Written by Germán Gorraiz López; Originally appeared at Foro.revolucionaldia
After Obama’s election to his first term as president (2008), The Economist joked about the inexperience in foreign policy of Obama with a shocking headline: “A new brain for Barack Obama! It is 78 years old and still works perfectly. it belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex security adviser to Jimmy Carter “.
For its part, the American historian Webster Tarpley, in the book “Obama, The Postmodern Coup, The Making of a Manchurian Candidate” Tarpley maintains that “Brzezinski is the true power behind the throne, and his strategy is far more dangerous and insane than neo-conservative acolytes of George W. Bush. He continues telling that “they have decided to introduce a new face, not someone on the right, nor a neo-conservative but a leftist demagogue who promises change and hope, but the real project of the Obama administration will seek to expand the theater of war far beyond the Middle East since the plan is to seek confrontation with Russia and China.”
Thus, Brzezinski would be faced with the neocon Republican and Jewish lobbies in the U.S. and with his usual pungency would have discredited both geo-strategic myopia lobbyists by stating that “are so obsessed with Israel, the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Iran that they have lost sight of the overall picture: the real power in the world is Russia and China, the only countries with a real ability to resist the U.S. and Britain and on which they would have to fix their attention. ”
Regarding Israel, in a speech to the Irano-American National Council (NIAC), Brzezinski said that “I think the U.S. has the right to decide their own national security policy and not following as a stupid mule that of the Israelis “because since the assassination of John F. Kennedy (who fought a secret war to Ben Gurion in his vain attempt to stop the Israeli nuclear weapons program), the United States has not enjoyed that right.
The New World Order (NWO)
Wright Mills in his book “The Power Elite” (1956), indicates that the key to understanding the American concern would be in the over-organization of their society. Thus, the establishment would be “the elite group formed by the union of the sub-elite political, military, economic, academic and U.S. mass media”, pressure lobbies that would be interconnected by “an uneasy alliance based on their common interests and directed by military metaphysics”, a concept that is based on a military definition of reality and that would have transformed the economy into a permanent economic war.
For its part, Brzezinski in an article published in Foreign Affaire (1970), explains his vision of the “New World Order” stating that “it is necessary a new and bolder vision (the creation of a community of developed countries can deal effectively with the broad problems of humanity”, outlines a theory fleshed out in his book” Between Two Ages: America’s role in the era technetronic” 1971), explaining that the era has come to rebalance world power, power that must be passed on to a new global political order based on a trilateral economic linkage between Japan, Europe and the United States. In the book “Between Two Ages,” (19.71), also calls for control of population by an elite through “cyber manipulation”, by stating: “The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and dominated society by an elite without the restrictions of traditional values, so it will soon be possible to ensure the monitoring almost continuous over every citizen and maintain complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen, files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities, “what would herald the subsequent implementation of the PRISM program.
Also, in a recent speech at a meeting of Council on Foreings Relations (CFR), the former Carter adviser warned that “U.S. domination was no longer possible due to an acceleration of social change driven by instant communication that caused the awakening of a universal political consciousness of the masses (Global Political Awakening) and which is proving detrimental to foreign domination as prevailed in the era of colonialism and imperialism”, so after the failed attempt to control the cloud (PRISM Program ), in the coming years will see the end of the democratization of information, with the impossibility of direct access to the network using the steps of restrictive policies implemented by countries like China, Russia or Iran.
11-S and the totalitarian drift of USA
According to the Financial Times, Brzezinski in a hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate in 2007, said: “One possible scenario for a military confrontation with Iran means a terrorist act in American soil of which would Iran be responsible. This could culminate in a U.S. military action “defense” against Iran in which would be included Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, “what follows is the possibility of a new attack in the U.S. that would be falsely attributed to Iran to bring its invasion and a subsequent totalitarian derived USA, similar to that recorded with George W. Bush after 11- S, 2001.
So, a month after the attack of 11-S, George W. Bush secretly decided to cancel a major constitutional protection in this country (habeas corpus) by-law known as the USA Patriot Act under the justification of its “fight against” terrorism “according to official documents revealed in late 2005 in a series of reports in the New York Times.
