share of Iraqi oil. Iran, Turkey, Syria, Libya the major Muslim powers, could developing regional ties and join military forces to oppose Mecca Caliphate and American oil colonialism. Military regimes in Turkey and Pakistan realized that American oil colonialism would not share Iraqi oil loot with Turkey and Pakistan, even when the CIA had installed puppet military regimes in Turkey and Pakistan.

 

The Islamic regimes in Aryan Turkey, Aryan Iran and Aryan Pakistan realized that Protestant America and Semite Israel would only support the Semite Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, because Wahhabi clergy historically agreed to transfer Wahhabi oil resources to American oil colonial interests. America and Israel would support the Mecca Caliphate because Saudi Arabia lacked military muscle and technically continued to be American military colony from 1920’s onwards. America continued to enjoy control over Wahhabi Saudi Arabian economic, military and foreign policy, in exchange for political rule of Al Saud family and religious rule of Wahhabi clergy. Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and India might re-invent CENTO PACT into anti-American regional alliance to profit by control over oil resources of the Muslim nations.

 

(10) Great Powers Jockeying for Loot’s share

Britain, Italy and Spain joined the American Camp to undermine Germany and France. Israel and Saudi Arabia joined the American camp to undermine France and Germany. Pakistan joined the American camp to undermine India. It is logical that Germany, France, Turkey, Iran and India would join forces to create a counter-America camp and Russia and China would lean towards this camp. Japan and South Korea would have to depend on American Camp because their economies vulnerable to its dependence on Gulf oil. Britain ($1.2 trillion) Spain ($659 billion) are 7th and 14th largest economies, and Israel ($99 billion) and Saudi Arabia ($129 billion) realized that only by joining the raiding party led by United States could they play any international role in the 21st Century. Turkey ($394 billion) and Iran ($325 billion) hate the greater international importance accorded to Israel and Saudi Arabia, which are much smaller economies and much smaller military powers. Germany and France hate the greater importance to Britain the smaller economy. The leading economic powers of the world and their GNP’s and population are: United States (1st, $8.4 trillion, 273 Million), China (2nd, $4.1 trillion, 1.25 billion), Japan (3rd, $3 trillion, 127 million), India (4th, $2.2 trillion, 1.1 billion), Germany (5th, $1.8 trillion, 82 million), France (6th, $1.3 trillion, 59 billion), Britain (7th, 1.2 trillion, 59 million), Italy (8th, $1.2 trillion, 58 million), Brazil (9th, $1 trillion, 168 million), Russia (10th, $929 billion, 147 million), Israel ($99 billion, 6 million), and Saudi Arabia ($129 billion, 21 million). United States, Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia representing total GNP of $9.8 trillion and 359 million population openly belong to American camp and leading America’s war on Iraq to establish American oil colony over Iraq. Japan is the reluctant supporter of American war on Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, China and India oppose America’s war on Iraq, representing $10.4 trillion GNP and 2,538 million people. Israel and Saudi Arabia are non-entities in terms of global power still they influence polices more than their size of their economies and population. Britain conspiring with Untied States to invade Iraq, hoping that it would be able to outsmart India, France and Germany and play international role more than the size of its economy and military. Germany did an about turn and joined the American Camp and supported America’s war on Iraq. United States forced Japan and Germany to support America’s war on WMDs, signaling that it could target Germany and Japan if they attempted to assert their great power ambitions. France has no option but to follow Germany’s lead on Iraq war, lest French companies lose the profitable contracts in post-War Iraq.

 

(11) 2012 Turning Point in Maya Calendar

The First Colonial Age began after 1502 Vasca da Gama led cannon-equipped ships to sink coastal vessels in the Arabian Sea. The Second Colonial Age began after president Bush invaded Iraq and established American Oil colony in Iraq, and the rest of the world couldn’t but accept American rule over Iraq.  Russia’s muted consent for NATO invasions of Yugoslavia could be compared to the Attlee’s Appeasement of Hitler over Czechoslovakia. Russia’s muted consent to America’s war on Iraq could be compared to the Hitler’s invasions of Belgium. However, American Empire could invade Iran after Iraq, then world might be engulfed into world war three, which could be compared to the Second world war that flared after Hitler invaded France, after invading Belgium. The world order would undergo fundamental transformation in the event of America’s victory over Iraq and the successful establishment of profitable American oil colony over Iraq. It would start the new age of colonial Empires and Pax Americana. The world would have also undergone fundamental transformation had Saddam Hussein succeeded in thwarting American aggression on Iraq. Under any event the year 2003 is a turning point in history. The 28,000-year cycle Maya Calendar forecast the advent of the new age on Dec. 25. 2012. The world order is the product of our thinking and when the thinking of the world’s diplomats and leader changed, it changed the world order also.

 

(12) Religion as the Basis of State

American and British Empire promoted the concept of religion as the basis of new states to legitimize the birth of Jewish State of Israel, which had never existed in history. American and British Empire promoted the concept of fundamentalist Islam as the basis of state to create Pakistan out of Indian Empire, and multitude of Muslim Arab states out of Ottoman Empire, especially Saudi Arabia, which had never existed in history. Pakistan had never existed as a country in history. Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire had been multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-religion Empires. Koran rejects the concept of separate nation states. All Muslims supposed to be ruled by a single Muslim Sultan. Koran would permit a Pakistani become the Sultan of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, because Pakistan is the Islamic world’s strongest military power. British Oil colonialism created Pakistan to disrupt Indian attempts to project its influence in oil rich Iran and the Persian Gulf, as Indian rupee continued to be the reserve currency of Central Banks of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Trucial States as late as 1964. Persian gulf had been an Indian Lake throughout 18th, 19th centuries and pre 1947 20th Century. British oil colonialism touted Islam as the basis of Pakistan to create the new state of Pakistan out of Indian Empire in 1947, so that India might not have direct borders with oil-rich Iran.

 

Women enjoyed rights, freedom and liberty during Ottoman Caliphate throughout Ottoman Empire. In contrast Wahhabi Cult advocated persecution and bondage of Muslim women. Sunni Wahhabi cult rejected the multi-ethnic multi-cultural religious tolerance of Islamic society under Ottoman Caliphate to create Wahhabi states on the social transformation of Arab societies that rejected religious tolerance and force bondage on Arab women. American oil colonialism touted predator Wahhabi religion as the basis of the new states. Spymaster Colonel Lawrence of Arabia convinced the Wahhabi tribes of Mecca and Medina that they stand to gain if they hyped Wahhabi as the basis of new states in the Arabian Peninsula in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, that never existed as states in history, in exchange for Wahhabi clergy’s monopoly over religious matters throughout Arabian Peninsula, provided they agreed to transfer control over economic, military and foreign policy to United States in Saudi Arabia and to Britain in Iraq. Wahhabi doctrine developed by Zionist Cabal and American and British oil colonialism to justify the separate statehood of thinly populated oil-producing nations, which otherwise should have become part of the leading Islamic power of the region, either Egypt or Iran, or Iraq or Pakistan.

 

(13) New Age of Colonial Empires

President Bush created a new world order by ordering invasions of Iraq, and the oil colonial empires became legitimate entities constituting the international system in the 2003. World order had been the product of the dominant thinking of the leading world powers, their elites and diplomats. The leading world powers decided in every century, the nature of the world order and the legitimate conduct of relations among great powers. President Bush changed the thinking of the world leaders at the start of the 21st Century by legitimizing the concept or idea of the oil colonial empires and the right of the great powers to establish oil colonies to secure their supplies of oil and gas resources, so crucial for the survival of their industrial economies. World leaders have accepted this idea as legitimate idea and as a result a new age of Colonial Empires ushered in the first decade of the 21st Century. The world order changed whenever the newer idea underlying the world order replaced the earlier notion of the legitimate world order. If President Bush could succeed in establishing oil colony over Iraq, it would change the world order and oil colonial empires would become the norms of the new world order.

 

The world we have created is a product of our thinking, and it cannot be changed without changing our thinking, argued Albert Einstein. When our thinking changes the world that we have created also changes. The world order that great powers have created is a product of the thinking and perceptions of the world powers. The world order cannot be changed without changing the worldview and the perceptions of the world powers. When the perceptions and the policies of the great powers changed, then the World Order they had created also changed. Whenever the entities constituting the international system changed their character, and the common belief about the appropriate behavior among international entities changed, what had been taken fro granted suddenly became anachronistic. The feudal societies of the 17th centuries, universality of the modern state system based on raison d’etat in the 18th century, multinational states in the 19th Century, colonialism in the 19th Century, decolonization and the birth of numerous new states in the second half of the 20th Century, the abolition of private property in the communist system in the first half of the 20th century, preceded by the changes in the dominant thinking of the diplomats and ruling elite of the leading world powers. The Non Aligned world order challenged the right of the dominant super powers to interfere in the regime changes of the poor, weak Third World nations. The idea of Non Alignment got diluted and prostituted by the influx of the agents of American alliances and it allowed United States President Bush to assert the right of preemptive strikes and the regime change. The Muslim Arab world and the Christian European world accepted the right of America to enforce regime change in Iraq. President Bush succeeded in changing the dominant thinking of the diplomats and elite of the great powers to legitimize the idea of colonial empires in the 21st Century.

 

(14) Wahhabi-Yankee Oil Colonialism

Damascus Jews devised militant Islam to loot Hindu and Christian Egypt and Syria in 7th Century. Bolshevik Jews devised Communism to loot Orthodox Russia. Zionists and American oil colonialism devised Wahhabi fundamentalism to loot the oil wealth of the Arab possessions of Ottoman Empire. British Empire promoted militant Islam to create Pakistan to disrupt India’s geographic links to Iranian oil. Wahhabi terrorism is the other side of the same coin of American oil colonialism. President Woodrow Wilson was the father of Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and President Jimmy Carter was the father of the Shiite Ayatollahs rule in Iran, and President Bill Clinton was the father of the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden’s rule over Afghanistan in 1995. Jews and American oil colonialism legitimized, propagated, nurtured and harnessed the fundamentalist Wahhabi religious intolerance to establish American oil colonies throughout former territories of the Ottoman Empire. Oil is the God for President Bush as well as American Oil colonialism. Neither God nor Christianity but Oil determined President Bush’s 2003 war on secular Muslim Iraq. Gazi Bush would impose Wahhabi rule over Iraq to secure uninterrupted rape of Iraqi oil resources by American Big Oil.

 

American oil colonialism in the Middle East, Nigeria, Sudan, Malaysia and Indonesia promoted Wahhabi Islam after the First World War, in stark contrast to the rival European colonialism that continued to propagate Christianity in the Third World. The colonial policies of American oil colonialism not influenced by the interests of Christian Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy. American oil colonialism dubbed neo-colonialism, to differentiate it from old European colonialism, as the latter sought to propagate Christianity while America propagated Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism.

 

To secure their hold over oil, Americans jettisoned the ideal of Christian proselytizing. American oil colonialism created Pakistan, disintegrated Ottoman Empire, imposed the secularist Kemalism and secular military dictatorships in Turkey, brought down Pahlavi monarchy of Shah of Iran to promote the religious interests of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia to propel Mecca Caliphate as the leader of the Islamic world, and to secure America’s control over Islamic oil producing nations. American oil colonialism based on the foundation of Wahhabi fundamentalism in the Arab world, especially in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire.

 

American oil colonialism is a friend not an enemy of Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism. Post-1500 European colonialism camouflaged European greed for gold and lands in ideological camouflage of spread of Christianity, Christian Civilization and European languages. Belgium’s King justified the massacres of Congo’s natives in terms of Christian Civilization. Spanish Colonialism looted gold of the New World and left the social and cultural affairs of the Spanish colonies after the imposition of the Monroe Doctrine to the Roman Catholic Church. British, French, Italian, Belgium, Spanish and Portuguese colonialism justified or camouflaged their colonial interests in terms Christian proselytizing and Christian values and Civilization.

 

American colonialism after the First World War defined its colonial interests in terms of oil and mineral rights and geopolitical value of the military bases. American colonialism no longer considered the interest of the Christian Church as determinants of American colonial policy, to distinguish American neo-colonialism from the European colonialism, which underwent decolonization process after the Second World War and gave birth to numerous new states in Africa and Asia. American colonial history had been a constant war to eliminate American Indians and to settle European immigrants into the lands of American Indians.

 

After the discovery of oil, American colonialism propagated the virtue of fundamentalist Islam and Wahhabi fundamentalism to create new Muslim states on the basis of Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam as its core basis, to diplomatically harness the power of Wahhabi fundamentalism to weaken and disintegrate multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, secular, liberal Ottoman Caliphate, so long as the fundamentalist religious clergy agreed to American control over economic, military and foreign policies of their nominally independent countries. White former European Empires touted the glory of Christianity, Christian Civilization and values to mobilize their citizens for the expansion of their Empires, American Oil Colonial Empires, touted the profits the Americans would make in the oil colonies and emerged as friends not the enemy of Wahhabi fundamentalism and militant Islamism. The CIA created, nurtured Osama Bin Laden as fundamentalist Wahhabi terrorist to promote the interests of American oil colonialism in oil-producing Islamic world.  

 

(15) Iran-India-Iraq-Turkey Treaty (IIIT)

The invasions of Wahhabi Mecca and American oil colonialism of Iraq in 2003 transformed the Geopolitics of Asia and raised the possibility of India, Iran, Turkey and Iraq military pact to exercise joint control and influence over oil-rich Central Asia and the Middle East. India, Iran and Turkey should formalize a new Defense pact along with France and Germany to transform Eurasian geopolitical balance of power. Turkey’s foreign policy should redirect its focus from the West to the Middle East and assert its Ottoman heritage. Iran and India should redirect its focus from the West to Central Asia and the Arabian Gulf, which had been and Indian lake throughout 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Had Mughal Indian Empire in 16th Century entered into military pact with Iran and Ottoman Empire to develop a common front against European colonialism, the Ottoman-Iran-India Alliance would have defeated Western colonial empires and expelled European colonial powers from the Indian Ocean region. Would Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Iraq someday formalize a new defense pact to undermine the control American oil colonialism and Wahhabi predator cult exercises over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE?

 

Turkey’s new Islamist government led by Erdogan realized that Turkey should reclaim its patrimony as successors to the Ottoman Empire, as its secular credentials didn’t endear Turkey to the West for playing important role in the Middle East or Europe. Iran’s fundamentalist Shiite Mullah’s realized that though the CIA overthrew Shah of Iran and installed Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, it did so to promote Semite Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Islamic world and to undermine the great power ambitions of Iran. Nuclear Pakistan realized that the West not prepared to promote Pakistan as leader of the Islamic world, and that American supported Pakistan only to check India’s great power ambitions in the oil rich Middle East. Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance realized that United States sought their support to bring down Taliban government to bring Afghanistan under the colonial occupation of American oil colonialism. Nuclear Hindu India realized that United States invaded Afghanistan not to neutralize Osama Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism, but to provide safe heaven to Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists that faced sure deaths at the hands of victorious Northern Alliance soldiers.

 

Patriotic leadership of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Iraq could form a mutual defense pact to bring oil-rich nations in Central Asia and Arabian Peninsula under their joint control in direct competition with American oil colonialism. Military pact among Turkey, Iran, India, Iraq could create a new pole in the Middle East and recreate Neo-Ottoman and Indian Empire in the Middle East in the new age of Oil Colonial Empires. The lands extending from Istanbul to Delhi should be united against western oil colonialism so that the oil riches of Arabian Gulf and Central Asia enriched Asian Civilizations. India might agree for Pakistan’s takeover of Saudi Arabia to wean Pakistan away from dependence on American colonialism. India might support Shiite Iran’s take over of Mecca and Medina and secession of oil-rich Shiite al Hasa Province from Saudi Arabia to create alliance with Iran. Turkey, Iran, India, Pakistan and Iraq should develop common policies to exercise greater control and influence over oil-rich Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Arabian Sea and Caspian Sea, to create a new Alliance of the Ancient Civilizations in Eurasia, to control the destinies of Asia, and Europe and Oil-rich Middle East and Central Asia, the cradle of human Civilization.

 

Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq realized that American oil colonialism and Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate are the two sides of the same coin of American Empire in the 21st Century. Osama Bin Laden and the CIA are the two sides of the same coin of American oil colonialism. The populous civilizations of Turkey, Iran, India, Pakistan and Iraq would one day enter into military Pact to bring the oil and gas resources of the Arabian Gulf and Caspian basin under their join control in direct confrontation with Saudi Arabia and United States, in alliance with Germany and France, in support with Russia and China. President Bush’s war on Iraq has unhinged Turkey, France and Germany from NATO Alliance. The NATO Alliance would never be the same again. The support of Wahhabi nations, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain to American invasions of Iraq gave birth to anti-Wahhabi backlash, which might lead to invasions of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait by powerful, secular, liberal Islamic nations that result in the destruction of the Wahhabi fundamentalism. President Bush’s invasions of Iraq permanently altered the geopolitics of the Middle East, as dramatically as the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, after the First World War.

 

(16) War on Secularism & Non Alignment

Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan realized that American oil colonialism opposed Islamism in Turkey and supported Islamism in Saudi Arabia and being secular didn’t endear Turks to the West. India too realized that being secular and democratic didn’t endear India to Americans who preferred non-secular fundamentalist regimes and non-democratic military dictatorships to democratic and secular India. America oil colonialism championed the cause of fundamentalist Islam to undermine the multi-ethnic, liberal, quasi-secular Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire after the First World War.

 

The Islamist leaders of Turkey would jettison the Kemalist secular policies to claim Turkey’s Ottoman heritage and patrimony in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and could oppose the creeping American oil colonialism in the Arabian Peninsula and Arabian Gulf in the aftermath of American invasions of Iraq. Turkey stands to gain more by opposing American oil colonial empire in Iraq and could perhaps bring about voluntary union of Turkey and Iraq to recreate Ottoman Empire. America supported Wahhabi fundamentalist parties in Arabia and opposed Islamic movements in turkey, because Wahhabi Islam transferred oil rights to America, the Islamists in Turkey wanted to recreate Ottoman Caliphate throughout oil-rich former territories of Ottoman Empire. Islamist Erdogan’s dilemma is: why should secular Muslim Turkey militarily help Christian United States establish colonial occupation over oil-rich Iraq, when Turkey could assert its Ottoman heritage to gain control over Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields in Northern Iraq?

 

Turkey stands to gain more by opposing American Oil Colonialism Iraq than supporting Western colonialism in former territories of the Ottoman Empire. Muslim Turkey wouldn’t insult its Ottoman Caliphate heritage by becoming a servant slave catchers of Christian Western Oil colonialism.

 

The secular leaders of Turkey realized that secular policies of Turkey didn’t endear Turkey to the West, who preferred closer ties with Islamist nations. The secular leaders of India realized to their dismay that being secular became a negative point in India’s dealing with the Christian West. American oil colonialism on one hand implanted series of secular American spies, Kemal Pasha Ataturk, and the military dictators that followed, to neutralize the Ottoman traditions in Turkey and promoted Turki nationalism to undermine the multi-ethnic nationalism of the Ottoman Caliphate. On the other hand promoted fundamentalist, Wahhabi terrorism in Mecca to promote Wahhabi Arab separatism and ethnicity as the basis of new Islamic states bound by the common ties of Wahhabi religious terrorism that agreed to transfer the control of economic, military and foreign affairs to American oil colonialism.

 

Diplomats with background in Colonial history and geopolitics better equipped to formulate policies in the post-Saddam world in this new age of colonial empires that undid the legitimacy of the entire decolonization process that engulfed the world in the post 1960 era and gave birth to numerous new states. Great powers and colonial powers would be principal actors in the new international system, not the newly independent states that became independent after 1960 after the demise of the European Colonial Empires. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party, the Islamist AKP government, could emerge as the new Caliph of Islam, if he could align Turkey with French-German Big Oil to compete with American Oil Colonialism in Iraq, Iran, Libya and Algeria. Islamist Turkey led by Erdogan in contrast to the CIA-spies secular military dictators of Turkey, would support Iraq, Iran and Syria and defeat the imperial designs of American Oil Empire, and in the process might establish Neo-Ottoman Caliphate on the Arabian Peninsula and defeat the pretenders of the Mecca Caliphate.

 

Turkey might join the India-Iran alliance to create an Asian pole in the new world order. Secular, liberal non-Wahhabi Sunni nations would join forces with Shiite Iran to defeat the religious intolerance of Wahhabi fundamentalist and secure custodial control over Islam’s holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, to unite Islamic countries under the banner of secular Neo-Ottoman Empire. Erdogan’s Turkey would enter into mortal combat with Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and wrest the control over Mecca and Medina and engineer the secession of the oil-rich Shiite-majority Al Hasa province from Saudi Arabia. Mecca would be no match to Ankara in the leadership contest for the new Caliphate. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and Algeria would join the secular Islamic front led by Turkey to defeat the evil designs of the barbarian predator intolerant Wahhabi Cult.

 

(16) America Seeks Oil Colonial Empire

Pentagon waged wars to enrich American capitalist corporations in Iraq. Bush Doctrine 2002 declared America’s New Monroe Doctrine, which claimed colonial rights on behalf of the American capitalist corporations in the Third World especially the oil-rich Middle East. President Bush wants to dominate the world. Open Fire and Open Markets is the Strategy of American Empire, says Anuradha Mittal. The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas. And the American hidden fist keeps the world safe for American Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Once, empires were built through direct conquest. Armies plundered their way across continents, claiming to bring the light of civilization to the savages of dark continents. Beneath it all, always, was the dispossession of millions for the enrichment of a few. Christian colonial powers looted the wealth and lands of American Indians, Incas, Mayas and Australian Indians. Imperial America after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, emerged as the uncontested solo superpower in the world and after having achieved a "pre-eminence not enjoyed by even the greatest empires of the past, the American Empire focused on securing America’s power globally, through both military and market interventions. America's "war for freedom" or "war on terrorism" is at one with its expansionary goals for the market: open invasion in some places, and open markets everywhere. Successive US administrations have used the rhetoric of economic freedom and opportunity to describe this policy: "free trade," "liberalization," "deregulation," "globalization." America pushed this policy when necessary at the point of a gun. This is the new Monroe Doctrine, underlying the American Empire's foreign policy. New Monroe Doctrine of Bush Doctrine 2002 states that the United States will dominate affairs around the world expressed in terms of economics, with the ubiquitous military underpinnings left discreetly in the background, unspoken.

 

(17) US Colonizing Third World Gap Nations

United States wants to bring the Non Aligned Third World, codenamed the Gap countries within the framework of American Colonialism. Colonization of the South by the US is a carefully crafted Pentagon Strategy. American Empire wants to control the economies of the colonies by foreign owned corporations that would own all the assets and resources of the colonies. The underlying logic of economic imperialism is the colonization of the South by the US as a carefully crafted strategy. The imperialist big picture for Iraq goes beyond reconstruction. It is to create a dream economy, completely privatized and foreign-owned, within a year of invasion and without waiting for a new government. The coalition forces planned to start privatizations as soon as an interim administration was in place and heralded privatization as the right direction for twenty-first-century Iraq. As the US set up Iraq's interim administration headed by an American official, the war on Iraq was shadowed by a battle among American corporations to win reconstruction contracts. Iraq is going to be Afghanistan on steroids as far as nation building is concerned. There are a lot of opportunities emerging in a full range of sectors."

 

(18) Destroy and Rebuild Oil Producers

American wants to conquer and colonize the oil producing nations first Iraq and then Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. American wanted to first destroy the economic infrastructure of Iraq and then make additional profits by awarding the Iraqi reconstruction contracts to the chosen few American Big Corporations. Destroy the Oil countries first and then take away the future oil incomes for paying for the reconstruction projects. Remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame but rebuilding Iraq to generate profits for the big corporations is the end game in Iraq. Bush doctrine wants to rebuild the conquered colonies to generate huge profits for the US corporations. Bush wants to destroy the economic infrastructure in the first place to make more profits in the reconstruction contracts, which like precision-guided munitions fall into the lap of selected American corporations, guided by their GPS technology from the White House. Not all such opportunities are open to all. Before the war, in early March 2003, USAID secretly asked six US companies to submit bids for $900 million in government contracts to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals. Coincidentally, the six companies Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co., Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp., and Washington Group International Inc.

 

In late March 2003, the first Iraqi contract was awarded, without competition or detailed explanations of total cost, to Vice President Dick Cheney's old employer, the Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) unit of Halliburton Co. Halliburton contributed $708,770 between 1999 and 2002, 95 percent of it to Republicans. USAID also awarded a $4.8 million contract to manage the Umm Qasr ports in southern Iraq to Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), a private company and the country's largest marine terminal operator. The 77 percent of whose contributions between 1999 and 2002 went to Republicans. Bechtel landed the largest USAID contract: an initial award of $34.6 million, with funding of up to $680 million over 18 months subject to congressional approval. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, a Bechtel board member, is also chair of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Other Bechtel executives with Bush administration ties include senior vice president Jack Sheehan, who sits on the Defense Policy Board formed to advise Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Bechtel chairman Riley Bechtel, a member of the President's Export Council, which advises the White House on international trade matters. The most hotly contested contracts will be to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.

 

(19) US Looting Iraqi Oil Resources Legally

America wants to loot the oil resources of Iraq. American Empire wants to rape the oil reserves of Iraq. The American Empire has granted the monopoly of selling of Iraq's oil resources the world's second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia to its puppet Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi and former Iraqi petroleum ministry officials. Chalabi’s close ties with Richard Perle, Rumsfeld, and Cheney predate the current Bush administration. Chalabi made it clear he would give preference to an American-led oil consortium, and suggested that previous deals with Russia and France totaling billions of dollars could be voided. But remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame: rebuilding Iraq the way corporations want is. Transfer of public goods to private hands in Iraq is intended as an initial step in widespread privatization in the region. The US and its allies wants to put together a team of private sector business leaders as a 'steering committee' to supervise and monitor economic restructuring of Iraq. American Empire’s Lesson No. 1: "Privatization Works Everywhere. Privatization does work for the American Empire, though. Almost overnight, Baghdad has been turned into a vast emporium of imported goods in a McDonaldized Iraq, ruled by western overlords and serviced by US corporations. And there is the other side to the invasion of Iraq. While contracts have been guided like smart bombs into the laps of large corporations.

 

(20) NAFTA-MEFTA Common Market

Just as Anglo-Saxons took over the lands of the Native Americans by massacring Native Americans, the American empire would take over the oilfields of thinly populated Arab OAPEC nations and by direct colonial occupation of the densely populated nations. United States would like OPEC nations come under the control of United States by joining NAFTA. American Empire wants to bring in the Middle East into the framework of NAFTA. US-Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) ‘s goal is to become a free trade zone within a decade. The goal is being to bring the Middle East into an expanding circle of opportunity, to provide hope for the people who live in that region, as trade expands and knowledge spreads to the Middle East. All Arab people of the Middle East will see a new day of justice and a new day of prosperity led by Jews and Anglo Saxons. Imperial America needs to deliver the Middle East to free trade. Middle East includes many of the most closed and protected economies in the world. Half of the 22 members of the Arab League, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Algeria, remain outside the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most of the Arab countries have a long-standing economic boycott against Israel, while Iran, Syria, and Libya face US economic sanctions. Mr. Bush is keen to help so-called "reforming" countries negotiate bilateral investment and "free" trade treaties with USA outside the framework of the WTO. The New Middle East Roadmap is needed to build trade in the region. If the roadmap works, and peace returns, then American Empire will build the Roadmap and force the Arab to follow the roadmap. Imperial America needs to deliver the Middle East to free trade. President Bush wants to reform Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Libya and Iran so that American companies could loot the oil reserves of OPEC nations at will.

 

32(4) Turk’s Neo-Ottoman Dream

American and British Empires destroyed the Islamic foundation of Turkey by transferring power to the secular military dictatorship that under the influence of the Vatican destroyed the Islamic foundations of the Islamic Caliphate. British Empire also transferred power to the secular Congress Party, so that it may destroy the Hindu foundation of the Indian polity. American Empire transferred power to the Nationalist Party headed by Christian Chiang Kai sheik who scuttled the political base of Buddhists in China. Under the name of secularism British and American colonialism destroyed the political power of the Islam in Turkey, political power of Hinduism in India and political power of Buddhism in China of Chiang Kai sheik and Mao tse tung. Being secular and pro-Christianity didn’t endear secular Turkey to the Christian West. Being secular and pro-Christianity didn’t endear secular democratic India to the Christian West. Erdogan’s Turkey realized that white Britain promised important role in the colonial administration in the post Saddam Iraq, Pentagon offered Turkey no share in the loot of Iraqi oil. Why should the successors to the Ottoman Islamic Caliphate act as the slave catchers of the Christian occupation troops in its neighboring Muslim country that used to be the part of the Ottoman Empire? It is high time that Asian powers, Turkey, Iran, Syria and India join forces to defend Iraq against the invasions by Christian invaders and Iraq should agree to share half of the Mosul and Kirkuk oil production with the Asian powers that came to its defenses against American imperialism. It is no accident that no Sunni Muslim nation came to the defense of Iraq. Every Wahhabi Sunni Arab nation fully backed American invasions of Iraq, because they hoped to establish Wahhabi theocratic regime in the post-Saddam secular, Liberal Iraq.

 

(1) Erdogan Turkey seeks Ottoman Caliphate

Since oil-rich Arab Peninsula cannot by itself remain independent, it is high time that Turkey or Iran should play more important regional role in the Arabian Peninsula. Turkey has a right to assert its historical role as the Islamic Caliphate over Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan realized that America invaded Iraq to establish direct American colony over former territory of Ottoman Empire, the oil-rich Iraq, to eliminate the principal challenger to the Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate. Islamist AKP government of Turkey led by prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, realized that Turkey cold make more money by getting fair share of the Iraqi oil, than $20 billion United States wanted to pay to Turkey for its help in conquering Iraq. Turkey led by Islamist AKP government faced a true dilemma during America’s war on Iraq to establish American oil colony in Iraq that held world’s second largest reserves of oil, as Iraq had been the former possession of the Ottoman Caliphate the Turkey’s predecessor. Turkey’s Islamist AKP government would like to assert Turkey’s patrimony as the successor state to the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate and demand that sizeable part of the Iraqi oil loot reserved for Turkey as its share, because Iraq had been a former territory of the predecessor state of Turkey.

 

While Turkey’s secular military favored American oil colonialism and opposed Turkey’s assertion of its patrimony in the former territories of the Ottoman Caliphate, the Islamist AKP government would like to harness the military prowess of Turkey’s army to challenge the unchallenged march of American oil colonialism in the Arabian Peninsula. India and Iran would support Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman ambitions to bring former territories of the Ottoman Caliphate under secular Turki control. Iran and India would support religious claims of Ottoman Caliphate over Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate in the Middle East, throughout former territories of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey’s Islamist AKP government would lead Turkey to lead the new Islamic Caliphate, the Turki Caliphate that would govern all Arab OPEC nations, including the former territories of the Ottoman Caliphate.

 

The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey doesn’t have a concrete Iraq War policy, and it is god that it is not committed to the clear cut pro-West policy on neighbor Iraq. Turkey’s geopolitics, which has been presented diplomats as a great advantage for Turkey is in fact the main culprit behind AKP‘s current dilemma on policy towards Iraq war. The Islamist AKP government wisely hesitant to develop a definite official Iraq policy, as the less secular pro-Islamist AKP government correctly believed that geopolitical interests of Turkey, the successor state of Ottoman Caliphate, differ from those of the United States, which waged colonial war o Iraq, a former territory of the Ottoman Empire, to loot and rape the Iraqi oil. There are various factors, such as Ottoman Caliphate’s geopolitical heritage in the Arabian Peninsula, political ties with the Islamic world that hindered the Islamist AKP government from submitting to the pressure of the American oil colonialism, and giving a straight answer to US demands. Turkey’s new Islamist Erdogan-led government wisely preferred to adopt more flexible tactics rather than developing a definite policy in favor of American oil colonialism. The AKP government has based its ever-changing tactics on a number of main points: Turkey doesn’t want a war to be waged in the Arabian Peninsula, which would establish Christian colonialism in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish Islamist AKP government determined to protect Iraq’s territorial integrity, because the secession of Kurdistan would also encourage the secession of Kurds in Turkey.

 

(2) CIA Ruled Turkey Via Military Coups

The military coup leaders and Generals of armed forces in Turkey and Pakistan are traitors to their nations and they acted as the CIA agents when they overthrew the democratically elected governments in their countries. In Turkey as well as Pakistan the West and the CIA organized military coups to overthrow the democratically elected governments so that the CIA spies could rule Turkey and Pakistan and protect the interests of American oil colonialism. No wonder neither the United States nor the European Union shed any crocodile tears when CIA-led military coup leaders overthrew the democratically elected governments of Turkey’s prime minister Necmettin Erbakan and Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaj Sharief. Kemal Pasha Ataturk was an American spy hired by American and British colonialism to force Turkey to abdicate its Ottoman heritage so that American oil colonialism could move into the shoes of the Ottomans in Saudi Arabia, and British Empire could move into Iraq, Kuwait and UAE.

 

When Necmettin Erbakan was pressured out of power by the Turkish military. The CIA inspired military coup leaders forced Erbakan to resign and camouflaged it under the garb of conservatism for defending Turkey's secularism and Western orientation, and there were little or no expressions of concern by Turkey’s Western allies in the NATO. The Turkish army had arbitrarily ousted from power a political party that enjoys the support of more than one fifth of the electorate. European Union and United States overlooked this postmodern putsch against parliamentary democracy and ignored Turkish military's latest political maneuvers to keep under check the AKP government. Military interference in Turkey’s democratic process in the name of secularism is as undemocratic as arbitrary actions undertaken by dictatorial regimes like Saddam Hussein. Democracy means respecting the will of the people and the results of the democratic process. Would United States permit the General of Saudi Arabian army to stage a military coup and arrest the entire Royal family? When the CIA permitted military coups in Pakistan and Turkey and organized overthrow of Pahlavi monarchy in Iran, why it should hesitate to organize military coups against corrupt monarchy in Saudi Arabia and corrupt sheikhdoms in Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman?

 

United States and the CIA had been the greatest menace for the functioning of the democratic process in Turkey and Pakistan. In the democratic systems in Turkey and Pakistan, it could not be the military's role to force prime ministers to step down at the behest of the CIA. While staging military coup, the Turkish generals and Pakistani generals committed to autocracy and enslavement of their nations to the CIA. The last intervention against an elected government in Turkey made it the fourth coup in 37 years. Turkey is de facto controlled by its military. A military state cannot be integrated into democratic form of the government. Turkey must realize that the West periodically organized military coups in Turkey, so that the CIA could keep the successor state of the Ottoman Empire under check, and to curb any pretensions to reclaim the Ottoman inheritance in the oil-rich Arab world, the former possessions of the Ottoman Empire. Had Islamic Ottoman Empire not disintegrated due to the machinations of the Wahhabi terrorists, Muslim Caliphate would rival with European Union.

 

The Turkey's generals at the behest of the CIA organized military coups under the camouflage of secularism making military the traditional guardians of secularism, and simultaneously became the overseers of a token democracy in Turkey. The Pakistani generals at the behest of the CIA overthrew the government of Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief, in the name of fundamentalist Islam, making Pakistani army the traditional guardian of Islam and simultaneously became the overseer of the limited democracy in Pakistan. The CIA hyped secularism to stage a military coup in Turkey, and the CIA hyped Islamic fundamentalism to stage a military coup in Pakistan. Why doesn’t the CIA stage a military coup to overthrow the House of Al Saud in Saudi Arabia either in the name of secularism or Islamic fundamentalism or democracy?

 

(3) Wahhabi Turki Caliphate

Neo-Ottoman Caliph Erdogan would challenge American oil colonialism and Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalism and demand Turkey’s custodial control over Mecca and Medina. Islamist Turkey led by Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) government headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, would align with France and Germany and vehemently oppose American oil colonialism throughout oil-producing former territories of the Ottoman Caliphate. Saudi Arabia wanted legitimacy as Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate found Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey as its principal adversaries. America destroyed the Ottoman heritage in Turkey, because it feared that Islamic Turkey would readily regain its influence over former Ottoman territories.

 

Turkey would become the principal challenger to American oil colonial interests in the Arabian Peninsula and over time would take over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. Perhaps Prime Minister Erdogan would cut Turkey’s diplomatic teeth in the scramble for power by challenging United States exploitation of Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields, by joining forces with France and Germany. Turkey could gain entry into European Union if it allied with France and Germany to curtail the influence of United States and Britain in the oil-rich former territories of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey could emerge as the Middle Eastern bridge for the French-German oil colonialism in Arabian Peninsula in direct contest with American-British colonialism. Turkey could join the French-German camp to challenge the imperialistic march of American oil colonialism in Iraq and Arabian Peninsula.

 

With the connivance of the United States and the CIA the secular governments of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan were replaced by Islamic regimes. The rise of Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan is a victory of United States as well as Wahhabi fundamentalism, as it resulted in the departure of former deputy Prime Minister Ertugrul Yalcinbavir, the most prominent opponent of the American troop deployment. Recep Tayyip Erdogan formed a new Turkish government on March 14, ‘03, Friday and assumed the post of prime minister, a shift that comes as the United States pressed Turkey to authorize the use of its airspace for a war against Saddam Hussein. Erdogan made the announcement after President Ahmet Necdet Sezer approved his Cabinet list in a brief meeting at the presidential palace. Parliament's confidence vote for the new government expected early next week. The newly named Cabinet did not include Ertugrul Yalcinbayir, a deputy prime minister and one of the most prominent opponents of the US troop deployment. The president Sezer fully accepted the list Erdogan delivered to him. When asked why Yalcinbayir was not in the Cabinet, Erdogan said that he had reduced the number of ministers to 22 from 24. There were few other changes in the Cabinet. Abdullah Gul, who had served as premier before Erdogan, was named deputy prime minister and replaced Yakis as foreign minister. Erdogan was appointed to form a new government after winning a seat in parliament in bye-election. Erdogan was constitutionally barred from running in November elections because he was jailed in 1999 for anti-secular activities. The party's legislators amended the constitution to allow Erdogan to contest the elections and to hold office of the prime minister. Under the pressure of the secular military that ruled Turkey after the fall of Ottoman Caliphate, the Kemalist military had banned the Islamist parties from contesting elections. 

 

Turkey’s ruling party, the Justice and Development Party, the AKP, headed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan swept to power with a huge majority in November 2002 general elections, and Mr. Erdogan became the Prime Minister of Turkey on the eve of President Bush’s invasions of Iraq. The election was a massive rejection of the old order in Turkish politics, which had been corrupt and unstable. Turkey’s government, led by the pro-Islamic “Justice and Development Party,” or “AKP,” since November 2002, held in deep suspicion by a large number of Turkeys powerful generals, who favor the secular system of government established in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924. Secular Turkey successors to great Ottoman Empire, the envy of Christian Europe, is concerned that Kurdish forces will try to seize control of Iraqi oil fields after allied forces invade from the north. Tension may increase between the AKP government and the armed forces. The Turkey’s army, one of the most secular conservative forces in Turkish society, relished Army’s renewed importance during Iraq War, and it could influence the anti-war decisions of the government. Turkey’s generals have a low opinion of the AKP, whose Islamist leanings clash with the staunch secularism of the military. The army’s Chief of General Staff had upbraided the former prime minister, Abdullah Gul, for failing to back the expulsion of Islamist officers. The AKP as a breath of fresh air in Turkish politics, the Turkey’s generals fear that the new Islamist government will betray national strategic interests. The Turkey’s sees itself as the glue that holds Turkey’s fractious politics together: In 1997, Turkey’s Army spearheaded a political and public campaign that brought down the country’s first Islamist government. The government was brought down not by the blatant military coup but by “fine-tuning of democracy”. Turkey’s army could repeat a military coup or the campaign to overthrow the Islamist government at any time of its choice.

 

(4) Turki Claims Kirkuk Mosul Oil

Turkey should establish Neo-Ottoman Oil colony over Iraq, especially in Northern Iraq over Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. Turkey should oppose rather than support the onward march of American oil colonialism over former territories of the Ottoman Caliphate.

 

American and British colonialism cheated Ottoman Empire and Turkey of its rightful inheritances of oil-rich territories in Arabian Peninsula, the OPEC countries. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar and Bahrain are artificial countries, created by American and British oil colonialism and these lands should revert to the control of Turkey the successors to Ottoman Empire. Bush administration suspected that the diplomatic trade with AKP-led Turkey could prove a Faustian bargain, one that Washington could pay even more for later on. The rekindling of old enmities between the Kurds and the Turks is an early sign that the road from Saddam’s brutal rule to Iraqi democracy may have some detours. One could be a civil or guerrilla war that outlasts Saddam’s rule. A potential flash point: the Turks want to see the peshmerga disarmed. Kurd People are more afraid of the Turks than Saddam. If the Turks intervene to control Kirkuk or destroy Kurdistan’s political stability, then Turks presence in northern Iraq will not be acceptable to Kurds.

 

The tensions in northern Iraq center on Kirkuk oil-rich region, the oil capital of northern Iraq, which Kurds as well as Turkoman minority in north Iraq claims as their ethnic birthright. During 1990s Saddam Hussein carried out an “Arabization” of Kirkuk campaign that displaced thousands of Kurds and Turkomans from Kirkuk. After Saddam Hussein is deposed, many former residents of Kirkuk will scramble back to stake their claim. Turkey would side with its ethnic brethren the Turkoman. Kurds as well as Turkoman want to rush back to Kirkuk, and they should return as Saddam had expelled them from Kirkuk. Americans should not stop them from returning to their homes in Kirkuk. Turkey concerned that the Kurds will claim sole ownership of the Kirkuk oil disregarding the counter claims of Turkomans. Iraqi Kurds fear that political pressure from Turkey could prevent Kurds from claiming Kirkuk as well as Mosul, its sister oil city. Bush administration official insists no grab for oil will be permitted: “Oil is the patrimony of the Iraqi people as a whole, not of the north, or the Turkomans, Kurds, Shiites or other ethnic groups. Turkey planned to lay claim to some of Iraq’s oil, invoking old treaties that grant Ankara a small portion of Kirkuk’s output. Turkey indicated that Turkish troops could leave inside a year, but only if the Americans got it right, and make sure the Kirkuk oilfields remained under control of proper authorities.