Also, the NYT informed of the existence of the world’s most sophisticated electronic spy (or PRISM program called Big Brother), a tool to monitor the communications of U.S. citizens through their metadata (true virtual monster have extended their tentacles to servers from companies like Google, Apple, Micros Eloft, AOL, Facebook and Yahoo), both programs approved by the U.S. Congress at the behest of the Bush administration in 2007 but continued in apathetic inertia by Obama.
To round off this U.S. totalitarian drift, there would be the signing with objections by Obama of the Defense Authorization Act National (NDAA), which allows to military authorities the indiscriminate detention of U.S. citizens anywhere in the world (without specifying the charges against him or dwell time), Obama reserving personal interpretation of section 1021 of the Act to in his words “ensure that any authorized detention will be held according to the Constitution and the laws of war.”
As Brzezinski explained in National Interest magazin in 2000, “Europeans are more immediately exposed to risk in case a chauvinistic imperialism encourage again the Russian foreign policy”, outlining a plan that would pass through the expansion of NATO to the absolute limits in the 90s and the implementation of new European missile defense, (European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). Such a system is actually a comprehensive missile shield in which interceptor missiles deployed in mobile platforms can be folded in a common space (based on data transmitted by all radar and opto-electronic reconnaissance), so after a U.S. first strike that would destroy the Russian nuclear potential in their own territory, then they would neutralize Russian replication through missiles stationed in Poland.
At first, Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate in the creation of anti-missile shield for Europe in November 2010 Bilateral Summit in Lisbon, as to Moscow it was vital that NATO offered that this system would not be directed at Russia and have a legally binding document on this, but the Obama administration following the inertia mimetic os Bush Administration to Russia, has refused so far to offer such guarantees in writing.
Given the current context of US-Russian Cold War, it is foreseeable that the U.S. decides to finally complete fourth phase of the deployment of the missile shield in Europe (Euro DAM), which would have the reply from the Russian Kaliningrad installation of new ballistic missile inter- Continental 100 Tm, (“the murderer of the U.S. missile shield” in the words of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin) and the reactivation of the arms race between the two great powers, not being ruled out a repeat of the Missile Crisis ( Cuba, 1962).
Doctrine of the “clash of civilizations”
In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said in a speech: “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us that threatens to fragment itself, and Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states southern flank are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts and if one of the two become destabilized, the problems of the region would become unmanageable”, an outline of a theory that ended drawn in his book “The Grand Chessboard. U.S. supremacy and its geostrategic imperatives” (1997), considered the geostrategic Bible of the White House and the bedside book of the next generations of geo-strategists and political scientists.
However, in an interview with Brzezinski made ??by Gerald Posner in The Daily Beast (September 18, 2009) stated that “an Iranian-American collision” would be disastrous for the U.S. and China, while Russia would emerge as the big winner, as the expected closing of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf where oil is transported through intended for Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), Europe and the United States, would raise the price of black gold to stratospheric levels and would have severe repercussions on the global economy, the EU becoming fully oil dependent of Russia “, so that the Obama administration proceeded with the implementation of economic sanctions on the Iranian regime to achieve its economic strangulation and cause social unrest.
Remember that Iran acquired a regional power dimension thanks to the erratic policies of the U.S. in Iraq, (the result of the political myopia of Busch Administration policy obsessed with the Axis of Evil) to eliminate ideological rivals, the radical Sunnis, Talibans and Saddam Hussein with subsequent power vacuum in the area, so Iran has reaffirmed its inalienable right to nuclearization.
Following the election of a new President Hasan Rowhani, Iran would open a new opportunity for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear dispute call. So Rowhani (cleric educated in Britain), led the Iranian nuclear negotiating team from 2003-2005 and is known for its nuclear pragmatism at that time led to the agreement from Iran to suspend all nuclear conflicting activities, so in the course of resolving the nuclear issue of US-Iran and the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Rowhani would achieve his goal of recognizing the role of Iran as a regional power, achieving increased American-Iranian cooperation on security in Iraq and Afghanistan and the resolution of the Syrian-LIBANI issue.