 

For Kurds, the real dilemma is what Washington will do. The Kurds have no friends but the mountains, a bitter reflection on a century of Kurdish history that included numerous betrayals by Washington dating back to Woodrow Wilson. Kurds won’t accept any occupation of Kurdistan land, whether by the Turks or anybody else. The pro-Kurdish elements in neighboring Iran are in recruitment mode. It is rumored that the 5,000 troops belonging to the Shiite-dominated Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), an opposition Iraqi Shiite group with close ties to Tehran, crossed the border into Iraqi Kurdistan, but SCIRI flatly denied that but added that SCIRI troops were cooperating with the Peshmerga, and that many more of its Iran-based troops, known as the Badr brigade, cross into Iraq if Iranian government approved it. That is Turkey's nightmare scenario. Throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Turkish government fought a violent civil war, in which more than 30,000 people died, with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a violent secessionist group headquartered in Syria and the Bekaa Valley of eastern Lebanon home to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups from around the world. After forcing Syria to kick out PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan by threatening to go to war with Damascus, Turkey captured Ocalan with the help of the CIA in Nairobi and defeated the PKK on the battlefield in 1999.

 

Turkey is desperately worried that Kurdish resistance forces based in northeastern Iraq and protected from Saddam's barbarism for the past decade by the US-enforced no-fly zone will declare independence and incite Turkey's Kurds to do the same. The Bush administration engaged in a delicate diplomatic dance between Turkey and Kurds. America emphasized to the Iraqi Kurds that their national aspirations can best be met as an autonomous region of Iraq, and emphasized to the Turks that Turkey have nothing to fear from the relatively benign form of democratic Kurdish nationalism that existed in northern Iraq over the past decade, under the protection of no-fly zone.

 

(5) Turkey’s Geopolitical Cross Roads

Turkey should not misuse its geopolitical location at the crossroads of Europe and Asia to provide bridges to the European invaders, rather should provide bridges to the Asian warriors dreaming to make their impact on Europe. Turkey rather becoming a servant of white Christian Europe could become the leader of Islamic world and protect the Islamic Civilization from the menace of the barbarian Wahhabi fundamentalism. Great Turkey and Neo-Ottoman Caliphate is the dream of the Islamic world and Turkey should defend Arab OPEC from American oil colonialism, rather than working as slave catchers for Wahhabi-Yankee Oil Colonialism. Turkey has one foot in Europe and the other in Asia, and geopolitically it has many advantages, but in diplomacy the Turkey’s history and geography are throwing up, difficult challenges and, at worst, seemingly intractable problems. The country is struggling to find a balance between old and new, west and east, Christian and Muslim. Turkey is a member of the NATO alliance, but also strongly opposed to war. Turkey worried that Iraq conflict would do great damage to Turkey’s already-weak economy, and might push up interest rates, thus complicating talks with the International Monetary Fund over a $16 billion loan agreement, unless Turkey allowed to loot Iraq’s oil fields at Kirkuk. Turkey concerned that Iraq war could revive Kurdish separatism in South-eastern Turkey, near the border with Iraq, as some 30,000 people, mainly Kurds, have died in fighting in the area over the past 15 years.

 

After the energy crisis in the 1970s, Turkey tried a cautious rapprochement with the Eastern bloc and increased intimacy with the OPEC Arab world. Turkey's efforts for Turk-Arab rapprochement with Arab states never really succeeded, where both distant and recent history rendered Arab-Turk relations resentful and hostile. Memories of the struggle of incipient Arab nationalism against the decaying Ottoman Empire lingered even in 21st Century. Turkey’s support for British and American imperialism during Cold War was prejudicial to Arab nationalism and its campaign for independence. Turkey supported Britain against Egypt. Turkey supported France against the Algerians. Turkey maintained relations with Israel. During the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, Ankara criticized United States for exposing Turkey to the Soviet threat when Washington, in a deal with the Soviets, removed American Jupiter missiles from American bases on Turkish territory, in exchange for Soviet removal of Soviet missiles from Cuba.

 

Rather than supporting American oil colonialism and military occupation of Iraq, Turkey should assert its Ottoman heritage and dream to reestablish Islamic Caliphate and regain control over Islam’s holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Turkey would earn permanent hostility of Iraq and Iran if it allowed American troops invade northern Iraq through Turkey. American colonial occupation of Iraq harmed Turkey’s national interests and security. The AKP government of Turkey reluctant to back America’s war on Iraq, as Turkey feared that Iraq war could hamper Turkey’s country's economic development and lead to the creation of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Turkey complained its loss of  $40+ billion in trade with Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War and UN embargo. Turkey feared that a war in Iraq would encourage Kurds in northern Iraq to create an independent state, which could in turn, encourage Turkey's own Kurdish population to do the same. Kurdish rebels fought Turkish troops for autonomy for 15 years, in a struggle that cost an estimated 37,000 lives. There is a de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq, and Turkey cannot allow this to go any further, without endangering the territorial integrity of Turkey. President Bush could be a good friend of Turkey, and Turkey does not want to hurt his feelings, but it is Turkey’s duty to let America know Turkey’s concerns. Turkish backing to American invasions was seen as crucial to any Pentagon’s action against Iraq. Turkey was a launching pad for NATO strikes against Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War I and continued to host some 50 US warplanes enforcing a no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Turkey desperately needed foreign loans to recover from a deep financial crisis. Turkey might have little choice but to agree to American imperialism. Turkey realized that Iraq is so developed technologically and economically despite the embargo, that it cannot be compared to Afghanistan, Yugoslavia or Haiti and Iraq could turn out to be the Vietnam for the United States. It will not be possible for United States to get out of Iraq easily. Why should Turkey of Ottoman heritage agree to work as slave catchers of American oil colonialism, when it would rise to the occasion and establish Turkey-Iraq Confederation and defend Iraq against American aggression? Why should Ottoman-Turkey behave as slave of NATO when it could lead the Islamic world, emerge as the new Caliph of Islam and establish oil-rich Turki Ottoman Empire in the Middle East in partnership with French and German oil Colonialism?

 

(6) Erdogan NeoOttoman Caliphate Dream

Islamist No-Ottoman Turkey led by Erdogan would more likely lead the Muslim Empire in the Middle East rather than become the servant of the Christian oil colonialism in the Middle East. Prime Minister Erdogan refused to let Turkey become slave catchers for American oil colonialism, even when the CIA spies led Turkish Army generals waned to favor American colonialism, by allowing Christian invaders cross over Muslim Turkey to invade, colonize and rape Muslim Iraq to make Iraq part of the Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate. American and British empires installed spy Kemal Pasha Ataturk and succession of the CIA-agents as military dictators in post-Ottoman Turkey to misdirect Turkey’s resources in promoting the interests of American oil colonialism, throughout former possessions of the Ottoman Empire. More than 70,000 Kurdish warriors call themselves the Peshmerga, meaning "those who face death," the American troops being inserted in Iraqi Kurdistan are early elements of what was supposed to become the northern front, and which never could become the Northern because the new Islamic successors to the Ottoman Caliphate, realized that Turks would make more money by reclaiming Ottoman territories in oil-rich Iraq, than working as the slave catchers for Yankee Christian oil colonialism.

 

Islamist Turkey realized that President Bush invaded Iraq to loot the oil-wealth of Iraq to bolster up weak American economy, in face of the Wall Street crash United States faced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Prime Minister Erdogan realized that Turkey could also solve all the economic problems of Turkey by occupying Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields of Northern Iraq, which Turkey claimed belonged to Turkey. The missions of Pentagon-Peshmarga Coalition forces are to prevent Turkey from invading northern Iraq to occupy Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields and to prevent Saddam from torching the Kirkuk-Mosul oil fields and to engage Iraqi troops that would otherwise join the defense of Baghdad, so that pentagon may not lose lives in the conquest of Iraq. Pentagon courted Northern Alliance troops to fight and defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan without losing any American lives, and then turned on Northern Alliance and protected the interests of the Pashtun and Osama bin laden in post-occupation Afghanistan and resumed the Opium production in Afghanistan. .

 

Pentagon would use the services of Kurd Peshmerga troops to defeat Arab troops in Iraq and Kurds feared that after the victory, Pentagon would turn against Kurds, just as American turned against Northern Alliance troops after they conquered Kabul and handed over the rule over Kabul to American troops. American Airplanes over flew Turkey the NATO bases in Europe to airfields in the Iraqi Kurdistan zone Kurds were surprised to find the first time an air force on Kurds side first time after the First World War. The peshmerga for 25 years had always dreaded the sight of aircraft because they brought death to Kurd people. The American transport airplanes carried U.S. forces as well as loads of weapons to enable Kurds to follow up on American air and missile strikes at Sunni Arab, Ansar and Wahhabi Al Qaeda targets in Iraq.

 

Turkey might align with Germany and France to oppose American colonial occupation of Iraq. Western Europe would effectively challenge American oil colonialism if it could secure alliance with Turkey, the successors of the Ottoman Empire that geopolitically sits at the crossroads of Europe and Middle East. Saddam's strategy is to use guerrilla tactics to give France and Russia two weeks to negotiate a truce. Such delaying tactics helped by Turkey's refusal to allow American troops to open northern front in its invasion of Iraq. The Turkey’s new Islamic Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan transformed Turkey from formerly staunch American satellite into rival of United States for sphere of influence throughout oil-rich former territories of the Ottoman Empire, in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Erodogan’s Turkey might militarily support Saddam Hussein if Iraq agreed to handover portion of Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields to Turkey, in exchange for Turkey’s military support to Iraq, against American oil imperialism. Lured by oil riches Erdogan’s Turkey may transform from being an America’s ally into Iraq’s best friend, and Turkey might again dream to lead Islamic world against the Christian West.

 

Turkey’s refusal to allow American troops to enter Turkey and open the northern front in Northern Iraq, might turn the tables in the war and raised the possibility that Pentagon might miss the Yugoslavia-type victory in Iraq and meet the quagmire in Iraq that Soviet troops faced in Afghanistan. Turkey would gain nothing by supporting Pentagon in Iraq war, and it could win the admiration and affection of the Islamic world, if it led Muslims against American invasion, and Muslims might consent to be part of the Ottoman Caliphate. The Turkey permitted U.S. over flights over Turkey’s air space and Pentagon retorted that Turkey did so because America demonstrated its capability of doing it the long, hard way, from the west through Jordan and Kuwait. America owed King Abdullah of Jordan a plenty for allowing over flights and Pentagon declared that America owned Mr. Erdogan nothing. Turkey’s Islamists AKP party kept American supply ships floating off Turkey's shores, while Turkey dickered over the price Christian invaders prepared to pay descendants of the of Ottoman Caliphate for participating in the war to force a neighboring Muslim nation into Christian colonial occupation. Why should new Ottomans accept paltry sum when they could make much more by looting the Mosul and Kirkuk oil. Pentagon had to send American ships around to Kuwait, lengthening the war and causing more allied and Iraqi casualties, and this delay might turn America’s sure victory in Iraq into possible defeat. Turkey Added diplomatic insult to this military injury, by massing 40,000 troops on its border with Iraq, hoping to grab the oil fields of Kirkuk and Mosul if Iraqi Kurds dared to return to their homes in Kirkuk and Mosul, as they had been earlier evicted by Saddam Hussein from Kirkuk. Neo-Ottomans dreamt to seize a rich chunk of their Kirkuk oil fields in Northern Iraq, by insisting that Iraqi Kurds could plan to set up an independent Kurdistan state in Northern Iraq, which would cause Turkish Kurds to secede and break up Turkey. That's strictly Erdogan's cover story for Neo-Ottoman’s oil grab in Kirkuk, undermining the American oil colonial Empire's plans for establishing unified colonial administration throughout Iraq, so that American oil companies could loot the oil resources of the entire Iraq. Even Germany, the America's severest critics for Iraqi invasions recognize Turkey's move as venal and against the national interests of white European colonialism. Descendants of Adolf Hitler pacifist Germany led by Gerhard Schroeder threatened to remove German crews from the NATO AWACs sent to Turkey.

 

Thus Neo-Ottoman Erdogan, so far the novice wheeler-dealer in Turkey alienated the trans-Atlantic coalition of the willing led by United States, Britain and Spain as well as and old Europe's union of the unwilling, led by Germany and France. The neo-Ottoman Islamist Turks gave a "humanitarian" reason for crossing into Northern Iraq, to block an expected wave of Kurdish refugees running from Saddam's vengeance. Kurds could be running from an attack by Saddam's troops invited by Turkey's refusal to permit passage by allied troops through Turkey.

 

Christians would lose more if they denounced the new Islamist AKP government of Turkey for this betrayal of the Christian oil colonialism because wartime is not the best time. Colin Powell observed patiently that Islamist Ankara had yet to "operationalize" over flights. Gen. Tommy Franks also walked on eggs, noting that incursions by Turkish troops were by "very light formations." Neo-Ottoman Erdogan had been badly advised, before his election, that America could not topple Saddam without Turkey’s help. Kurds would not forget that Turkey provided the airfields for the no-fly zone that protected Kurds for a decade. However, Kurds noted that Kurdish forces in Iraq are part of the coalition, effectively under Pentagon’s control, and Kurds are not asking for money; but calling for freedom for Kurds from oppressive Arab rule in Turkey. No wonder President Bush had to take off his gloves and warned Erodgoan with a firm message that America expected Turkey not to go into northern Iraq. The undermining of the alliance between Turkey and the Pentagon helped Saddam make the war longer and bloodier, patriotic Islamist AKP politicians and pro-CIA secular generals in Ankara will agree not to push Turkey’s Ottoman agenda as it would create unprecedented conflict with Christian oil colonialism and Mecca Caliphate.

 

32(4) Regime Change in Iraq

(1) Puppet Regimes in Iraq or Serbia

United States would set up Puppet Regime in Iraq, exploiting the ethnic divide of the artificially created nation state of Iraq, on the pattern of the Puppet Regimes in Bosnia and Serbia that resulted out of the President Bill Clinton’s war for humanitarian intervention.  United States would not attempt any regime change in neither the Wahhabi monarchy of Saudi Arabia nor in other GCC States, namely, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, as these states have agreed that American would control their economic, military and foreign affairs. After the conquest of Iraq, American colonial empire in the Arabian Gulf region would include every oil-producing nation. American would not allow democratic freedom in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, fearing that any self-respecting Arab leader that won the popular elections might adopt anti-American policies and undermine the economic and military interests of American oil colonialism.

 

(7) Wahhabi Religion as Basis of State

American oil colonialism touted predator religion as the basis of the new states. Spymaster Colonel Lawrence of Arabia convinced the Wahhabi tribes of Mecca and Medina that they stand to gain if they hyped Wahhabi as the basis of new states in the Arabian Peninsula in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, that never existed as states in history, in exchange for Wahhabi clergy’s monopoly over religious matters throughout Arabian Peninsula, provided they agreed to transfer control over economic, military and foreign policy to United States in Saudi Arabia and to Britain in Iraq. Wahhabi doctrine developed by Zionist Cabal and American and British oil colonialism to justify the separate statehood of thinly populated oil-producing nations, which otherwise should have become part of the leading Islamic power of the region, either Egypt or Iran, or Iraq or Pakistan.

 

(2) Preemptive Strikes for Regime Change

Regime Change is the acronym for Puppet Regime in the parlance of the Pentagon and the white House. United States would not support any regime change in Saudi Arabia, which resulted in the loss of tyrannical rule of the House of Al Saud, even when it invaded Iraq, boasting to install democratic rule in Iraq. Iraq would become a colony of the American Colonial Empire after President Bush imposed regime change in Iraq. American colonial empire would establish puppet regimes in the oil-rich Arab world undertaking preemptive strikes against such regimes as dared to oppose American colonialism. By regime change United States meant the puppet regime not the democratically elected government in Iraq. America historically established puppet regimes in the Islamic world, especially Wahhabi puppet monarchy of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. The CIA established puppet military dictatorships by endorsing military coups in the Islamic world, namely, military regimes of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan, Gen. Zia Ur Rahman in Bangladesh. The Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, M. Gadhafy had been the CIA agents when they captured power in Iran, Iraq and Libya respectively. United States installed Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and supported Muslim terrorists in secular liberal Algeria. President Bush’s preemptive strikes against Iraq to establish permanent colonial occupation of Iraq, would establish American Colonial Empire in Arabian Gulf region. There have been four types of regimes in the Islamic world: Secular nationalist regimes, Theocratic Wahhabi monarchies, Fundamentalist Islamic revolutionary Militant regimes, and Democratic Secular regimes. American waged wars on the secular nationalistic socialistic Arab regimes, since they were part of the Non Aligned Movement and preferred ties with former colonial rulers to ties with United States. American colonialism preferred theocratic fundamentalist Wahhabi monarchies and sheikhdoms as Wahhabi clergy agreed to American control over economic, military and foreign affairs in exchange for Wahhabi control over religious affairs and Wahhabi royal families’ tyrannical control over political power. American oil colonialism found religious theocracies like Mullahs-led Iran and Taliban rule in Afghanistan, could protect American interests without the need to install hereditary royal families. United States provided safe passage to Osama Bin Laden hoping he would come handy, whenever the CIA needed a religious leader to overthrow the House of Al Saud monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Pahlavi monarchy of Shah of Iran in 1979, and western predators looted the billions of dollars of Shah’s wealth. If Osama Bin Laden ever became the ruler of Saudi Arabia, the confiscation of assets and property of House of Al Saud royal family would generate loot of over $500 billion for western predator institutions. However United States may hype the need of the democratically elected regimes, the Pentagon and the CIA skeptical about democratic government’s ability to protect American oil interests. Military dictatorships had been the preferred form of governments for promoting American national interests. Military coup leaders depended upon continued American support for their survival and could be counted upon to protect the interests of American colonialism without fail.

 

America’s war on secular liberal Iraq represented the invasions of the Mecca Caliphate of secular threats to Wahhabi imperialism in the Islamic world. The war exposed the bankruptcy of a model of Arab nationalist statehood developed in several Arab countries during the 20th century as well as that of the theocratic Wahhabi monarchies in the Middle East. The principal enemy of Wahhabi theocratic polity had been the nationalistic and socialistic Arab regimes, and United States realized that Wahhabi rulers would readily establish American colonial rule in the Arab world, while nationalistic and socialistic Arab regimes would oppose American oil colonialism. America’s war on Iraq is the Wahhabi attempt to harness the military power of the foreign colonial powers to destroy the secular forces, in exchange for establishing American oil colonies in the Arab world. Rather than propagating Western ideas, culture and polity, American imperialism consistently promoted Wahhabi fundamentalism to secure permanent military ties with the Wahhabi clergy, who agreed to sign away Arab oil wealth to American oil colonialism, because except for the brief moment during Mecca Caliphate, the Wahhabi Bedouin tribes of Mecca and Medina enjoyed little power, influence and prosperity during Damascus Caliphate, Baghdad Caliphate, and Ottoman Caliphate.

 

(3) Secular Nationalistic States

First State Model based on nationalism and socialism that imbibed Western values over traditional religious values and customs. The West promoted certain leaders as the nationalist socialist leaders to encourage the secession of the oil-rich territories from the Ottoman Empire. The Nationalist-Socialist states, Qowmi-Ishtiraki Arab states represented the strong leadership of the political leader. The model was presented under such labels as Qowmi (nationalist) and Ishtiraki (socialist) or, sometimes nationalist-socialist. But, perhaps, a more apt label for it is Zaimist, a regime centered on a charismatic, brutal, and strongman. Arabic word Zaim, means chief or Caudillo. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War many military leaders emerged as the nationalist –socialist leaders to justify the secession from Islamic Caliphate. Many Arab states came into being after the First World War after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Britain and France as colonial powers inherited the Arab provinces of the Ottomans, created these new states to permanently sever the ties of the Ottoman Empire with its Muslim Arab territories. These Arab states were invariably, shaped as instruments for protecting and furthering strategic interest of the British, French and American colonial power. Iraq, a post War protectorate of British Empire created around the oil fields of Mosul and Kirkuk. Britain promoted Egypt to help Britain and France protect the Suez Canal. Britain created the State of Trans-Jordan to be British outpost to keep an eye on the Arabian Peninsula and provide a base for British Empire’s intervention in the Levant. The new state of Jordan built around an army created by British colonial Empire.

 

With the advent of the decolonization movement, the newly created army-based Arab states lost their original function, to protect the interests of the colonial empires, as colonial rulers no longer wanted to control the colonies. Anxious to protect its power and privilege in the former colonies, the military elite adopted the nationalist discourse to lead the new states. The military rulers remained loyal to their colonial patrons till the end, and did not join the struggle for independence until the colonial powers had indicated a readiness to withdraw. After independence, the Arab military elites found themselves without a role, when the political power transferred to the popular leaders and democratically elected leaders in the newly independent states. The military elites sought to promote the interests of the former colonial powers by seizing power in a series of coups. America realized that military elite in the newly independent nations would transfer their loyalty from former colonial rulers to America and American oil colonialism, if United States could legitimize the military coups by granting de factor or de jure recognition of the post-coup military dictatorships. The CIA and the US State Department encouraged the military coups led by Generals Ayub Khan, Zia Ul Haq, Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Generals Zia Ur Rahman in Pakistan, Colonel Gadhafy in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Shah of Iran in Iran just to name the few. United States and the CIA allegedly played significant role in the assassinations of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo, and President Allende of Chile, to name a few. British colonialism removed Netaji Subash Chandra Bose the hero of the Second World War to pave way for Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India. British colonialism and Vatican continued to promote its interests by means of its ties to Indian Civil Service and the Congress Party. British Empire had created the Congress Party to undermine the influence of hot blood nationalists.

 

Colonial powers promoted nationalist military coup leaders to undermine the regimes of King Idris in Libya, and overthrew the Egyptian King, Vietnamese King to replace monarchy with Westernized military rulers. To promote Christianity America had overthrew the Buddhist Ming Monarchy of China and Buddhist Dao Monarchy of Vietnam. Post-colonial military elites of Armies that were put into power as colonial instruments redefined themselves as standard-bearers of Arab nationalism, to justify denying the elected representatives assume political power. The Arab military elite justified its intervention in politics and military coups in terms of the Arab defeat at the hands of the newly created Israeli state in 1948. Arab military coup leaders blamed poor performance of the Arab armies on incompetent or treacherous political leaders and vowed that, once in power, they would restore the Arab honor. They often went on to earn even bigger dishonor. The military governments overthrew a traditional monarchy backed by tribal structures, because the traditional system of rule had based its legitimacy on Islam and tribal loyalties. The new military regimes adopted nationalism and, in some cases, socialism, as counter themes. The nationalist theme was attractive because it cut across religious divides and legitimized rule by officers who subscribed to secular creeds other than mainstream Sunni Islam. The socialist theme appealed to the urban poor and the secular intelligentsia that wished to distance itself from "feudalistic" structures of Islam. Secular nationalist targeted Islamic religious authorities to bring them under secular state control and deprived them of the independence they had enjoyed for more than 1000 years, throughout out the Second Millennium. Traditional Iranian Shiite religious organizations; such as Sufi fraternities, esoteric sects and charitable structures; were either infiltrated or dismantled by Shah of Iran. The new state assumed control of the endowments (awqaf) property worth billions, depriving Islamic clergy of an important economic base. The army-based state also annexed the educational system, nationalizing thousands of private Koranic schools and dictating the curricula.

 

The army's direct assumption of power led to a gradual militarizing of Arab politics, in which violence against Sunni religious leaders became the main source of legitimacy. The secular Arab military rulers did what they knew how: wage war. They waged war against Islamic civil society with the aim of destroying all potential sources of alternative authority and legitimacy based on the dictates of Muslim clergy. Secular military rulers disarmed as many of the tribes as they could, and executed, imprisoned, exiled or bought most of their leaders. The westernized post-colonialism ruling elite adopted secularism, modernism and liberalism as guiding principles for building post-colonial Arab societies, hoping to remake Occidental Middle East in the image of the West, so that the Arab Occidental world could become Westernized. Shah of Iran made Iran into the Paris of the East. Beirut rivaled as the Paris of the Levant. Shah of Iran represented the modernized, prosperous, developed Iran, ready to take on the West as an equal. By the start of the 1970s, the traditional Arab civil society had been all but destroyed. A totalitarian state ideologically confused, unsure of its legitimacy, addicted to violence and ridden by corruption; dominated all aspects of life.

 

(5) Theocratic Wahhabi Monarchies

Wahhabi Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar whole-heartedly supported the American invasions of Iraq, to destroy the secular, nationalist Iraqi regime to re-impose the Wahhabi rule over Iraq, which was terminated by the execution of King Faisal II during 1958 military coup. Predator Wahhabi religious intolerance and Wahhabi militancy rewarded American Oil colonialism unrestricted control over economic, military and foreign affairs, in exchange for legitimization of the Wahhabi theocratic regimes in the oil-producing Arab world. Banking upon the military muscle of America and the financial clout of American Big Oil the Islamic theocratic States, transferred political power to the religious clergy and sidelined the secular, democratic, liberal political and military leadership. American Colonialism took the side of the fundamentalist theocratic Islam, where religious clergy exercised political power instead of the military rulers and democratically elected political leaders. Religion is the basis of the State of Israel as well as Saudi Arabia. America realized that foundation of Israel and Saudi Arabia based on religious fundamentalism and religious intolerance, would create a new concept of the statehood that would be loyal to American colonialism and become enemy of the socialist nationalist state system that became the stooges of European colonial powers and the Soviet Union. American and Jews conceptualized the new concept of the fundamentalist Muslim states, which would be totally different from the secular nationalist Middle East states and eliminate secular nationalist leaders and establish America’s de facto colonial rule over economic, military and foreign affairs. American Oil colonialism and Zionist cabal jointly developed the concept of the Islamic states organized around the tyrannical power of the Wahhabi clergy in the former colonial possessions of Britain, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, which would establish Islamic rule over these countries and establish American oil colonies in these former British colonies. American oil colonialism in 1968 bribed British Labour prime minister to order the withdrawal of Britain from all colonial possessions before 1968, so that American oil colonies could be established in these Sheikhdoms on the line of Wahhabi Monarchy American oil colonialism established in Saudi Arabia. The Second State Model harnessed the power the religious fundamentalism, Wahhabi Sunni clergy to impose fundamentalist Islamic barbaric customs and laws to elevate the Sunni clergy as centers of political power in Arabia and Iran, because the religious clergy agreed to sign away to Americans the rights over the oil and gas resources of the Arab lands. American Oil Colonialism nurtured, cultivated Islamic Wahhabi fundamentalism to empower fundamentalist Islamic religious clergy tyrannical powers to turn the clock back in the Arab world and to root out the social modernization brought by nationalistic secular regimes. America found that the westernized nationalistic ruling elite either supported the colonial interests of former colonial powers, namely Britain and France, or joined the Non Aligned Movement to oppose the interests of the American oil colonialism. American oil colonialism realized that the traditional religious clergy that had been sidelined by the former colonial powers, France and Britain, in their quest to promote the religious interests of Christian churches, could become the foundation to build American oil colonialism in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire. Wahhabi clergy had no role in the Ottoman Empire. The secular nationalistic Arab regimes radically undermined the interests of the fundamentalist Islamic clergy. President Jimmy Carter ordered the overthrow of the liberal, secular regime of Pahlavi Shah of Iran and overruled Iranian military takeover and installed fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini in power in Iran. Mullah-ruled Iran promoted interests of American oil colonialism. Mullahs-led Iran and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia continued to safeguard economic interests of American oil colonialism. 

 

(6) Theocratic Militant Islamic Regimes

Taliban regime represented the Third form of State system in the Islamic world, the rule of the fundamentalist militant Islam waging wars on infidels. American Oil Colonialism may install Osama bin Laden as ruler of Saudi Arabia to loot the property of Saudi House of Al Saud, as they looted the property of Emperor Pahlavi Shah of Iran by installing Shiite fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini into power in Iran in 1979. Terrorist Osama Bin laden would serve the interests of American oil colonialism by confiscating the assets and property of the entire Al Saud royal family in Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden Group would effectively rule and control Saudi Arabia to promote the interests of United States. American oil colonialism realized the military potential of Wahhabi fundamentalist Mujahideens and realized that militant Islamic Jihad warriors could also acquire political power in the Islamic countries and promote the economic, military and foreign policy interests of American oil colonialism more efficiently than even corrupt tyrannical Saudi princes.

 

America might install third type of states, the Taliban-type state in Saudi Arabia to undermine the power of House of Al Saud monarchy in Saudi Arabia. America had earlier installed Wahhabi regimes to bring down the challenge of nationalist secular regimes in the Middle East. By controlling the means of violence Taliban regime in Afghanistan acquired legitimacy and won the official de jure recognition of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan and de factor recognition by American and British oil colonialism. American oil colonialism and American empire flirting with Third State Model, the Taliban-type religious fundamentalist regimes in the Islamic world, as the fundamentalist Mujahideens willing to promote the interests of the American oil colonialism no less than the Saudi princes. The Islamic extremist regimes like Shiite Mullah-led Iran, Sunni Wahhabi Taliban regime in Afghanistan are alternatives to the Mukhabarat regimes. Islamist movement is also in crisis as a result of the failure of the Islamic revolution in Iran, the tragic experience of Islamism in the Sudan and the dismal end of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The emergence of al Qaeda, and its terrorist leadership as the most potent symbols of Islamism, weakened the Islamist movement by alienating key elements within the Arab urban middle classes. What could be the key elements of a new Arab state model? The failed model was a nationalist secular power-state, which lost to the Wahhabi theocracy model with the ascendancy of Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Islam, with the rise of the Mecca Caliphate. The military dictatorships as well as the Wahhabi monarchies and sheikhdoms based on the regime’s control over the means of violence, and are known in Islamic literature as Saltana, in which legitimacy is based on the control of the means of violence. The Taliban regimes justified the rule over the Islamic lands with legitimacy based on the control of the means of violence, the Islamic concept of Saltana.

 

(7) Democratic Islamic States

America may promote fourth type of state system, the democratically elected leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan provided they agreed to serve and protect the oil interests of American oil colonialism in Afghanistan and Iraq. The democratically elected regimes could become an alternative to the failed state models in the Arab world, which would create a new type of political-state, in which legitimacy emanates from the free exercise of the will of the citizens by means of free and fair elections. Democratic model of the state based on a civic bond among citizens, pluralism and accountability, would meet the opposition of American oil colonialism, as it would oppose the exploitation of Arab oil resources by American oil companies.

 

American propaganda machine extols the virtues of most barbaric uncivilized form of Islam, namely, Sunni Wahhabi sect, primarily because only Wahhabi clergy agreed to barter Arab oil assets to American oil colonialism, in exchange for Wahhabi control over Mecca, Medina and imposition of Wahhabi Shariah laws over Arab lands. Islam imposes strict limits to the powers of the ruler (Sultan or Hakim), it is, theoretically possible to use it as a basis for opposing Wahhabi tyranny and unscrupulous life styles of Saudi Al Saud princes. Islam might justify the mass execution of the princes of the Saudi royal family. The new state model for the Arabs should revive and reassert those limits that Islam puts on the rulers, the Sultans. It should help the civil society to revive, reorganize and revitalize Islamic institutions. This should be accompanied with a massive program of privatization, to reduce the role of the Wahhabi clergy in controlling and dictating social, political, cultural and economic policy and the allocation of national resources in general. Islam can be used to hang Wahhabi rulers as much as it can be used to install Wahhabi rulers into power. United States preferred barbarian fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Islamic sect to other more liberal Islamic sects practiced in Turkey, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia because only fundamentalist Wahhabi clergy agreed to American colonial occupation of Arab oil fields, in exchange for Wahhabi monopoly over religious power in Mecca & Medina. American would impose tyrannical rule of Wahhabi clergy over Iraq to impose Shariah over Iraq, just as Ayatollah Khomeini imposed Shariah over Iran in 1979. President Bush’s war on Iraq would make Iraq a colony of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate and bring Iraq under the control of Wahhabi clergy. In the eyes of Wahhabi clergy President Bush is the Gazi the Wahhabi warrior that destroyed the infidel secular liberal government in Iraq and brought Iraq back into the fold of Wahhabi fundamentalism. America’s victory in Iraq and Afghanistan would be the victory of Wahhabi fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism. President Jimmy Carter removed secular Shah of Iran and replaced Pahlavi monarchy with Ayatollah’s rule in Iran. President Bill Clinton imposed regime change in post-Cold War secular Afghanistan and imposed the rule of Taliban and Osama bin Laden in 1995. America used its military might to impose the rule of fundamentalist Islamism in Iran in 1979, in Afghanistan in 1995, and in Iraq in 2003. America imposed the rule of fundamentalist Islamism in Pakistan during the military dictatorships of Zia Ul Haq and Pervez Musharraf. United States and the CIA played significant role in the murder and assassination of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Mujibur Rahman, Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat and Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal.

 

(8) Religion as the Basis of State

Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire had been multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-religion Empires. Koran rejects the concept of separate nation states. All Muslims supposed to be ruled by a single Muslim Sultan. Koran would permit a Pakistani become the Sultan of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, because Pakistan is the Islamic world’s strongest military power. British Oil colonialism created Pakistan to disrupt Indian attempts to project its influence in oil rich Iran and the Persian Gulf, as Indian rupee continued to be the reserve currency of Central Banks of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Trucial States as late as 1964. Persian gulf had been an Indian Lake throughout 18th, 19th centuries and pre 1947 20th Century.

 

British oil colonialism touted Islam as the basis of Pakistan to create the new state of Pakistan out of Indian Empire in 1947, so that India might not have direct borders with oil-rich Iran. American oil colonialism touted predator religion as the basis of the new states. Spymaster Colonel Lawrence of Arabia convinced the Wahhabi tribes of Mecca and Medina that they stand to gain if they hyped Wahhabi as the basis of new states in the Arabian Peninsula in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, that never existed as states in history, in exchange for Wahhabi clergy’s monopoly over religious matters throughout Arabian Peninsula.

 

As the phase two of the Lawrence of Arabia’s Plan executed by the Neocons in the Bush Administration the oil-producing nations would be brought under the direct colonial occupation of American Empire under the garb of Regime Change in Iraq and other OPEC nations, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Rival great powers, Germany, France, Russia, China and India should demand their fair share of the colonial loot in Iraq and assert their right to impose regime changes in countries of their choice. India and Russia should develop closer military ties with Iran to put the stop on the Eastward expansion of American oil colonialism towards Iran, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

 

32(5) Arab Gulf Is Yankee Lake

(1) Yankee Democratic Imperialism

The neo-conservatives justified the America’s war on Iraq to establish direct American oil colony over Iraq and to impose democratic regimes in the Middle East. United States would not promote democracy in the Middle East, as many of the democratically elected leaders would adopt anti-American policies to promote prosperity of their people. America lacked the resources and the political will to impose unilateral remaking of the Middle East as it would be democratic imperialism, skin to the European colonial powers to establish their colonial empires to promote Christian Civilization in the pagan New World. After United States won the war with Iraq, there is “no point in rebuilding Iraq if America did not deal with the rest of the Middle East region, a combination of a reconstructed balance of power and region-wide political and economic reform is imperative for Gulf security. The 1991 Gulf War I led to the direct presence of U.S. troops, in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, which replaced the “hands-off” approach. This strategy has fueled extremism and become increasingly costly in military and diplomatic terms. A unilateral “remaking of the region” by the United States is “democratic imperialism. The temptation of liberating the Middle East from autocracies and dictatorships may appeal to arm-chair strategists, but this idea would never work, because the very concept of Wahhabi fundamentalism as the basis of the theocratic monarchy or sheikhdom had been the innovation of British and American imperialism and Zionists before the First World War. British spy Colonel Lawrence of Arabia convinced the poor Wahhabi clergy of Mecca and Medina that they could earn unheard of wealth and prosperity if they create new states in the Arabian Peninsula based on Wahhabi fundamentalism that rejected the concept of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Islamic Empire. United States has no interest in promoting democratic institutions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar.

 

(2) American Oil Empire Replaced British Indian Empire

American oil colonialism bought political influence in Britain and prevailed upon British Prime Minister Harold Wilson to give freedom to all oil-rich British colonial possessions by 1968, so that Pentagon could move in after the voluntary exit of the British Empire from Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Brunei. The previous security efforts by British Empire failed to achieve long-term stability in the Middle East. Prior to the 1960s, the United Kingdom installed proxy regimes in Iraq, Kuwait, and Trucial States, with a limited number of British troops on the ground, acted as an “offshore balancer.” The United States took over in 1971 after the British had left the Middle East region after 1968 and pursued a “hands-off” approach to regional security, recognizing Iran and Saudi Arabia as regional proxies and relying on them as "twin pillars" to maintain the Middle East balance of power. The Iranian Revolution erupted in 1979, and the United States' subsequent support of Iraq against Iran in ten year war that began on Sept. 22, 1980. American support to Iraq backfired when Iraq invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990. The 1991 Gulf War, which the United States mounted to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, started on Jan. 17, 1991 and ended on Feb. 28, 1991 with a ceasefire. After the 2003 war on Iraq, a return to the “balance of power” approach of the 1970s, which relied on Iraq and Saudi Arabia as twin pillars, would not work. Iraq is landlocked and at the mercy of its neighbors. Civil society in Iraq has collapsed. Sanctions and war have fostered the rise of tribalism, and significant nation building effort would be required for Iraq to assume a powerful regional role. American Ambassador to Iraq inviting Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait by convincing Saddam Hussein that United States has no reason to retaliate if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Kuwait had refused to join the military Pact with United States. United States caused Iraq-Iran war and Iraq-Kuwait war. United States used the 1990s the inter war period to consolidate its military presence in the Arabian Gulf region. After the 2003 invasions of Iraq, United Stated decided to establish direct military colonies in the oil-producing Arabian Gulf countries. 

 

(3) Unlikely Reform of Saudi Arabia

United States has no interest to replace corrupt rule of House of Al Saud by democratic form of government. However, United States might find that feeding 4,000 Saudi princes unbearable burden on Saudi Arabian economy, and if the rule of House of Saud replaced by the rule of Saudi military general, would save lots of wealth for the development of the Saudi society. Saudi Arabia is the womb of Islamic terrorism and unless democratic leadership replaced Wahhabi House of Saud the Middle East would not become stable and peaceful. If the war on terrorism is the eyeglass through which American Arab security strategy in the Arabian Gulf is viewed, then the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates become the problem, as hijackers from Saudi Arabia and UAE had planned and financed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on United States. By overlooking the role Saudi Arabia played in the terrorist attacks undermined American policy of relying on Iran and Saudi Arabia as twin pillars.

 

Because United States leaned on Saudi Arabia the policy of twin pillars became the policy of no pillars. United States should take a broader approach to the New Middle East and focus on a security system built on a regional balance of power, democratic political reforms reform, and multilateral military alliances, where India is inducted as the principal player in the Middle East security. Europe should contribute to rebuilding Iraq after a war, and Europe should get significant role in a future Gulf security system. European approach should focus on democratic reforms including good governance, modernizing educational systems, and enforcing the rule of law to counter corruption and autocracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. Reform of Saudi Arabia must be on the agenda, and political reforms better not imposed unless they represent American imperialism. An ambitious but gradual program of democratic political reforms should include direct free elections but should focus upon good governance, freedom for women and imposition of western laws over Shariah laws and increased funding for structural reforms and cultural modernization. Too-rapid reform in Saudi Arabia could fuel the hostility of Wahhabi extremists and the reform of Saudi Arabia should by jointly undertaken by United States and Europe to avoid the appearance of a “pax Americana.”

 

(4) Arabian Gulf is Yankee Lake

United States in 2002 didn’t face any challenge to its predominance in the Arabian Gulf. No great power challenged United States’ preeminence in the Arabian Gulf region. However, America’s direct invasion of Iraq to establish American Oil colony over Iraq would provide other great powers legal basis to challenge America’s predominance in the Arabian Gulf members of the OPEC. Even if United States defeated Iraq and established American colony over Iraq, the rival great powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India acquired diplomatic foothold to seek new military alliances with the regional powers, namely, Iran, Syria, Yemen to challenge onward imperial march of American Oil Colonialism in the Arabian Gulf region.

 

(5) Persian Gulf Policy: Cato book for Congress

The Cato Report to Congress recommended pacifist approach towards Persian Gulf policy, which has been overruled by the President Bush. What is Dual Containment Policy of the United States? The White House should terminate formal and informal U.S. security commitments to Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. United States should abandon the "dual containment'' policy directed against Iran and Iraq. Since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Washington has assumed almost total responsibility for Persian Gulf security. The twin pillars of American Persian Gulf strategy are deeply flawed. The dual containment policy-seeks firstly, to contain Iran and Iraq simultaneously. The dual containment policy also simultaneously provide American security commitments to the southern gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The Dual Containment Policy is a risky and expensive strategy that threatens to embroil the United States in myriad conflicts, including civil wars in the perennially unstable Arabian Gulf region. The Dual Containment Policy strategy is probably unsustainable over the long term.

 

Martin Indyk, the U.S. ambassador to Israel and the architect of the dual containment policy, set forth the following conditions in 1993 as essential to the pursuit of Dual Containment Policy in the Arabian Gulf: Firstly, cohesion of the gulf war coalition; cooperation of Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the other GCC states in U.S. efforts to preserve a regional balance of power favorable to the United States; Secondly, continued U.S. military presence in the region; and thirdly successful restriction of Iraqi and Iranian military ambitions. By the end of 1996, two of those conditions were clearly absent. The 1991 Gulf war coalition began to unravel years ago, but its demise was undeniable after September 1996.

 

What are U.S. Interests in the Persian Gulf Region in post-Cold War age? The United States has no vital national security interests at stake that justify attempting to manage Persian Gulf security. The end of the Cold War has reduced the strategic significance of the Arabian Gulf region, and there is considerable disagreement about the nature and importance of the remaining American interests there. Proponents of an activist U.S. policy usually cite Persian Gulf oil as the primary reason to maintain current policy of America towards Gulf.