However, if diplomacy failed, Obama would increase pressure pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. (AIPAC), to proceed to the destabilization of Iran with expeditious methods, time to be used by the U.S., Britain and Israel to proceed mapping to redesign the ºdisjointed puzzle formed by these countries and achieve strategically advantageous borders for Israel, following the orchestrated plan 60 years ago jointly by the governments of Britain, the United States and Israel and that would have the support of the main Western allies.
Brzezinski’s goal is confrontation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), founded in 2001 by the Shanghai Five (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) over Uzbekistan and converted along with the countries of ALBA and Iran in the core of resistance to global hegemony of the United States and Great Britain, with Tibet and Xinjiang as destabilizing operations scenarios. Remember Xinjiang Uyghur (Turkish-Mongol origin and a total of 8.5 million inhabitants) preserves ethnic and Islamic characteristics that would place them very close to their relatives in Central Asia and Turkey, for what would be the ideal broth for cropping to implement the Brzezinskinian strategy of “clash of civilizations”, which is to seek the Balkanization of China and its confrontation with Islam (about 1,500 million followers) and dry oil sources of Islamic countries of Central Asia.
Thus, according to F. William Engdahl, in the article entitled “The hidden agenda behind the violence in Xinjiang” and reproduced by China Daily in 2009, several major Chinese pipelines pass through Xinjiang originated from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Russia, which would explain the strategic importance of this province within brzezinskiniana strategy to achieve total Chinese Russian-dependent energy to finish at a later stage facing them together and finally submit and implement the New World Order under the Anglo-Jewish-American aegis.
Doctrine of “constructive chaos” and the Syrian crisis
The Carter Doctrine inspired by Brzezinski (1980), was aimed at the implementation in the Middle East of the so called “constructive chaos”, a concept based on the maxim attributed to the Roman emperor Julius Caesar “divide et impera”, to achieve the establishment of a field of instability and violence in the area (balkanization), and cause chaos stretching from Lebanon, Palestine and Syria to Iraq and from Iran and Afghanistan to Pakistan and Anatolia (Asia Minor).
This process of balkanization of the area would already be underway and have its implementation in countries like Iraq become a failed state and bled by the revival of Shiite- Sunni civil war, in the endemic Palestinian division reflected in the impossible national reconciliation of factions of Hamas and the PLO; into anarchy reigning in Libya as Salafi Wahhabism is established in Tripoli while Takfiríes groups (satellites of Al-Qaeda) tribally dominated inside Libya, and in the application of Sunni jihad against the secular regime of Al Assad and his Shiite, Iran and Hezbollah allies that by their mimetic effect have already make Lebanon become a country divided and ready to be swallowed up by Israel, leaving the Shiite theocratic regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei as the only area still impervious to the balkanization strategy of Brzezinski.
However, Brzezinski in a recent interview published in The National Interest, warned of the dire consequences of getting involved militarily in the Syrian conflict, saying that “I have fear that we are heading towards a U.S. ineffective intervention, as military intervention may accelerate victory of those rebel groups that are much more hostile to us than Assad, since the current crisis in Syria would be a colonial war orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and its Western allies France and Britain”. Thus, the energy cooperation agreement in 2010 between Iraq, Iran and Syria for pipeline construction from South Pars to Homms which would connect the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, relativize the strategic importance of Turkey within the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) Project, and the role of the Arab Gulf monarchies as suppliers of crude to the West, which would explain the desire of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to ousting Al-Asad.
Finally, Putin’s masterstroke by persuading Assad to hand over its arsenal of chemical weapons and the limited international support for Obama to start his military operation against Syria could lead to the desired conclusion of Geneva II International Conference on Syria (recalling the War in Laos and the Geneva Accords of 1954), with which the Syrian crisis will be limited to a stage in which the participating actors used the Syrian stage as a testbed for further large-scale conflict that encompass Israel and Egypt and could reissue the Six Day War on the horizon of the next five years.
In the Obama’s speech to the plenary session of the Sixth Summit of the Americas held in Cartagena (Colombia) in 2012, he recalled that the Inter-American Democratic Charter states “that the people of Latin America have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend, so intervene when universal rights are denied or when the independence of the judiciary and the press is threatened “, a warning extrapolated to Ecuador and Venezuela.