 

United States has vital interests in Iraq but not so important that United States should invade Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is not justified by the security requirements of the United States in the absence of any challenge to America’s leadership in the Arabian Gulf. The United States had vital national security interests at stake that justified attempts to manage Persian Gulf security by imposing American colonial rule throughout Arabian Gulf region. The end of the Cold War greatly enhanced the strategic significance of the Arabian Gulf region, and there is hardly any disagreement about the nature and importance of American strategic oil interests in the Gulf region. Geopolitics of Persian Gulf determined by the region’s importance as the source of oil, and it is the primary reason to maintain current American oil colonial policy in the Arabian Gulf. Unhindered access to gulf oil is not only desirable, but also essential to the American industrial economy that it became the most important vital interest of the United States. The United States currently buys only $11 billion worth of Gulf oil per year, and American taxpayers spent $40 billion to $50 billion to $70 billion per year to defend the Arabian Gulf region. During the Cold War, the threat of the Soviet Union to gain control of Arabian Gulf oil was a formidable threat. Arab OPEC members depend too heavily on oil revenue to withhold supplies altogether and profit by rising Oil prices. Western Europe and Japan are much more dependent on Arabian Gulf oil more than the United States dependent on Arab oil; to the extent that Europe and Japan should become concerned about American domination and establishment of American oil colony over Iraq. The West Europeans, Germany, France, Belgium and the Japanese should play a leading role in deterring the American hegemony in the Arabian Gulf oil-producing region.

 

(6) Iran Iraq Dual Containment Policy

The twin pillars of Pentagon’s Persian Gulf strategy deeply flawed as the “Dual containment'' policy, sought to simultaneously contain Iran and Iraq as well as provided Pentagon’s commitments to the security of the southern gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Dual containment policy is a risky and expensive strategy that threatened to embroil the United States in myriad conflicts, including civil wars in the perennially unstable gulf region and the Dual containment strategy is unsustainable over the long term. The architects of the dual containment policy believed in 1993 that the following conditions are essential to the pursuit of dual containment. The cohesion of the Arabian Gulf war coalition; and cooperation of Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states in Pentagon’s efforts to preserve a regional balance of power favorable to the United States is essential for the success of the Dual containment policy. The continued American military presence in the Arabian Gulf region and the successful restriction of Iraqi and Iranian military ambitions essential prerequisites for the success of the Dual containment policy.

 

United States emerged after the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union as the undisputed ruler of the Arabian Gulf and Arabian gulf became Yankee Lake, the privilege Indian Empire enjoyed in the Persian Gulf during 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th Century, when it was known as the Indian Lake. Since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Washington has assumed almost total responsibility for Persian Gulf security. The Pentagon should terminate formal and informal American security commitments to Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and reorganize the regional states under the umbrella of American oil colonial administration. United States should abandon the "dual containment'' policy directed against Iran and Iraq as America acquired the direct control over Iraq after the war. United States should end Pentagon’s participation in Operation Provide Comfort and Operation Southern Watch as America emerged as the preponderant colonial power in the Arabian Gulf region after the Iraq war 2003. United States should withdraw American military personnel from the Arabian Gulf region and preposition equipment associated with U.S. security commitments to the southern Arabian Gulf countries. United States should encourage the Southern Gulf States to take responsibility for their own security by bolstering their national self-defense capabilities and enhancing regional defense cooperation through the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). United States should provide limited Pentagon’s assistance, on enhancing the effectiveness of national force structure and integrating southern gulf military capabilities, to the southern Gulf States individually and to the GCC. United States should end its policy of trying to manage Persian Gulf security and instead act only as a balancer of last resort if developments in the region pose a serious threat to vital U.S. national security interests.

 

American oil colonialism would undertake invasions on Iran after the victory over Iraq. Geopolitical restructuring of the region should tackle Iraqi and Iranian concerns. Iraqi regime will be concerned about being landlocked, and it may be necessary to consider redefining Iraq’s borders. Confidence-building measures for Iran would recognize that Iran’s build up is motivated by “defensive aggression.” American oil colonialism would engineer a stable balance by mitigating Iran’s ability to project power. Post-Saddam Iraq’s military likely to be modernized after a war, so it necessitated to ensure that Iraq wouldn’t threaten other Gulf states, by building up the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to counterbalance Iraq’s power. However, it is very likely, that soon after Iraq became the colony of America, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar would also lose their independence and sovereignty and become colony of the American Oil Colonial Empire. India should align with United States and remake Arabian Gulf as Indo-Yankee Lake. American military presence in the gulf is ostensibly intended to protect pro-American OPEC countries from Iran and Iraq. Many southern gulf countries fear Saudi Arabia more than they fear Iran or Iraq. The smaller states are highly suspicious of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. Ongoing feuds between the smaller states, Bahrain and Qatar, Oman and the UAE, and between Dubai and Sharjah are also a source of tension. Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah and Ajman would like to leave the federation of United Arab Emirates, which is dominated by Abu Dhabi. President Bush would invade Iran after the consolidation of the conquest of Iraq. India should align with Russia and Iran to emerge players in the scramble for oil colonies.

 

(7) Iraqi Oil to Pay for Pentagon’s Budget

War is business. Wars create empires and empires are very profitable for the colonial rulers, especially if it included oil-rich colonies. Pentagon broke even in 1991 Gulf War I and allied paid for the entire cost of the war. Pentagon would make unheard of profits in the 2003 Gulf War II the war for establishing American oil colony in Iraqi, and the Iraqi oil would pay for Pentagon’s budget for next 20 years at no cost to the American Exchequer. Since the end of the Cold War, Washington’s grand strategy has revolved around maintaining America’s overwhelming military, economic, and political preponderance. Americans have acquiesced in that strategy, because the costs seemed to be tolerably low. The September 11 attacks proved that the future costs of maintaining America’s hegemony would be much higher, unless United States acted with resolve and eliminated financial support base of the Wahhabi terrorists in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Like Roman Empire that hired barbarian soldiers in the Roman Army, the United States liked the idea of financing Wahhabi Islamic terrorists to fight America’s war on Soviet Union the Evil Empire. The 9/11 terrorist assaults were neither random nor irrational and those who undertook them acted with cool calculation to force the United States to alter specific policies, policies that largely flow from the global role America has chosen, especially the policy to control the Arabian Gulf oil. Wahhabi terrorist attacks also challenged the very fact of America's pre-eminence, by exposing the Achilles’ heel of the continental United States, by unleashing the war of economic infrastructure on the Untied States. Just as NATO air war destroyed economic, industrial and utility infrastructure in 1999 Yugoslavia War and 1991 Gulf War I and 2003 Iraq War II, the Wahhabi terrorists launched war on American economic infrastructure. America’s war on Iraq justified as Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of maintaining America’s geopolitical dominance in the 21st Century, at least for next 20 years. Invasions of Iraq to establish American oil colony over Iraq is good business for the Pentagon, and the defeat in the Iraqi war or the failure to establish permanent American oil colony over Iraq, would jeopardize America’s dreams to impose America’s predominance albeit leadership in the world in the first quarter of the 21st Century. Only by raping Iraqi oil fields could Pentagon hope to maintain its military leadership in the world faced by deep tax cuts and crashing Wall Street during Bush Administration. 

 

32(6) US Policy of Geopolitical Dominance

(1) Pax America During Weak Economy

President George W Bush in 2003 unleashed imperial policies in 2003 by invading Iraq, unlike the Eisenhower Administration that abdicated America’s imperial ambitions, even when it enjoyed nuclear monopoly. The hawks of President Bush’s Administration wanted to impose American predominance, when American economy no longer had the strength to play that role in 2003. Since the late 1990s the United States has chosen the policy of Geopolitical Dominance of the world. The super powers have two basic strategic options: they can pursue the policy of geopolitical dominance also known as "unipolar" strategy to create Unipolar world order with United States as the sole super power. It is also called the one-super power world order that Untied States founded after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1990.

 

The post Second World War hawks tempered America’s imperial dreams even when United States enjoyed nuclear monopoly, when it agreed to share power and influence with the upstart nuclear power the Soviet Union and cemented ties with Germany and France. The world had been bipolar from 1950 to 1990. True, even during the Cold War, when the world was essentially divided between the United States and the Soviet Union. Even during Cold War era Bipolar world, foreign-policy thinkers including Walter Lippmann, George Kennan, and J. William Fulbright argued that it was in America's interest to encourage Western Europe's and Japan's revival as independent great powers to relieve the United States of what Kennan called the burdens of bi-polarity.

 

During Cold War United States exercised its geopolitical dominance by holding into check the imperial ambitions and great power pretensions of Britain, France, Germany and Japan. Every American president and administration after the Second World War held that the United States had to contain its allies as much as it had to contain Moscow. America provided security of Britain, France, Germany and Japan and defended their access to far-flung economic and natural resources, and enmeshed their foreign and military policies in NATO alliance that America dominated. It allowed United States to prevent these former colonial powers and potential great powers from embarking on independent, and destabilizing, foreign policies.

 

America’s occupation of Iraq would promote the interests of United States, Pentagon and the Military industrial complex, without burdening the American taxpayers. America’s invasions of Iraq would generate huge profits for Pentagon as well as for the Military industrial complex, which is likely to win most of the reconstruction projects in post-Saddam Iraq. American policy since the demise of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War aimed to ensure that the United States maintained its predominance in Europe and the world. Post-Cold War Pentagon assessment of national-security needs insisted that America could maintain its globe-girdling Cold War alliances, and its Cold War defense spending levels, even when Soviet Union disappeared. This can be attributed to the military industrial complex. Pentagon realized that by occupying Iraq, United States could pay for its imperial dreams of American colonial empire by Iraqi oil.

 

Faced by the specter of Enron scandal, and steel fall in the stock market indexes, President Bush realized that only by conquering oil-producing countries in the Arabian Gulf could United States succeed in thwarting the challenges of China, Japan, India, Germany and France to the geopolitical dominance of the United States in the Eurasian Continent. President Bush and Dick Cheney understood that he who controlled the oil and gas resources of Arabian Gulf and Central Asia would control the destinies of the world. President Bush wanted to recreated American Oil Colonial Empire, while United States enjoyed the military predominance, before Russia and China could challenge America’s hegemony. The logic behind American grand strategy, in the post Cold War defense build-up justified by crossing the Rubicon, in terms of America’s imperial ambitions during Bush Administration. The collapse of the Soviet Union reinforced the conviction among American policymakers that America’s economic dominance in 21st Century depended on Pentagon's maintaining preponderance or, "leadership" over potential great powers, namely China, India, Japan, France and Germany. This meant controlling the oil and gas resources of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq and Iran, as China, India, France, Germany, Japan and South Korea totally dependent on imported oil and gas energy resources.

 

American colony over Iraq and the subsequent rape of Iraqi oil would pay for all increases in Pentagon’s budget, besides guaranteeing lucrative salaries for members of Bush Administration after they leave the office after the Second term Bush Administration in 2009. Bush Administration in 2003 correctly believed that only by establishing direct colonies over oil-producing Arabian Gulf, could America pay for the wars, increases in defense spending and could justify deep tax cuts for the rich in America. The now infamous draft of the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance prepared under the direction of the current undersecretary of defense for policy, Paul Wolfowitz, which was leaked to The New York Times in 1992, merely stated in undiplomatic language the logic that has long informed Washington's strategy. The United States, must continue to dominate the international system and thus to "discourage" the "advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." To accomplish this Washington must do nothing less than "retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations." America must provide its allies with “adult supervision." The United States must impose a military protectorate over Western Europe including Germany, France and Britain and East Asia, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, composed of wealthy and technologically sophisticated States. United States must also safeguard global interests of the Western Europe and East Asia, so that Japan, Germany and France and Britain need not develop military forces capable of "global power projection."

 

32(7) NATO was Chaperon of Europe & Germany

(1) Pentagon Domates NATO

Rumsfeld’s comment about “Old Europe” signaled Bush Administration’s determination to assert expanded NATO’s real strategic function to serve as the ‘Chaperon of Western Europe,’ albeit as the Chaperon of Germany, France and Japan. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld correctly chastised Germany and France as insignificant Old Europe, because the very purpose of the NATO had been from the day of its inception, to keep France and Germany under check. Since the former Soviet colonies in the Eastern Europe, now members of the expanded NATO would provide the necessary manpower, United States no longer needed the support of Germany and France to project America’s power in the world. The Pentagon-led NATO alliance's "real function was to serve as the chaperon of Europe." It is, the means to prevent Western Europe from establishing itself as an independent fortress and perhaps one day, a rival to the United States. Those who argued that Pentagon’s budget is too high, given the end of the Cold War, failed to appreciate the task White House assigned to America in the 21st Century, i.e., to create American Colonial Empire.

 

(2) Adult supervision of Gemany Japan

The adult supervision of Western Europe and Japan is an enormously expensive and complex undertaking, which perforce meant that the Pentagon must spend on its military more than do the next seven countries together, including Russia, Japan, China, France, Britain, Germany and India. Faced with the crash of the Wall Street and Dow Jones Industrial Index White House could finance the bulging Pentagon budgets and large tax cuts only by establishing oil colonies in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE so that Pentagon could loot the Arabian Gulf oil and pay its puppet rulers of America’s oil colonies no more than $2 per barrel and keep the profits to finance Pentagon’s budget and America’s deficit. America’s conquest of Iraq and establishment of direct military colony over Iraq would allow America finance its assertive military dreams and to serve as Chaperon of France, Germany, and Japan. No wonder that Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Japan and South Korea realized that America’s colonial occupation of Iraq would make Western Europe and Japan again the political and economic satellites of the United States. No wonder that Britain, Japan and South Korea surrendered their national pride and agreed to serve as the Lap Dog of the White House, because their economies depended on the oil crumbs that their new master in the Oval Office would throw at them to nibble. No wonder that France and Germany would be forced to develop oil pact with Russia and China to challenge America’s occupation of Iraq, unless they agreed to be Chaperoned by the Yankees.

 

(3) French-German Interests in Iraq War

America could lose its status as the world’s lone superpower if its overseas military bases became vulnerable to foreign attacks. If United States lost its Iraq War it would lose its status as the sole superpower of the world. America’s military bases in Asia, South Korea, and Japan are becoming more vulnerable to attack by ballistic missiles from North Korea, and China. Defending America’s military bases in South Korea and Japan them will be very expensive and might provoke even larger missile deployments. Loss of American military bases in South Korea, Japan and Germany would undermine America’s reputation as the world's lone superpower. The devastating terrorist attacks by Wahhabi Saudi hijackers on world trade center and the Pentagon exposed America’s Achilles’ heels and proved that even distant disorder can have effects that hurt, influence, or disturb the majority of people living within the United States.

 

(4) Adult Supervision Stategy

America’s adult-supervision strategy entails that United States should continue to Chaperon Japan, France and Germany and check their imperial ambition and pretensions to project their great power status in selected regions that could undermine America’s role and influence in that region. NATO helped the White House implement Adult-Supervision strategy by keeping Germany, France and Japan under check and control. The purpose of the American military bases in Germany and Japan had been to control Germany and Japan, the role colonial occupation troops provided, but under diplomatic camouflage. America’s adult supervision strategy demanded that Untied States should never vacate any base that it ever developed in any part of the world. United States would never vacate its military bases in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE.

 

(5) USA Opposes Reunifications

United States opposed the India Pakistan rapprochement undertaken by Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief after India and Pakistan had exploded nuclear weapons. United States opposed the Unification of Germany and rejected Joseph Stalin’s offer to unite East Germany and West Germany in exchange of United Germany become Non Aligned Nation. President Bush would attack North Korea to justify the need of maintaining military bases in South Korea. United States would attack North Korea because the trend towards unification of Koreas would create a nuclear and economic powerhouse in Korean Peninsula. President Bush would attack North Korea after securing victory over Iraq, to prevent the unification of North Korea and South Korea. It is wrong to believe that a reunified, democratic Korea would be in America's interests.

 

(6) The Grand Chess Board

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard,” the fullest and frankest public exposition of America's post-Cold War global strategy, repeatedly explained how unification of Korea would jeopardize America's unipolar strategy. Unification of Korea would obviate the ostensible need for U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula, which could lead to Pentagon’s pullback from East Asia, which could, in turn, lead to Japan's becoming "militarily more self-sufficient," which would lead to political, military, and economic rivalry among the region's states. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that the best situation is the status quo in Korean Peninsula, which allowed for American forces to be stationed indefinitely in South Korea.

 

(7) Control World trade in Oil and Gas

President Bush invaded Iraq to establish American oil colony over Iraq not to secure oil and gas supplies to United States but to control the world trade in oil and gas and to increase America’s leverage over France, Germany, Japan, China and South Korea, the major oil importing countries that are heavily dependent on imported oil. Washington assumed predominance in the Arabian Gulf region for stabilizing the region because Western Europe and Japan and China are heavily dependent on its oil. America preempted France, Germany, China, India and Japan, by establishing oil colony over Iraq, to discourage these powers from developing closer ties with the oil-producing OPEC nations and Central Asian nations to keep their economies vulnerable to foreign oil supplies. Walter Russell Mead, a senior foreign-policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, explained the basis of America’s policy towards Iraq and Arabian Gulf in the language that NSC staffers, think-tank analysts, and State and Defense Department policy planners have used for years. "America does not get that large a percentage of its oil from the Middle East. Japan gets a lot more And one of the reasons that America is a sort of assuming this role of policeman of the Middle East, more or less, has more to do with making Japan and some other countries feel that their oil flow is assured so that they don't then feel more need to create a great power, armed forces, and security doctrine, and you don't start getting a lot of great powers with conflicting interests sending their militaries all over the world."

 

32(8) Offshore Balancing is Concert of World Powers

(1) Offshore Balancing Strategy

The Offshore balancing policy would check the hegemony of the United States, and hold America in check so that America deluded by its military successes might not embark upon the conquest of the world’s oil or the conquest of the world. The Diplomacy of Offshore Balancing is a modern version of the Congress System that 1814 Congress of Vienna developed to check the hegemony of Napoleonic France and to integrate France into a new world order. The Strategy of Offshore Balancing Diplomacy accepts the geopolitical fact of the rise and fall of great powers, rivalries among great powers and violent regional conflicts. The rise and fall of great powers, civilizations and weapons platforms is an ongoing process and no power can put a stop to it. Super powers should not hinder the attempts of other great powers develop regional alliances. American strategy of preponderance in oil-rich Arabian Gulf to establish American oil colonies throughout OPEC nations is burdensome, Sisyphean, and profoundly risky. American invasions to establish American oil colony would backfire had Iraq succeeded in thwarting the American invasions with the tacit help of Russia.

 

Great powers including White House policymakers could adopt a new grand strategy, the diplomacy of Offshore Balancing. Rather than fear multipolar world the advocates of the Offshore Balancing strategy embraced the multipolar world as the fact of life, and recognized that instability caused by the rise and fall of great powers, great-power rivalries, and messy regional conflicts was a geopolitical fact of life. Offshore Balancing Strategy accepts that the United States cannot prevent the rise of new great powers, either within the present American sphere of influence, namely, the European Union, Germany, and Japan, or outside American sphere of influence, namely, China, Russia, India. Instead of exhausting Americans resources to keep European Union, Germany, France, Japan, Russia, China and India weak, the United States should allow world powers develop their militaries to provide for their own national and regional security. World powers would form a Concert of World Powers and these Great powers would maintain power balances, check the rise of overly ambitious global and regional powers, and stabilize global balance of power. It would create stable Balance of Power in Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf and the stable world order would be in the interest of the super power as well as great powers and medium and smaller powers.

 

(2) Bush dreams of World Empire

President Bush’s dreams of World Empire would accelerate the process of the rise of rival super power. The rise of new great powers is inevitable, and America's very primacy accelerates this process and America would not be able to military stop these new world powers from overtaking America, short of the nuclear war. If White House continued to follow an adult-supervision strategy, which treated America’s Allies, namely, Germany, France, Belgium and Japan as irresponsible adolescents that required American control over their military, and foreign policy affairs, these allies of America would gang up against United States. If America continued to follow an Adult Supervision Strategy towards China, Russia and India as future enemies to be suppressed, America’s relations with these emerging great powers will be increasingly dangerous, as they would coalesce against what they perceive as an American dreams at world conquest. If President Bush decided to undertake preemptive strikes against the world power that Pentagon believed might overtake or equal United States as military or economic power, that act of aggression would accelerate the process of the rise of the rival super power and rest of the world powers would lend their support to the new center of world power. Partners form military alliances neither because they are friends, nor because they have common values, but because they fear someone else more than they fear each other.