Foreign Policy magazine (edition of January-February 2012) published a Brzezinski’s analysis titled “After America”, which examines the thesis of the decline of the U.S. due to the arrival on the scene of new global geopolitical players (China and Russia) and their potential side effects on international relations.
Regarding Mexico, he states that “the worsening of relations between declining America (USA) and Mexico’s domestic problems scenarios could reach threatening levels.” Thus, due to “constructive chaos” exported by the U.S. and captured in the war against drug cartels initiated in 2006, Mexico would be a failed state with the city of Juarez as paradigm (the world’s least safe city with a number of violent deaths greater than the total in Afghanistan in 2009), so that to avoid the expected boom of revolutionary movements it is necessary to proceed to the intensification of internal instability Mexico to complete his thorough balkanization and submission to U.S. dictates.
Furthermore, EEU use the Pacific Alliance (2011), refined geo-economic engineering project sponsored by the U.S. and supported by Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Costa Rica, as a Trojan horse to blow up the integrationist project represented by the UNASUR and enhance the policy of progressive isolation of the populist governments in the region (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Uruguay and Bolivia). Thus, the U.S. could strengthen trade and military ties with Dominican President Danilo Medina to prevent the danger of mimetic contagion of revolutionary ideals by relying on the Venezuelan Petrocaribe for its energy supply. This strategy would further integrate Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama and finally incorporate the Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay), following the Kentian theory of “carrot and stick” expounded by Sherman Kent in his book “Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy” (1949).
As for Venezuela, following the disputed presidential elections in Venezuela in which Maduro won over Capriles by the narrow margin of 200,000 votes, we would see almost symmetrical division of Venezuelan society to be exploited by the U.S. to establish “constructive chaos of Brzezinski” through a systematic and intense destabilization campaign including selective shortages of essential items, the amplification in the media of the growing insecurity and democratic legitimacy of Maduro, strategy with the invaluable logistical help from Colombia (converted in the continental U.S. aircraft carrier) it could eventually destabilize the post-Chavez regime to ensure the supply of Venezuelan oil (Venezuela would provide 21.6% of a total of 38% of products imported from OPEC by the U.S. ).
In addition, although according to data released by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S.(IEA), thanks to fracking technique used in shale gas extraction and light oil (shale oil), USA will be saved and energy self- sufficiency (record 87% in May 2013) and it would have already become the world’s largest exporter of refined fuels (gasoline and diesel), to be competitive in the markets the final price of Product should move in the $ 75-85 hairpin, a task that seems extremely difficult at the current juncture. Thus, the current bull rally in oil prices (hovering around $ 115) will be prohibitive freight rates and will put Venezuela on a clear advantage for geostrategic reasons regarding U.S. geographic proximity (navigation of oil tankers from Venezuela to EEEUU lasts five days compared to 14 days to reach Europe and 45 days to the Far East).
As for Cuba, cosmetic measures taken by the Obama Administration (relaxation of communications and increased remittances to the island as well as the beginning of a round of talks on immigration issues), leaving intact the blockade and not substantially changing Washington policy, they reflect the consensus of some large sections of the American people in favor of a change of policy towards the island, sponsored by the Cuban regime’s decision to end the state paternalism and allow free enterprise and self- employment. However, the automatic renewal by the U.S. for another year trade embargo against the island could pose to Cuba losses estimated at nearly $ 50,000 million and plunge the Raul Castro regime to economic strangulation, not being ruled out the signing of a new treaty of military cooperation with Russia.
As for Brazil, is part of the so-called BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and although it is possible that these countries are a political alliance as the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), those countries have the potential to form an economic bloc with higher status than the current G-8 (estimated to be on the horizon of 2050 they will have more than 40% of the world population and a combined GDP of $ 34,951 Billion). The Russian aim would be to double the turnover of the Russian-Brazilian trade after the firm decision that would underlie Putin to neutralize U.S. expansion in the South American cone and avoid possible takeover by Brazil’s role as “neoliberal policeman” in South America. Thus, Brazil plays a fundamental role in the new geopolitical chessboard designed by the U.S. to Latin America because he is considered as a potential ally in the global scene that could be supported for membership in the Security Council as a permanent member of the UN with the consequent increased specific weight of Brazil in the World Geopolitics.