 

(3) Diplomacy Offshore Balancing Strategy

President Bush’s dreams of hegemonic American Oil Empire, would automatically elicit universal resistance, led by Germany, France, Russia, China and India, and sooner or later American Empire would exhaust itself. Despite its esoteric logic, America's strategy of preponderance is seductive and it made sense that the United States should seek to amass as much power as possible. The rationale behind America’s Oil Colonialism strategy is analogous to that of an Oligopoly firm in an oligopoly market that drove its rivals and competitors out of business to avoid the specter of losing its profits in a competitive environment. Theoretically, if America could establish and maintain itself as the sole super power in the international system, it would enjoy something very close to absolute security and absolute monopoly over the vital economic resources of the world, namely, oil, gas, and foreign capital. However, history is the witness that whenever one state acquired too much power, others invariably feared that it will aggrandize itself at their expense, and make an attempt at world domination. "Hegemonic empires, almost automatically elicit universal resistance, which is why all such claimants have sooner or later exhausted themselves."

 

Great Powers and diplomats must always be more concerned with a predominant power's capabilities than with its intentions. Irrespective of the intentions of the occupant of the Oval Office the very fact of the military preeminence of the United States force major powers to work out new alliances to counter the hegemony of the United States. Throughout 1990s great powers and diplomats have been profoundly anxious about the imbalance of power in America's favor. This simmering mistrust of American predominance intensified during the Clinton Administration, after Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright launched wars of Humanitarian Interventions. Leading great powers, Russia and China responded to American hegemony by concerting their efforts against America. Russia and China, although long estranged, found common ground in a nascent alliance that opposed American hegemony’s" and expressly aimed at re-establishing "a multipolar world." Arguing that the term "superpower" is inadequate to convey the true extent of America's economic and military pre-eminence, the French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine called the United States a "hyper power." Even the Dutch Prime Minister declared that the European Union should make itself "a counterweight to the United States."

 

President Bill Clinton’s doctrine of Humanitarian Interventions and subsequent American intervention in Kosovo crystallized fears of America hegemony, prompting the emergence of an anti-American constellation of China, Russia, and India. China, Russia and India viewed the Kosovo war as a dangerous precedent that established America’s self-declared right to interfere in other countries' internal affairs. China, Russia and India asserted their support for a multipolar world, and increased their sharing of military technology, to counter American hegemony. The Kosovo conflict made apparent the disparity between America's geopolitical power and Europe's military capability that forced European Union to acquire through the European Defense and Security Identity (EDSI) the military capability it would need to act independent of the United States. If the European Union fulfills EDSI's longer-term goals, then European Union could emerge as an unfettered strategic player in world politics that no longer required to be chaperoned by America. Emergence of European Union as an independent military power would be driven by the goal of acquiring for Europe the capability to act as a brake on America's aspirations. France declared that the principle objective of its diplomacy was to hold United States in check.

 

American bases in Asia, in South Korea and Japan are vulnerable to attacks by North Korean and Chinese ballistic missiles. Defending American military bases would be very expensive and might provoke even larger missile deployments by its adversaries. At stake is the United States' reputation as the world's lone superpower. The 9/11 attacks by Muslim Wahhabi terrorists exposed the Achilles’ heel of the United States and proved that even distant disorder in the Middle East can have devastating military and non-military terrorist attacks that hurt, influence, or disturb the majority of people living within the United States.

 

32(9) Imposing Democracies in Wahhabi New Middle East

(1) Crusades of Democracy in Arabia

The terrorist attacks by Arab Wahhabi Islamist of Sept 11th of 2001, became the hair that broke the camel's back. The 911 attacks suddenly exposed the vulnerability of America to the terrorist attacks and convinced America that it cannot just focus on economic relations in the Middle East and ignore the political structure that allowed Wahhabi clergy to create the army of Jihadi zealots determined to destroy United States and Israel. The Zionist Cabal and Republican Neo-conservatives and the religious right conservatives believe that the Wahhabi Middle East in 2000 very similar to Eastern Europe before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1985. America is very clear that the future of the Middle East would have to be a full-fledged democracy, or Wahhabi terrorists would take-over the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, as happened in Iran of 1979. Even in Kuwait the Wahhabi Islamist terrorists are a strong faction, who in Kuwaiti Parliament fight for establishing an Islamist state in Kuwait.

 

After the demise or defeat of Iraq, America would impose Western style democracies and Western civil and criminal laws over Wahhabi Shariah-governed Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Shiite Iran. America transformed communist east European countries into Western style democracies and members of the European Union and NATO in 2002, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. America embarked upon the political development of Eastern Europe, bringing them into the fold of NATO and European Union, because it realized that Eastern Europe was critical to the integral development of the whole Europe, and thus either Eastern Europe would be a satellite of the United States, or the satellite of resurgent Russia or come under the sphere of influence of its rival United Germany and France. When Russia dropped communism, it became clear to American policy makers that Eastern Europe as a conglomeration of democracies would side with United States, which had worked on shaping Eastern Europe after the Western democracies.

 

President Bush would invite all member countries of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to join Arabian NATO just as the post-Communism East European countries joined en masse the NATO in the end of 2002. It dawned on the United States and Israel after Islamic terrorist attacks on New York and Pentagon and Palestine attacks on Israel that the Middle East region will either be the sphere of influence of Iraq and Syria and Wahhabi Islamist fundamentalist terrorists, or will become democratic societies and side with Israel and America. What is at stake is the democratic political restructuring of the Middle East that would replace barbaric Shariah laws with civilized Western laws and give Arab women full freedom and rights. America can no longer ignore the political system of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE to just focus on oil interests, because the end result will be Wahhabi terrorists would taking over political and the economic power that oil boom created in these oil-rich Wahhabi countries, and Wahhabi Islamists will use this strength against United States, they call the Great Satan. American troops after securing victory in Iraq would form something like Arabian NATO in the Middle East, just as the new Eastern European democracies joined the NATO en masse, something that the past regional pacts CENTO in the Middle East never could achieve.

 

If America’s war with Iraq drags on, the United States and the Mullah’s Iran could become closer allies, because that friendship with Iran could make Iraqi Shi'a opposition groups into potential American allies. And if the America’s war ends quickly in America’s favor then Iran could become a partner with America, because the main thrust of the American policy in the post-Saddam period would be to change the political and social structure of the Wahhabi Arab states. Since all Wahhabi Arab countries belong to Arab race, the Iran and India could become America’s allies to create new Middle East. Besides or United States to keeping Shiite Iran and Hindu India as an regional ally, or neutral, would lessen the number of issues US has to face in a primarily Arab region.

 

The nuclear weapons were the real issue at stake for the President Bush’s military intervention in Iraq during 1991 Gulf War I, although in the popular press, Iraq' invasion of Kuwait was highlighted as the cause of the war. American Christian religious right conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives periodically advise to avoid Chamberlain's mistake and his appeasement of Hitler as the reason for advocating preemptive strike on Iraq. All the talk about weapons of mass destruction was an excuse for an "imperialistic" invasion of Iraq and the motif of the West was the thirst for Iraq's oil. The world of early 1800’s and early 1900's could be very similar to the world of early 2000's. America for almost a century had ignored any corruption in political systems of the Middle East as long as America controlled the economic, military and foreign policy of the Arab members of the OPEC nations. So long as America had its say in setting the oil prices, and OPEC countries priced oil in American dollars and invested oil incomes in America the Arab oil producers were not viewed as threat to the United States.

 

(2) Blair sought Henry V’s Agincourt Victory

Britain the 7th ranking power of the world, hoped to join the ranks of major powers by joining American war camp in Iraq, hoping to regain lost British influence, when 1958 military coup overthrew the puppet regime of King Faisal II, who had allowed British control over Iraq’s financial, military and foreign affairs. British Prime Minister Tony Blair intended to bask in the glory of victory over Iraq, the former British colony, after the American invasions of Iraq, to create new le Anglo Saxon Empire. Tony Blair like Henry V monarch understood the psychological value of victory of defeating an adversary sufficiently thoroughly that you shatter the confidence of others, so that they'll roll over themselves before you have to roll over them. Henry V defeated France in 1415 AD similarly Tony Blair’s Britain would defeat France and Germany over Iraq in 2003 by reestablishing Anglo-Saxon colony over Iraq. Neither George W. Bush nor Tony Blair is not Hamlet but English King Henry V the monarch who understood the psychological value of victory over France in Agincourt in 1415. President Bush wanted to repeat the easy victory over Taliban’s Afghanistan in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. President Bush like the King Henry V realized the propaganda value of the glorious victory, which would make American Civilization Empire unstoppable, in the oil-producing world. President bush by invading Iraq intend to unleash the clash of Civilizations, where the American Christians would wage a clash inside the Islamic Civilization, a battle for the democratic future of the Arab Muslim world, where Arab people would gain the right to elect a government of their choice and Arab women would get freedom and equality with men. America after having buried the "axis of evil," would still be keen on burying Saddam Hussein, as the effort to do so might provide testing ground for the new weapons that Pentagon developed, or provoke Bush to use nukes the weapons of last resort. Bush administration seeks explanations in filial obligation, despite his comment that this is "a guy that tried to kill my dad," George W. Bush is no Hamlet, but Henry V, the monarch understood the psychological value of victory, of defeating an adversary sufficiently thoroughly that you shatter the confidence of others, so that they'll roll over themselves before you have to roll over them. For Henry, the demonstration was Agincourt, the famous victory over the French in 1415. The Bush administration got a taste of Agincourt with its victory over the Taliban at the end of 2001, to which the Afghans responded by gleefully shaving their beards, shedding their burkas, and cheering the infidels, even to the point of lending them horses from which they laser-marked bomb targets. Suddenly, it seemed, American values were transportable, even to the remotest and most alien parts of the earth. The vision that opened up was not one of the clash among civilizations we'd been led to expect, but rather a clash "inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world."

 

America should complete the task the 1991 Gulf War I left unfinished. If America could topple tyrant Saddam Hussein, and if America could repeat the Agincourt type victory of Afghan on the banks of the Euphrates in Iraq, then America can accomplish a great deal by undertaking the gigantic task of rebuilding the Middle East on the lines of democratic West, where Arab people elect their governments and women are free and enjoy equality of rights and where Western civil and criminal laws replaced Shariah laws. America would no longer require the support of the Wahhabi clergy to establish American control over the economic, military and foreign policy affairs of the oil-producing Arab OPEC countries. America should destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein may have accumulated since. America can end whatever support Iraq provided for terrorists elsewhere, notably those who act against Israel. America can liberate the Iraqi people. America can ensure an ample supply of inexpensive oil that American oil companies can extract by paying around $ 2 per barrel to the American colonial administration in Iraq. America can set in motion a process that could undermine and ultimately remove reactionary Wahhabi regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and Shiite Iran in the Middle East. Replacing Wahhabi tyrants by democratic governments would eliminate the breeding grounds for Wahhabi fundamentalist Islamist terrorism. America’s even carelessly improvised strategies had succeeded in the past, as the Clinton administration’s wars for humanitarian intervention in Kosovo in 1999. Carl von Clausewitz, repeatedly emphasized the role of chance, which can at times defeat the best of designs and at other times hand victory to the worst of them, and for this reason, he insisted, theory can never really predict what's going to happen.

 

32(10) Iraq is Not a Mogadishu

America would lose the Iraqi oil war in long run, like the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. Republican President Bush or his Democratic successor in the Oval Office would find in America’s initial victory over Iraq the fate of Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan. United States would not be able to hold on to its precipitous victory in oil-rich Iraq, if Russia, Iran and India decided to support Iraqi rebels in post-Saddam Iraq. Iraq will be America’s 2nd Somalia. America will meet in Iraq the Israel’s fate in Lebanon and Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan. United States’ fate in Iraq could be similar to that of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan War.

 

Iraq is multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-linguistic and multi-religious like Afghanistan. What Afghanistan turned out for Soviet occupation troops, Iraq would turn out to be the Afghanistan for American troops if Russia and Iran took the courage to support Iraqi resistance against American oil colonial occupation troops in post-Saddam Iraq. Iraq would become America’s Afghanistan if Russia would supply Iraqi rebels the military hardware through Iran. President Putin would do to American occupation troops in Iraq, by supplying military hardware to Iraqi rebels, what President Ronald Reagan did to Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan. The CIA supplied stringer missiles shot down Soviet helicopters and airplanes. The Russian SAM-6 shoulder launched missiles would shoot down civilian and military American airplanes and helicopters. The Palestine suicide bombers created chaos and fear among Israeli civilian population, similar Iraqi suicide attacks on American colonial administrators would bring down American colonial administration. Mujahideens bombed Afghanistan’s civilian infrastructure, the Iraqi rebels would more easily blow up American civilian infrastructure. There is no way that President Bush would be able to move into the Saddam Hussein’s oil-rich glass house and protect the American colonial glass house from the stones that the Iraqi rebels could throw time to time. White Protestant Christian America lost the war in yellow Buddhist Vietnam and White Orthodox Soviet Union lost the war in brown Aryan Muslim Afghanistan. White race has lost all major wars against Asians after the Second World War. Unlike American Vietnam War in the Iraq War Russia, India and Iran would supply weapons and logistic support to Iraqi rebels. Iran would support Iraqi post-war resistance the role Pakistan played in Soviet Union’s Afghanistan war by supporting Mujahideens. Iran and Russia would support, nurture and finance Iraqi Mujahideens to undermine American colonial occupation of Iraq, to undermine American oil colonialism in Arabian Gulf region. United States would fail to replicate its success in Regime Change in Serbia in Iraq, because the CIA bribed Serbians, Kosovars and Bosnians, and in Iraq America came to loot the riches of Iraq. United States would fail to consolidate its colonial grip over Iraq, without blowing up oil-riches of Iraq. Iraq is oil-plated rich glass house and vulnerable to terrorist attacks and suicide attacks. The might of America might succeed in strangulating Iraq under colonial occupation and install puppet regime, but would fail to exploit its oil resources for profit, because the oil-plated glass house of Iraq would survive only so long as Iraqi rebels agreed not to destroy it. American military might punish and destroy selected bands of Iraqi rebels, but would be powerless against Iraqi suicide attacks against American civilian administrators and Iraqi oil infrastructure. America would realize sooner than later that Iraq as oil graveyard would be of no use for American oil colonialism, not good enough to lose American lives for protecting Iraqi oil graveyards. Iraqi rebels might find it prudent to turn Iraq into oil-graveyard to protect the oil and gas reserves of Iraq for the future generations of Iraqis, instead of allowing Yankees to rape Iraqi oil.

 

Iraq could be the Somalia or Mogadishu for American occupation troops. Aided by suicide bombs the Iraqi rebels, if they are brave enough to sacrifice their lives, could cause havoc among American occupation troops and Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and Basra could become the Mogadishu of 2003 for American troops and conquerors. The Iraqi warlords and local chiefs might repeat the tactics of Somalia’s warlord Aidid and target American helicopters and isolated American troops. The mother of all battles that Saddam promised in 1991, would become a common place whenever Iraqi learnt the military tactics employed by Gen. Aidid for shooting down American helicopter and killing of number of American soldiers in Mogadishu Somalia. American would lose number of lives of American military personnel and American civilians in the post-victory colonial administration of Iraq. American Black Hawk Helicopters shot down over Najaf by Iraqi people with small gunfire. No wonder that Thailand military cancelled their order for the Black Hawk Helicopters. Recalling 1993 battle of Mogadishu warned White House that no matter what kind of power Pentagon rolled into Baghdad, it faced hostile population, just as American troops faced in Somalia. Battle scene in Baghdad could turn into nightmare, as every war developed an interior logic, playing havoc with carefully laid plans. In the battle of Baghdad City and battle for the minds of the Iraqi people, information will be as important as guns and bombs. With Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard dug in on the outskirts of Baghdad and thousands of his most loyal defenders no doubt armed and waiting in the city's neighborhoods, Saddam might never give the mother of all battles, but in the post-Saddam Iraq, Iraqi rebels might deliver the ''mother of all battles'' Saddam promised in 1991, by launching suicide attacks on American colonial administration and oil executives and American civilians and Iraqi oil installations. Saddam Hussein ceded the majority of his country to the rapidly moving American and British forces, but American advancing troops left pockets of determined Iraqi loyalists in cities large and small, who might attack the American troops in the rear or attack the post-victory American colonial administrators. Iraqi troops, many dressed in civilian clothing, might undertake guerrilla warfare, and shoot at coalition forces from densely populated areas.

 

Iraq is not like Yugoslavia. Unlike Yugoslavia, Iraq would not disintegrate. The territorial disintegration of Iraq would harm the oil interests of American oil colonialism. Slobadan Milosevic foolishly refused to strike back on the American troops in Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia.  United States would fail to install a puppet regime in Iraq, hoping it would not demand any share of the Iraqi oil wealth and be content in ruling over Iraqis. Iraqis have retaliated against American troops so Iraq is no Yugoslavia. Some bloody street fighting in Baghdad may lie ahead, even after a couple of days of breathtaking American military advances and devastating air strikes. But America will easily win this Iraqi war, expeditiously by historical standards, remember that just four years ago, President Clinton required 78 days of air strikes to subdue the Serbs and protect Kosovo. Air war against Baghdad rivaled the American air war against Belgrade, but Americans would have to move in to occupy Baghdad. Yugoslavia was impoverished nation and Serbian politicians sold their conscience to the CIA campaign donations to win elections. Iraqi’s are used to getting free money as their share of the oil incomes and they would expect more free goodies than they got under the UN Iraqi Oil-for-food Program, and Iraqis would demand these goodies as their right because these goodies are financed by the sale of Iraqi own oil. If American refused to share oil-wealth with Iraqis then Iraqis might decide to blow up oil installations to keep American from stealing Iraqi oil. Neither Kurd Sunnis nor Iraqi Shiites would mortgage Iraqi oil to Americans to settle their petty rivalries, since the American invasion created a sense of nationalism in Iraqi people a sense of national pride among Iraqis that they could face the American troops against insurmountable odds. Iraqi people as a race conducted very honorably in war against Americans, and they have nothing to be ashamed of. The ruthless bombing of Baghdad would join the ranks of heaviest bombed cities in the annals of warfare. British stratagem of Divide and Rule would help establish the Puppet Regime in Iraq, but the expectations of the people would demand that most of the Iraqi oil incomes are spent on the development of war ravaged Iraq. United States would fail to disintegrate Iraq, like Yugoslavia. 

 

Iraq of 2003 would not be the Afghanistan of 2002, where Northern Alliance soldiers won the war and Americans moved in and claimed the victory and imposed their nominee as the President of Afghanistan and imposed the rule of the NATO in Afghanistan. If Iraq isn't Vietnam, neither is Iraq the 2002 Afghanistan campaign, where Americans were hailed as liberators, because Afghans hoped American would flood Afghanistan with aid and developmental dollars. Those Americans, who were in Afghanistan after Northern Alliance took over Kabul, find that the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is manifest. Afghans were giddy and jubilant, while Iraqis now typically sullen and distrustful and thirsty.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney had asserted that American troops will in fact, be greeted as liberators by Iraqis. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asserted that like the people of France in the 1940's, Iraqi would view American troops as Iraq’s hoped-for liberator. Iraqi knew that America would not come as conquerors. It would be the biggest long-term problem for the American occupation troops to win over the minds of the Iraqi populace. The fundamental and strategic challenge Pentagon faced in Iraq is that so far many ordinary Iraqis regarded Americans as conquerors rather than liberators, who toppled the Saddam Hussein regime to loot Iraqi oil. It would take time before one knew definitively what Iraqis thought about American occupation troops, and for Americans the signals are mixed, with jubilation in Najaf and anger in many other areas. Iraq these days is almost as varied, tribal and polarized a society as the United States. All in all, most Iraqis seem watchful and ambivalent. Freedom was not so good. As a people, Iraqis were doing reasonably well and they had their freedom of wine and women before the American invasion. But the American war upset Iraqi lives and it brought destruction. Iraqis do not know whether the aftermath of the war will bring improvements. Only God knows. Half the Iraqis believed that Saddam would win the war. Nationalism fermenting in Iraqis who proclaimed that they would fight American occupation the way Palestinians fought Israeli occupation. The risk is not that America will lose the war, but that it will never fully establish a peace good enough to make profits by long-term colonial occupation of Iraq, after having investing billions of dollars in the Iraqi oil industry and infrastructure, which was damaged by 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War, 1991 Gulf War I and the 2003 Gulf War II.

 

America and British controlled south Iraq become after dusk a Hobbesian world of banditry and anarchy. Iraq could emerge as another Lebanon. The paramount question facing Pentagon is not whether America would win the Iraq War, but whether America can persuade ordinary Iraqis to accept American victory. The Iraqi jury is still out. The danger is not that Iraq will turn into another Vietnam, who militarily defeated United States and America had to leave Vietnam in disgrace, but that after American victory, Iraq could turn into another Lebanon or Gaza, where the bombing of the American military barracks forces American troops to vacate Lebanon, and where Palestinian suicide bombers caused so much fear in the minds of average Israeli citizen that the very existence of Jewish state of Israel came into doubt. Americans would find it very hard to accept the civilian fatalities, in case Iraqi rebels unleashed suicide bombers on American colonial administrators and American oil executives. Americans were lucky to have easy victory in Iraq and Baghdad. Remember American forces were short of armored divisions, or American supply lines was overstretched so taut that marines were down to one meal a day, those are tactical issues that would be debated for decades to come in the national defense colleges.

 

Americans destroyed the ecology of Vietnam and Vietnamese couldn’t inflict any serious economic damage on America. In Iraq the rebels could cause excessive economic damages on American occupation troops by denying American company’s control over Iraqi oil. Rebels by destroying oil depots could cause great economic harm to American colonial troops. America’s war on Iraq would not become the long drawn out war of Vietnam. United States destroyed the agriculture and forest cover of Vietnam by spraying Yellow Orange because unlike Muslim Iraq, Vietnam was yellow Buddhist nation and not oil-rich like Iraq. Iraq lacks the moral fiber, culture and courage of the Vietnamese to become the Vietnam for United States. Iraq will not turn into another Vietnam. It is wrong to compare Iraq with Vietnam, though many Vietnam vets drawing the comparison, but it's a false comparison. Vietnam was a poor country and the Vietnamese were valiant fighters and proud nations, with single ethnicity, single language, single religion and single race. Vietnamese were Buddhists, and like Japanese united by common bonds of single language, color, ethnicity and race. Iraq on the other hand is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religion, and a multi-linguistic nation.

 

32(11) New World Order

(1) Nations Must Decide on World Order

Nations Must Decide on World Order. Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday May 2, 2003 that the international community must decide what kind of world order it wants in the wake of the U.S.-led war on Iraq "The Iraqi crisis, oil, money, credits all this is very important, but what's far more important is something else we must answer the question of what kind of world we plan to build. The world's nations must determine "the architecture of international security in the proper way, on the basis of the principles of democracy and equality and taking into account each other's interests." The day after the first strikes on Baghdad, Putin warned Washington that it was threatening to replace international law with "the law of the fist." The Kremlin has been critical of what it says is a dangerous willingness on the part of the United States to ignore opposition around the world in dealing with international problems. Russia strongly opposed the war and helped scuttle U.S. efforts to win clear approval in the U.N. Security Council for an invasion. On Tuesday, Putin rebuffed efforts by the U.S.-led coalition to secure a swift removal of the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990. The UN sanctions on Iraq should not be removed until it is clear there is no threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But he also said Russia is ready to cooperate with the United States and Britain on postwar Iraq, calling Blair's three-stage plan put forward to stabilize the situation and establish a government acceptable with the caveat that the U.N. role must be clearly defined.

 

(2) Four Main Events of 2003

April 2003 witnessed the main events that changed the nature of International system. President Bush invaded Iraq, conquered Iraq and established direct American colony over Iraq and would impose Wahhabi monarchy over Iraq. The invasion of Iraq heralded the new age of colonial empires. The new age of colonialism began in 203. Semite Wahhabi iconoclasts burnt the Museums and Libraries of Baghdad. The barbarian Semite Saudi iconoclasts burnt the pre-Islamic history of Iraq. South Africa jailed Winnie Mandela for 4-years for financial fraud. It exposed that Mandela and his successors are pro-Apartheid stooges, implanted into power to continue the domination of the whites in South Africa. In Feb. 2003, President Chirac, Chairman Gerhard Schroeder, President Putin joined diplomatic assets to oppose President Bush’s invasions of Iraq. It created a France-Germany-Russia Concert of Europe to challenge the new hegemon United States, just as 1814 Congress of Vienna sought to tame Napoleon. Russia has become part of Europe.

 

(3) Four Civilizations As World Powers

The Christian world split into two hostile Camps, and France, Germany took the leadership of the Anti-American European Union in the February 2003 on Iraq crisis. The First Camp is the American Camp, joined by Britain, Japan, Italy, Spain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, South Korea, Taiwan and Pakistan. The Second Camp is the European Christian Camp, joined by France, Germany, Belgium and Russia. The Third Camp is headed by India and includes many of the 114-member Non Aligned Nations. Iran would join Indian Camp. The Fourth Camp is headed by China and includes North Korea and Singapore. The main world powers are: United States, China, India, Europe, and Russia. United States represents the interests of Britain and the Islamic world. India represents the interests of the Non Aligned Third World. France, Germany and Russia jointly represent the interests of Christian Europe, and are not strong enough to oppose United States, neither individually nor jointly. Besides the religious interests of Christianity and the racial interests of the White race would make Russia, France and Germany join the camp of America and Britain. America would be willing to share oil-loot with Russia, France and Germany in exchange for their tacit support to American oil colonialism. The European Unification under 25-member European Union and the inclusion of former Warsaw pact countries into expanded NATO, brought for the first time three principle Christian sects, Catholicism, Protestantism and orthodoxy under single economic union and military alliance. The White European Christians have united now under European Union, NATO and USA-Russia Détente as never before. The unprecedented unification of white Christian powers presents great danger to Buddhists and Hindus because the Semite Wahhabi Muslim nations have cast their lot with the American Christians. Orthodox Russia is too weak to play any major diplomatic initiative, because Russian Jews have acquired monopoly control over Russian economy and Russian Mafia. Russia would not come to the defense of India and China if United States led NATO to invade India or China. White Christians, namely, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox are for the first time in history united under the banner of US-led NATO. The White Christian NATO after gaining domination of the oil-rich Islamic world might invade China, Japan, India, or Korea, the world’s 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 13th largest economies, respectively. The Christian Colonialism enriched by the Islamic oil loot might conspire to militarily sabotage the rise of Buddhist and Hindu Asian powers, namely, China, Japan, India and Korea. India and United States are truly independent players in the world system, because India is the conscience of the Third World, the 114-member Non Aligned Nations, while China, Russia, France and Germany are the sub-set of the American Camp, though representing the dissident group within the American Camp. India alone is the truly independent power and keeper of the conscience of the Hindu and Buddhist civilizations, Brown races and 114-member Non Aligned Nations’ NAM Camp. India is the truly the Second Pole of the World. From 1947 to 1962 the world had been the Tripolar World, with the First World headed by United States, the Second World headed by the Soviet Union, and the Non Aligned Nations Third World headed by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. After the 1966 Cuban Missile Crisis, the international system became bipolar world order, which continued to be bipolar till the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.

 

32(12) Response of India & China

What should be the response of Buddhist Asia and Hindu India to the looming threat of the White Christians after the Christian conquest of Islamic oil-producing world? That leaves China and India to lead the non-American world, the anti-American Camp, otherwise America might establish Pax-Americana worldwide, without having to sacrifice the human lives it would otherwise require. The question is what joint response Hindu government of India and the new generation of leaders in China could give to protect the interests of Hindu and Buddhist civilizations and Brown and yellow races, before it is too late.

 

(1) India China Civilization Friendship

“China and India have enjoyed friendly cooperation and contacts since second century BC. So I think during the past 2200 years, about 99.9 per cent of the time we have devoted to friendly cooperation between our two countries. Our two big countries should always be friendly with each other from generation to generation," said Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, said on April 21, 03. The remaining 0.1 per cent time that the premier Wen did not refer to could be the 1962 India-China war as well as the disturbances after the 1998 nuclear tests by India. George Fernandes is the first Indian leader to meet China's new generation of Communist Party and government leaders. India and China on Monday decided to step up military-to-military exchanges, hold a counter-terrorism dialogue and increase confidence-building measures to maintain peace along the Line of Actual Control. The counter-terrorism talks will be held in Beijing next month, an official source said at the end of the first day of talks between visiting Defense Minister George Fernandes and the Chinese leadership. Fernandes, who is the first Indian defense minister to visit China in over a decade, had 'fruitful' meetings with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Defense Minister General Cao Gangchuan and Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission General Guo Boxiong.

 

The new Chinese leadership has just taken over the reins of the most populous nation in the world. Already many dark clouds are appearing in the sky of the Middle Empire. With the Iraq war nearing its end, what is going to happen during the next few months is anybody's guess. However, it is certain that the world will not be the same. The forces set in motion by the American operations will have far-reaching repercussions the world over. India and China will not be spared and the new Chinese bosses might have to take new directions on several matters. How President Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, his new prime minister, will react to this report “Indo-US Military Relationship” in the fast moving post-war scenario will be interesting to watch. It is probably why there were recently some indications that Beijing was more inclined to start serious negotiations with India on the border issue and with the Dalai Lama's administration for an internal autonomy for Tibet. Moreover, the publication of the report inadvertently coincided with the preparation of George Fernandes' visit to Beijing, the first Indian leader to meet the new Chinese leadership.

 

(2) The Military Potential of China's Commercial Technology (RAND Report)

A recently published report of the RAND Corporation The Military Potential of China's Commercial Technology, investigates the fast improvement of Chinese military technology over the next 20 years. The report states: 'If China's economy continues to grow as expected over the next 20 years, by 2020 it will surpass that of the United States in terms of purchasing power. Such growth would in theory provide China with the economic base to field a military comparable to that of the United States. But in order to become a true military superpower, China would need to make major improvements in the technological capabilities of its defense industries.

 

(3) “Indo-US Military Relationship: Expectations and Perceptions” (DOD Report 2003)

“Indo-US Military Relationship: Expectations and Perceptions,” 2003, a 130-page report prepared for Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of state for defense was recently partially leaked by Jane's Defense Review. When it reached Beijing, it must have left Hu Jintao and his colleagues pensive. It advised, the US and India should be forging a long-term defense and security alliance aimed at containing China. Both Asian nations are acknowledged as emerging global powers. China represents the most significant threat to both countries' security in the future as well as an economic and military competitor.' 'If China emerges as a major power, the USA needs to have friends -- preferably friends who share the same values…'A US admiral told the interviewer: 'The USA and India both view China as a strategic threat and share an interest in understanding Chinese strategic intent, though we do not discuss this publicly.' 'We [the US] want a friend in 2020 that will be capable of assisting the US militarily to deal with a Chinese threat.' Though the views of the US and Indian generals seem 'strikingly similar,' the threat is different for the two countries. The US sees China more as a rival for its economic supremacy, while India has a serious problem at its borders. For example, the report points out that China has resumed, after a two-decade gap, the supply of weapons to various insurgent groups fighting in northeastern India. This assumes a serious significance for India with its long border with Tibet. Both nations, India and USA, are under Chinese threat and should join hands, India being the 'hedge' against China's hegemony in Asia.

 

(4) India Ignored Chinese Threats

India's national security planners ignored Beijing's plans for regional hegemony, despite having received warnings over the last five decades. The situation had worsened with China expanding military airfields in Tibet. Chinese were building a base on the Coco Islands near the Andamans and helping Pakistan with nuclear weaponry. Today, India faces the reality that it lives in a neighborhood where China supplies nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan, weapons to Bangladesh and is building a 12,000 ft runaway near Mandalay (Burma) and a deep-water port in Gwadar in Pakistan.' China's annexation of Tibet was not only an attack on Tibet but also on India. When Fernandez objected to the 'reluctance' to face the reality about China's intentions, a hue and cry was raised in India on the Indian minister's 'loose talk' and 'irresponsible statements.' During the following years, Fernandes refrained from commenting on China's affairs, but his concerns are shared by the US, though perhaps for their own interests.

 

(5) Tibet is Water Tank of Asia

Tibet is the key to India-China relations. Until the Chinese invaded Tibet in October 1950, Tibet was an independent nation. The few remnants of the Chinese mission had politely been asked to leave accompanied by a local fanfare in July 1949. More importantly for India and China, Tibet had for centuries been a buffer zone between the two Asian giant nations. With the disappearance of this buffer zone (the Dalai Lama today dreams of a zone of ahimsa), India and China began to face each other and share a common border. In spite of several rounds of talks, particularly in 1960, the so-called border row has not been solved and may not be solved for decades to come. Though maps have been exchanged for more than 40 years, it has resulted in little progress on the ground. As for India, though China is more of a security threat than an economic one, it does not automatically mean that it should play the role of the 'hedge' envisaged by Washington. Delhi should access on her own the security threats such as the consequences of a rail line to Lhasa, the ecological dangers due to environmental damages caused by the Chinese occupation of Tibet (mainly on the Sutlej and the Brahmaputra) or even the Chinese presence in the Malacca Straits and take the necessary measures. As for the environment, it is worrying not only for the Dalai Lama, but also for Indian experts who know that Tibet is the water tank of Asia, with all the main rivers, such the Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Salween, Yangtze and others having their source on the Tibetan plateau. Any change in the ecological balance in Tibet has severe and immediate repercussions in all parts of Asia, particularly in India. In this complicated situation, with different conflicting centers of interest, the first visit to Beijing of an Indian official after the recent change of guard will be worth watching. Once the Iraq operations are over, Washington is bound to look eastward and tackle some of the pending problems. Today China still lays claim to Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim as well as the eastern part of Ladakh called Aksai Chin. There crosses the most strategic road of the People's Republic: the Tibet-Xinjiang highway linking the two provinces. While China could be more amenable on the central and eastern sectors of the border, Beijing will not concede anything on the Aksai Chin, as too many defense as well as development aspects depend on this axis. In fact, since Fernandes' famous speech, this road link has taken a renewed importance due to the railway track that will soon reach the Tibetan capital. With trains reaching Kashgar and Lhasa, the highway will complete the loop linking China's Western provinces, with all the consequences for Central Asia. It is certainly here that the concerns of the US and India meet. But for India, Tibet is the key to the stability in the region. On April 7, 2003 during a press conference in Delhi, the Dalai Lama reiterated his demand for 'genuine' autonomy within China. Dalai Lama said he hoped the culture and spirituality of Tibet and its traditions could be preserved: 'It is Tibetan's only interest to seek autonomy within the constitution of China. 'After the first round of negotiations last September during which 'the atmosphere was quite warm and quite positive,' the Dalai Lama's representatives are scheduled to go to Beijing in May for a second round of talks. For the Dalai Lama: 'If the Tibetans get the right to preserve their architecture and environment, then as far as economic development is concerned we might get greater benefit by remaining within China.' It is not the Chinese economy, which bothers India too much, but more the happenings in Tibet.

 

32(13) Conclusions

(1) Decline of OPEC Cartel & Rise of WASP Oil Cabal

The WASP oil interests conflicts with the Semite DeBeers diamond interests and Semite OPEC oil interests. The WASP god of oil would dismantle the Semite DeBeers diamond cartel as well as Semite OPEC oil cartel in the first quarter of the 21st Century.

 

First, United States need not pay more than $1 per barrel to rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the oil that American oil companies would extract from their soil. The high oil prices set by the Semite OPEC undermined the WASP oil interests. The Semite OPEC nations should not charge more than $1 over the cost of extracting oil, as any profit so generated should enrich great powers not the Arab tyrants. 

 

Second, American oil interests in Angola and Equatorial Guinea conflicted with the Semite DeBeers Diamond cartel’s interests in the rebel diamonds in Angola and Ivory Coast respectively.

 

Third, the American Multi National Enterprises (MNEs) and American Trans National Corporations (TNCs) undergoing fast transformation and would emerge as political rulers in the oil-producing countries. Halliburton & Co and its fellow American Big Oil should aim to become direct rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Brunei, and Iraq. The majority of the population of Saudi Arabia especially Wahhabi women would welcome and elect the President of Halliburton as King of Saudi Arabia. Halliburton’s takeover of Saudi Arabia would push the Dow Jones Industrial Index from 8,400 to 20,000+ overnight. What is good for the Wall Street is also good for the world. To push the Dow Jones to 20,000+ the White House should permit the takeover of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and Brunei by American Big Oil in the first decade of the 21st Century. Just as the CIA proved its efficiency as an instrument of regime change vis-à-vis Pentagon, the Big Oil would prove its efficiency as colonial administrator vis-à-vis the CIA and the Pentagon. Just as East India Company ruled the Bengal Empire from 1757 to 1857, the American Big Oil would directly rule Muslim Oil producing nations including OPEC nations, and it would give unprecedented boost to American economy.

 

Fourth, the WASP American oil interests conflict with the religious interest of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as well as the national interests of Jewish Israel. WASP Oil interests conflict with the diamond and gold interests of Semite DeBeers Cartel as well as with the oil interests of the Semite OPEC. WASP Oil-god jealously promotes Protestant America’s secular capitalist imperialist oil interests and doesn’t tolerate loyalty to rival gods.

 

(2) Geopolitical Interconnectedness

The chain of events unleashed by President Bush’s war on Iraq, reinforced what Geopoliticians and machiavellian diplomats believed about the uncanny interconnectedness of things and about the profound and mysterious meanings in all our international behavior and great power diplomacy.

 

(3) India’s Interests in New Middle East

India would oppose American oil colonialism over Iraq, if it resulted in the imposition of Wahhabi Shariah and Mecca Caliphate over Iraq. India would also oppose United States if America invaded Syria at the insistence of Israel. India would support American secular oil imperialism in the Middle East but oppose the advent and rise of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate in the Middle East. India would prefer the rise of Islamabad Caliphate, Neo-Ottoman Caliphate and Persian Caliphate to challenge the Wahhabi Caliphate. India would oppose American oil colonialism, if after conquering Iraq the United Stated moved its armed forces against Iran and Syria to bring them under the yoke of Mecca Caliphate. India would whole-heartedly support the American imperial designs to bring Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE under the direct colonial rule of the United States Big Oil. Russia, China and India might come to the aid of Iran, in the event American Empire expanded eastward after the conquest of Iraq.

 

(4) Lure of Black Gold Caused Deep Divide

The lure of Iraqi oil loot caused permanent rift in the Western Catholic Protestant world, when France, Germany and Belgium raised the banner of revolt against le Anglo Saxon colonial invasions over Iraq. The NATO solidarity crumbled over Iraqi Black gold when Americans refused to share Iraqi oil loot with German and French companies. The lure of Iraqi loot caused permanent rift between Turkey and American oil colonialism when United States refused to share Iraqi oil loot with Turkey and refused Turkey’s continued exploitation of the Mosul oil shipped through Turkey overland. Military rulers of Turkey and Pakistan realized that their ally America would not share Iraqi oil loot with them, and still expected they would militarily support American oil colonialism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan.

 

(5) Pro-Wahhabi Gazi Sharon & Gazi Bush

Protestant President Bush and Jewish Prime Minister Ariel Sharon should be honored with titles of Wahhabi Gazi if they could establish Wahhabi rule over Iraq and Syria to bring Iraq and Syria under control of barbarian, fundamentalist, terrorist Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate.

 

(6) Iraq’s Puppet Regime like Serbia

Just as Osama Bin Laden and Semite Al Qaeda terrorists vanished in Afghanistan after American troops took over Kabul, Saddam’s Semite terrorists would also play a vanishing act. United States would establish a puppet regime in Iraq as it established puppet regime in Serbia Yugoslavia, and only qualification America would expect from the puppet ruler that he must not be patriotic Iraqi. United States would set up Puppet Regime in Iraq, exploiting the ethnic divide of the artificially created nation state of Iraq, on the pattern of the Puppet Regimes in Bosnia and Serbia that resulted out of the President Bill Clinton’s war for humanitarian intervention.  United States would not attempt any regime change in neither the Wahhabi monarchy of Saudi Arabia nor in other GCC States, namely, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, as these states have agreed that American would control their economic, military and foreign affairs. After the conquest of Iraq, American colonial empire in the Arabian Gulf region would include every oil-producing nation. American would not allow democratic freedom in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, fearing that any self-respecting Arab leader that won the popular elections might adopt anti-American policies and undermine the economic and military interests of American oil colonialism.

 

(7) Wahhabi as Basis of Oil-rich States

America created Semite Israel and Semite Saudi Arabia out of the Aryan Ottoman Caliphate because new Semite rulers of Saudi Arabia agreed to American control over oil, economic, military, and foreign policies of Saudi Arabia. American oil colonialism touted predator religion as the basis of the new states. Spymaster Colonel Lawrence of Arabia convinced the Wahhabi tribes of Mecca and Medina that they stand to gain if they hyped Wahhabi as the basis of new states in the Arabian Peninsula in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, that never existed as states in history, in exchange for Wahhabi clergy’s monopoly over religious matters throughout Arabian Peninsula, provided they agreed to transfer control over economic, military and foreign policy to United States in Saudi Arabia and to Britain in Iraq. Wahhabi doctrine developed by Zionist Cabal and American and British oil colonialism to justify the separate statehood of thinly populated oil-producing nations, which otherwise should have become part of the leading Islamic power of the region, either Egypt or Iran, or Iraq or Pakistan.

 

(8) Theocratic Wahhabi Monarchies

Wahhabi Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar whole-heartedly supported the American invasions of Iraq, to destroy the secular, nationalist Iraqi regime to re-impose the Wahhabi rule over Iraq, which was terminated by the execution of King Faisal II during 1958 military coup.

 

(9) Yankee Democratic Imperialism

The neo-conservatives justified the America’s war on Iraq to establish direct American oil colony over Iraq and to impose democratic regimes in the Middle East. United States would not promote democracy in the Middle East, as many of the democratically elected leaders would adopt anti-American policies to promote prosperity of their people. America lacked the resources and the political will to impose unilateral remaking of the Middle East as it would be democratic imperialism, skin to the European colonial powers to establish their colonial empires to promote Christian Civilization in the pagan New World. After United States won the war with Iraq, there is “no point in rebuilding Iraq if America did not deal with the rest of the Middle East region, a combination of a reconstructed balance of power and region-wide political and economic reform is imperative for Gulf security.

 

(10) US Empire Replaced British Empire

American oil colonialism bought political influence in Britain and prevailed upon British Prime Minister Harold Wilson to give freedom to all oil-rich British colonial possessions by 1968, so that Pentagon could move in after the voluntary exit of the British Empire from Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Brunei.

 

(11) Arabian Gulf is Yankee Lake

United States in 2002 didn’t face any challenge to its predominance in the Arabian Gulf. No great power challenged United States’ preeminence in the Arabian Gulf region. However, America’s direct invasion of Iraq to establish American Oil colony over Iraq would provide other great powers legal basis to challenge America’s predominance in the Arabian Gulf members of the OPEC. Even if United States defeated Iraq and established American colony over Iraq, the rival great powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India acquired diplomatic foothold to seek new military alliances with the regional powers, namely, Iran, Syria, Yemen to challenge onward imperial march of American Oil Colonialism in the Arabian Gulf region.

 

(12) Pax America During Weak Economy

Only if American Big Oil succeeds in looting Iraqi oil by paying $2 per barrel, and repeating this imperial policy in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to get oil at $2 per barrel royalty, could United States sustain the Pax Americana imperial policy that President Bush outlined in Bush Doctrine 2002 and implemented by attacking Iraq. President George W Bush in 2003 unleashed imperial policies in 2003 by invading Iraq, unlike the Eisenhower Administration that abdicated America’s imperial ambitions, even when it enjoyed nuclear monopoly.

 

American colony over Iraq and the subsequent rape of Iraqi oil would pay for all increases in Pentagon’s budget, besides guaranteeing lucrative salaries for members of Bush Administration after they leave the office after the Second term Bush Administration in 2009. Bush Administration in 2003 correctly believed that only by establishing direct colonies over oil-producing Arabian Gulf, could America pay for the wars, increases in defense spending and could justify deep tax cuts for the rich in America.

 

The hawks of President Bush’s Administration wanted to impose American predominance, when American economy no longer had the strength to play that role in 2003. Since the late 1990s the United States has chosen the policy of Geopolitical Dominance of the world. The super powers have two basic strategic options: they can pursue the policy of geopolitical dominance also known as "unipolar" strategy to create Unipolar world order with United States as the sole super power. It is also called the one-super power world order that Untied States founded after the demise of the Soviet Union in 1990.

 

The post Second World War hawks tempered America’s imperial dreams even when United States enjoyed nuclear monopoly, when it agreed to share power and influence with the upstart nuclear power the Soviet Union and cemented ties with Germany and France. The world had been bipolar from 1950 to 1990. True, even during the Cold War, when the world was essentially divided between the United States and the Soviet Union. Even during Cold War era Bipolar world, foreign-policy thinkers including Walter Lippmann, George Kennan, and J. William Fulbright argued that it was in America's interest to encourage Western Europe's and Japan's revival as independent great powers to relieve the United States of what Kennan called the burdens of bi-polarity.

 

(13) NATO Chaperon of France Germany

During Cold War United States exercised its geopolitical dominance by holding into check the imperial ambitions and great power pretensions of Britain, France, Germany and Japan. Every American president and administration after the Second World War held that the United States had to contain its allies as much as it had to contain Moscow.

 

(14) Diplomacy of Offshore Balancing Strategy as Concert of World Powers

The Offshore balancing policy would check the hegemony of the United States, and hold America in check so that America deluded by its military successes might not embark upon the conquest of the world’s oil or the conquest of the world. The Diplomacy of Offshore Balancing is a modern version of the Congress System that 1814 Congress of Vienna developed to check the hegemony of Napoleonic France and to integrate France into a new world order. The Strategy of Offshore Balancing Diplomacy accepts the geopolitical fact of the rise and fall of great powers, rivalries among great powers and violent regional conflicts. The rise and fall of great powers, civilizations and weapons platforms is an ongoing process and no power can put a stop to it. Super powers should not hinder the attempts of other great powers develop regional alliances. American strategy of preponderance in oil-rich Arabian Gulf to establish American oil colonies throughout OPEC nations is burdensome, Sisyphean, and profoundly risky. American invasions to establish American oil colony would backfire had Iraq succeeded in thwarting the American invasions with the tacit help of Russia.

 

(15) Universal Resistance of Pax Americana

President Bush’s dreams of hegemonic American Oil Empire, would automatically elicit universal resistance, led by Germany, France, Russia, China and India, and sooner or later American Empire would exhaust itself. Despite its esoteric logic, America's strategy of preponderance is seductive and it made sense that the United States should seek to amass as much power as possible. The rationale behind America’s Oil Colonialism strategy is analogous to that of an Oligopoly firm in an oligopoly market that drove its rivals and competitors out of business to avoid the specter of losing its profits in a competitive environment. Theoretically, if America could establish and maintain itself as the sole super power in the international system, it would enjoy something very close to absolute security and absolute monopoly over the vital economic resources of the world, namely, oil, gas, and foreign capital. However, history is the witness that whenever one state acquired too much power, others invariably feared that it will aggrandize itself at their expense, and make an attempt at world domination. "Hegemonic empires, almost automatically elicit universal resistance, which is why all such claimants have sooner or later exhausted themselves."

 

(16) Democracy in Saudi Arabia

The terrorist attacks by Arab Wahhabi Islamist of Sept 11th of 2001, became the hair that broke the camel's back. The 911 attacks suddenly exposed the vulnerability of America to the terrorist attacks and convinced America that it cannot just focus on economic relations in the Middle East and ignore the political structure that allowed Wahhabi clergy to create the army of Jihadi zealots determined to destroy United States and Israel. The Zionist Cabal and Republican Neo-conservatives and the religious right conservatives believe that the Wahhabi Middle East in 2000 very similar to Eastern Europe before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1985. America is very clear that the future of the Middle East would have to be a full-fledged democracy, or Wahhabi terrorists would take-over the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE, as happened in Iran of 1979.

 

(17) Blair sought Henry V’s Agincourt Victory

Britain the 7th ranking power of the world, hoped to join the ranks of major powers by joining American war camp in Iraq, hoping to regain lost British influence, when 1958 military coup overthrew the puppet regime of King Faisal II, who had allowed British control over Iraq’s financial, military and foreign affairs. British Prime Minister Tony Blair intended to bask in the glory of victory over Iraq, the former British colony, after the American invasions of Iraq, to create new le Anglo Saxon Empire. Tony Blair like Henry V monarch understood the psychological value of victory of defeating an adversary sufficiently thoroughly that you shatter the confidence of others, so that they'll roll over themselves before you have to roll over them. Henry V defeated France in 1415 AD similarly Tony Blair’s Britain would defeat France and Germany over Iraq in 2003 by reestablishing Anglo-Saxon colony over Iraq. Neither George W. Bush nor Tony Blair is not Hamlet but English King Henry V the monarch who understood the psychological value of victory over France in Agincourt in 1415. President Bush wanted to repeat the easy victory over Taliban’s Afghanistan in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. President Bush like the King Henry V realized the propaganda value of the glorious victory, which would make American Civilization Empire unstoppable, in the oil-producing world. President bush by invading Iraq intend to unleash the clash of Civilizations, where the American Christians would wage a clash inside the Islamic Civilization, a battle for the democratic future of the Arab Muslim world, where Arab people would gain the right to elect a government of their choice and Arab women would get freedom and equality with men. America after having buried the "axis of evil," would still be keen on burying Saddam Hussein, as the effort to do so might provide testing ground for the new weapons that Pentagon developed, or provoke Bush to use nukes the weapons of last resort. Bush administration seeks explanations in filial obligation, despite his comment that this is "a guy that tried to kill my dad," George W. Bush is no Hamlet, but Henry V, the monarch understood the psychological value of victory, of defeating an adversary sufficiently thoroughly that you shatter the confidence of others, so that they'll roll over themselves before you have to roll over them. For Henry, the demonstration was Agincourt, the famous victory over the French in 1415. The Bush administration got a taste of Agincourt with its victory over the Taliban at the end of 2001, to which the Afghans responded by gleefully shaving their beards, shedding their burkas, and cheering the infidels, even to the point of lending them horses from which they laser-marked bomb targets. Suddenly, it seemed, American values were transportable, even to the remotest and most alien parts of the earth. The vision that opened up was not one of the clash among civilizations we'd been led to expect, but rather a clash "inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world."

 

(18) Iraq is Serbia or Haiti Not Mogadishu

President Bill Clinton invaded Haiti not to promote national interests of United States, but to promote the religious interests of Pope John Paul II to make Catholic priest Rev. Aristide the dictator of Iran, over the predominantly pagan voodoo Haiti. President Bush invaded Iraq to establish American oil colony over Iraq and to bring secular, liberal non-Semite Iraq under the control of Semite Wahhabi Mecca. United States would split Iraq into separate ethnic states, if Semite Saudi Wahhabi failed to control Iraq making it Israel compliant. United States would force Iraq and Iran become more Israel compliant, because the continued Palestinian suicide bombers scared Jews and the very survival of Israel came into doubt. United States would impose Serbia type puppet regime in Iraq, and the new leaders must prove they lack of Iraqi patriotism, are Israel compliant and pro-Semite Wahhabi fundamentalism. The new puppet rulers of Iraq must prove their total subservience and loyalty to American oil colonialism, Semite Israel and Semite Saudi Arabia.

 

(19) Iraq Can’t Be Mogadishu

Somalia gave Mogadishu blow to Yankee troops because American troops pursued to arrest Somali warlord Aidid to the disregard of its implication on American interests. President Bush gave safe passage to Semite Osama Bin Laden and Semite Al Qaeda terrorists. Perhaps the gang of Saddam Hussein managed to vanish with the active connivance of Yankees and Semite Saudi Arabia. America would lose the Iraqi oil war in long run, like the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. Republican President Bush or his Democratic successor in the Oval Office would find in America’s initial victory over Iraq the fate of Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan. United States would not be able to hold on to its precipitous victory in oil-rich Iraq, if Russia, Iran and India decided to support Iraqi rebels in post-Saddam Iraq. Iraq will be America’s 2nd Somalia. America will meet in Iraq the Israel’s fate in Lebanon and Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan. United States’ fate in Iraq could be similar to that of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan War. If Russia gave green signal, the Iraqi warlords and local chiefs might repeat the tactics of Somalia’s warlord Aidid and target American helicopters and isolated American troops. The mother of all battles that Saddam promised in 1991, would become a common place whenever Iraqi learnt the military tactics employed by Gen. Aidid for shooting down American helicopter and killing of number of American soldiers in Mogadishu Somalia.

 

(20) Eventual Demise of NATO

When the American invasion of Iraq ended in the victory of American and British colonialism, America realized that the diplomatic divide that opened up between the United States and continental Europe, brought the NATO Atlantic alliance to a definitive end.

 

(21) Arabian Gulf Is Indian Lake

India recognizes that President Bush has the right to establish American oil colony over Iraq, but it doesn’t have any right to prohibit other great powers from establishing their own oil colonies so long these new colonies didn’t threaten American oil colony over Iraq and Semite Saudi Arabia. What America could do in Iraq, India can and should do in Saudi Arabia or Brunei or Kuwait. America invaded Iraq because American economy had become hollow and devoid of real strength and President Bush realized that only by the rape of Iraqi oil could America maintain its fast declining economic power. After American and British colonial invasion of Iraq, India had the sudden enlightenment that India could solve its problem of poverty simply by occupying Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and loot its oil wealth for the enrichment of India. America would support Pax Americana provided America allowed India to establish a mini-Indian empire of its own so that India could get all the oil it needed without having to pay for it. Before 1947, Indian Empire from Delhi ruled over Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Aden Yemen and these countries kept their foreign reserves in Indian rupees as late as 1965, when stupid illiterate Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi devalued Indian currency by 37% without consulting these countries that kept their foreign reserves in Indian rupees. Before the 1966 devaluation 4.2 Indian rupee traded for one Yankee dollar. Indian Empire historically exercised Gun Boat Diplomacy in Persian Gulf to impress Iran time to time.

 

(22) World Order is Product of Our Thinking

The world is the product of the thinking of the leaders of the world powers. As the leader of the top super power of the world, President Bush has the moral authority to create a new world order, in which the colonial empires and great powers could replace numerous independent sovereign nation states as legitimate entities constituting the new world order. The dominant thinking of the diplomats of the great powers create the new world, by establishing new rules of the conduct of diplomacy and relationship among great powers. Great powers not the small powers decide about the changes that should be brought into the old world order and what the new world order should look like. The new world order becomes legitimate whenever great powers agree about the natures of the changes in the world order. Dominant world powers have a right to change the world system by mutual consent. President George W. Bush as the democratic leader of the superpower United States has the right to create a new world order that accepted the right of the Great Powers undertake preemptive strikes to establish colonies over oil-producing countries. Howsoever, France, Germany and Russia opposed President Bush’s war on oil-rich Iraq to establish American Oil Colony over Iraq, they did not dispute the right of the leader of the leading super power to create a new world order, where colonial empires might become the legal entities of the new international system, if Pentagon secured convincing victory in the war and other world powers chose not to militarily oppose America’s victory in the Iraq war. If leaders of Russia, France, Germany, China and India accept the legitimacy of the colonial empires, the 21st Century would become the replica of the 19th and 18th century colonial world order, and world would never be the same again. India would sign defense pact with Iran to create an Aryan Military Alliance to check the eastward expansion of Semite Wahhabi fundamentalism.

 

(23) Geopolitics of Arabian Peninsula

The oil-rich desert lands of Arabian Peninsula Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. The oil-rich Arabian Peninsula surrounded by Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and Caspian Sea. The Caspian Central Asian oil and gas basin adjoins Arabian Peninsula and contains oil and gas rich Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. After waging a war for oil colonialism camouflaged as American war on Islamic terrorism, American oil colonialism established military bases in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan and these countries are also Muslim nations. After the invasion of Afghanistan United States led NATO expanded eastward and included all former satellite states of the Soviet Union. After Eastern and Central European former members of Warsaw Pact joined the NATO, America became the undisputed leader of the largest imperial alliance in the world history. The expanded Nato included the members of the American Camp and the Soviet Camp.

America would acquire the military and economic capability to conquer the world, if it established the colonial rule over Iraq, Syria and Iran. American domination of Iraq, Syria and Iran would bring the entire oil and gas resources of Arabian Gulf and Caspian Central Asia under Yankee control. 

 

(24) 3rd World War’s Moral Imperative

India, Russia, Germany and France must not allow unification of the Arabian Peninsula under Semite hegemony, as then it would acquire the characteristics of what geopolitician Mackinder termed Desert Heartland. India should come to the defense of Syria and not allow any single power to control the Arabian Peninsula surrounded by Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea. President Bush camouflaging the American conquest of Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Iran the countries that are neither Israel compliant nor Wahhabi compliant nor American oil compliant. India, should sign defense pact with Iran to establish Indian military foothold in Persian Gulf. India should sign defense pact with Russia to establish Indian military foothold in the oil-rich Caspian basin and to protect Russian interests in Iran and Iraq. India should sign defense Pact with France to protect French colonial interests in Syria, Lebanon and Algeria. India should sign defense pact with Germany to protect German and French oil interests in Iraq and Iran and Azerbaijan. Aryan India should sign defense pact with Aryan Turkey to reassert Ottoman Turk’s colonial interests in the oil-rich former territories of the Ottoman empires and oil-rich Turki speaking Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. India, Iran, Russia and China should prepare contingency plans to wage World War III to deny America the control over the oil and gas resources of Arabian Peninsula and Caspian Central Asia.

 

(25) United States China India Troika

The major powers of the world are United States, China and India represented the continental size civilization states of America, East Asia and South Asia. The decline of the Europe compromised the role of Russia, France and Germany. Brown Hindu India would represent the interests of the Third World. Yellow China would represent the interest of the yellow races and Buddhists, including Japan, Koreas, Taiwan and Singapore. Protestant United States would represent the interests of Britain, Spain, Poland and OPEC countries. Catholic and Orthodox Europe would represent the interests of Russia, Germany. France, Belgium and Luxembourg.

 

(26) Quadrangular Balance of Power of USA, Europe, China India

The Quadrangular Balance of Power among America, Europe, East Asia and South Asia would create the stable international system. Britain, Spain and Italy have no future as independent great powers, and they could pursue their national interests only as the Lap Dog of the White House. Poland has no great future in Europe and it must pursue closer military and economic ties with the Untied States. President Putin should develop détente with France and Germany to wean them away for NATO to develop an independent Eurasian Pact, where France, Germany and Russia would provide the anchor. The White Christian world is split into two camps, the First Camp led by maritime United States and Britain and the second Camp led by troika of continental European powers, namely, France, Germany and Russia. Continental Europe consolidated with the emerging alliance of France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Russia. Continental Asia should also consolidate as a common Buddhist-Hindu or Yellow-Brown Bloc that would be led by India, China and Japan. The consolidation of the White Christian Europe as a single Bloc, comprising France, Germany and Russia, necessitates the similar consolidation of Buddhist Hindu Asia comprising India, China and Japan.

 

(27) India’s Oil Card

India should focus in projecting its power in the neighboring oil-producing regions of Arabian Gulf and Caspian Central Asia. Geopolitically India is better suited than China, Russia, France and Germany to project is military power in the neighboring Arabian Gulf, which had been an Indian lake throughout 18th, 19th and first half of 20th Century. India’s claims as world power would gain recognition in terms of India’s ability to project its power and influence in the oil-producing Arabian Gulf region, to control the oil and gas resources of the region as well as to deny or sabotage the control of other great power over these resources. The power to deny the adversary the control over oil resources of Arabia is as important a power as the control over these oil resources. To secure control over Arabian oil resources far more expensive than denying other powers from controlling these resources. Thus India could acquire great power status by demonstrating its military capability to disrupt the global transportation of oil via oil tankers passing through Arabian Sea. India and Russia have jointly developed the supersonic anti-ship Brahmos cruise missiles that could sink aircraft carriers or Naval ships or oil tankers. India should develop close military ties with Iran and deploy anti-ship missiles along the Iranian coast. India should develop military bases in Nicobar Islands to project its power in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei oil fields. India should develop military ties with Vietnam to project its power in the South China oil fields. India should develop military bases in Uzbekistan to project its military power in the Caspian oil fields. India should develop military ties with Venezuela to project its power in the oil fields of Venezuela and Colombia. India should develop its military ties with Zimbabwe and Zaire-Congo to project its power in oil-rich Angola. India’s primary objective shall be to control the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan India oil and gas pipeline that would transport Caspian oil and gas to Indian markets. India’s great power status depends upon its ability to control the flow of Arabian Gulf oil As well as the control over the Turkmenistan-Pakistan-India oil and gas pipeline. India should do whatever it takes to control the maritime transportation of Arabian Gulf oil and gas resources.

 

(28) Alliance of Oil Hungry Great Powers

China, India, Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and Taiwan should enter into a formal Oil Defense Pact to pool their military and diplomatic assets in times of war to secure their supplies of oil And gas resources. Oil is the essential for the industrial economy and Oil pact would deploy military force to secure supplies of the oil and gas resources from oil producers.

 

First, the top 20 largest consumers of imported oil that lacked domestic oil and gas reserves are as follows with their rank among the top 20 importers of oil and oil imports in million barrels per day: 2nd largest Japan: 5.423 MBPD, 3rd China: 4.854 MBPD, 4th Germany: 2.814 MBPD, 6th South Korea: 2.126 MBPD, 9th France: 2.040 MBPD, 10th India: 2.011 MBPD, 20th Taiwan: .846 MBPD. The total Chinese oil reserves are 24 billion barrels of oil, and China produces 3.297 MBPD and consumes 4.854 MBPD. The great economic powers that are totally dependent on imported supply of oil are, Japan the 2nd largest importer 5.423 MBPD, Germany the 4th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.814 MBPD, South Korea the 6th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.126 MBPD, France the 9th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.048 MBPD, India the 10th largest importer of oil with imports of 2.011 MBPD, and Taiwan the 20th largest importer of oil with imports of 0.846 MBPD, as of January 1, 2002.

 

 

 

© 2006 Copyrights All Rights Reserved Author: KALKI GAUR

Kalki Gaur Books are as follows:

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RACES” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “DIPLOMACY OF CIVILIZATIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “MANIFESTO OF NEOCONSERVATISM” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “HINDU HOLY GITA – MOKSA VIA RELIGIOUS WARS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “DA VINCI CODE AS CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “GLOBAL CLASH OF RELIGIONS” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “GNOSTIC BIBLE” (2006)

Kalki Gaur, “POPULIST MANIFESTO” (2006)

The complete text of 5,000 pages of Books by Kalki Gaur available for free download at following Kalki Blogs for academic and non-commercial usage.

http://360.yahoo.com/gaurkalki   ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/clashofreligions  ; 

http://360.yahoo.com/diplomacyofcivilizations  ; 

http://clearblogs.com/kalkigaur/  ; 

http://kalkigaur.blogstream.com/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkigaur/blog/  ;

http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/  ;

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/  ;

http://diplomacyofcivilizations.blog.com/  ; 

http://kalki.newsvine.com/

http://kalkimail.googlepages.com/

http://kalkigaur.googlepages.com/

© 2006 Kalki Gaur Copyrights All Rights Reserved, Email: kalkimail@gmail.com