“. . . they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace . . . .” Ezekiel [13:10])

[courtesy Google Images]
[courtesy Google Images]
The Muslim faith is divided into two primary sects: Sunni and Shiite. They’ve been at each other’s throat since the death of the prophet Mohammed in the 7th century. Their disagreement is religious and goes to which sect acquired legitimate authority over the entire Muslim faith after Mohammed died. The two sects can go through generations of peaceful coexistence. But every so often, they wage holy war against each other.

ZeroHedge.com recently commented on rising Middle East tensions:

 “What’s changed [in the Middle East] is the perception that the USA has any role to play any longer even in the diplomatic theatrics. The Middle East is disintegrating faster than any polity in historical memory. It appears that, if anything, the USA has only succeeded in accelerating the process wherever we turn our attentions.”

The US government directly supports the Sunni rebels in Syria and thereby indirectly supports the Sunni rebels in Iraq—all the while claiming to support the Shiite government of Iraq.

Our gov-co is playing both ends against the middle. It’s giving weapons and military training to both sides.  It’s fanning the flames of war from both sides. I see only two plausible explanations for this seemingly contradictory behavior:

1) our government is incredibly stupid, grossly incompetent and is therefore accidentally precipitating holy war in the Middle East; or

2) our government knows exactly what it’s doing and is intentionally scheming to cause holy war in the Middle East between Sunni and Shiites.

As much as I dislike our government, I don’t believe it’s as stupid and incompetent as it often appears.

I therefore conclude that the correct explanation for our government’s current conduct in the Middle East must be explanation #2. Our government is intentionally working to pit Sunnis against Shiites in a widespread Middle East holy war that will cause Muslims to kill Muslims, subject much of the Middle East to chaos, raise the price of crude oil at the same time that the US is becoming a major exporter of crude oil; and help protect Israel from any unified threat from the Muslim peoples.

There’s an ancient maxim of war: Divide and conquer.

Thanks to ancient tensions between Sunnis and Shiites, Muslims are being violently “divided”.   It remains to be seen if they will be subsequently “conquered”.

But if Middle East nations are to be divided (Iraq might break down into three separate “nations”) and then conquered, we might ask “conquered by whom”?

The United States military could barely handle Iraq. The US is unwilling and not even able to unilaterally put enough boots on the ground to take control of the entire Middle East.

There’s no other single nation that might be able to move in to “conquer” a “divided” Middle East.

So, who else might be planning to “conquer” the Middle East?

In theory, it might be possible that a “divided” Middle East to be effectively “conquered” by private corporations drilling for crude oil. But the Middle East is so inherently unstable and violent that I doubt that any group of private corporations could unilaterally enforce a “peace” in the Middle East sufficient to allow corporations to safely steal and sell Middle East crude oil.

If private corporations could “conquer” the Middle East, it would only be with the assistance of some superior political power able to deploy enough military force to keep the Muslims in line.   But, even with the assistance of the US military, I doubt that any coalition of oil-producing corporations could be strong enough to impose “peace” on the Middles East.

Corporations won’t conquer the Middle East.

However fantastic the idea may be, it’s conceivable that a coalition of nations—say, Russia, China, the United States and perhaps the European Union (all acting for “humanitarian” reasons, of course) might move into the Middle East and partition that region into several administrative “districts”—just as the European powers partitioned the Middle East after WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Each of these “humanitarian” nations would take responsibility for controlling those districts and imposing peace.

Here, the word “peace” would be defined as “the uninterrupted flow of cheap crude oil out of Middle-East to be sold at low prices to the world’s major powers.”

All, of course, for humanitarian reasons.

And, of course, it would only be fair that those “humanitarian” nations fighting and killing for “peace” in the Middle East would be allowed to take a fat slice of the crude oil being pumped out of the Middle East.   After all, it costs money to be a “humanitarian peacekeeper” so it’s only fair that the nations imposing “peace” be compensated for their expenses.

The idea that several “great nations” might combine to control the Middle East is a seemingly fantastic hypothesis. Today’s “great powers” are so disparate and antagonistic that it’s hard to imagine them working together to rob Middle East crude oil. But that’s pretty much what happened in the aftermath of WWI—the “great powers” of that time worked together to gang up on, divide, partition, and rob, the Middle East.

This speculation is unlikely, but it’s been done before, so it could be done again.

However improbable, it’s also conceivable that, in midst of widespread chaos caused by a Middle-East, Muslim holy war, the United Nations might send in enough multinational troops to impose peace in the Middle East. Once the Shiites and Sunnis killed enough of themselves, the Arab people might welcome the UN.

The world would cheer if the UN brought “peace” (the uninterrupted flow of cheap crude oil) to the Middle East.

The net result of a UN-occupation and imposition of peace might not be the renewed partition of the Middle East, but rather a kind of imposed “unification” where the Middle East became a regional “protectorate”. There’d still be individual “nations” like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But they’d probably function more like administrative districts that were ultimately subservient to the UN.

Such subservience would mean that UN would control how much crude oil each Middle East “nation” pumped and sold into the world markets. If the UN controlled the production and sale of  Middle East crude oil, the UN would acquire an enormous source of revenue and power to elevate it far above its current status as a glorified debating society.   The UN would have real power and a genuine foundation for New World Order.

More, suppose the UN or any other coalition of major powers could “unify” the modern Middle East—much as the Ottoman Empire (A.D. 1299-1922) once unified the Middle East. Suppose the UN/coalition gained control of Middle East oil production. Then, the UN/coalition could introduce its own petro-currency and use it to replace the fiat dollar as world reserve currency.

I’m not saying that today’s Great Powers currently plan to “divide and conquer” the Middle East in order to issue a new petro-currency.   But I am saying that this fantastic speculation–that control of the Middle East may be less about control of crude oil than control of a new “petro-currency”–is an interesting hypothesis.

Is control of Middle East petroleum the ultimate prize?  Or is control of Middle East petroleum merely an intermediate step on the way towards control of the ultimate prize: creation and control of a new global petro-currency?

In fact, if you like fantasy, consider the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) rebels who are Sunnis fighting to overcome the Shiite governments of Syria and Iraq and planning to then unite those two nations. Their express objective is to unify the Middle East under the control of a single, Muslim “Caliphate” modeled on the former Ottoman Empire. It’s reported that some middle-east rebels (like ISIS) receive funds, training and weapons from the CIA.

If ISIS succeeded in reestablishing a “Caliphate,” there’d be a single authority ruling the entire Middle East. That single authority could issue a new petro-currency to replace the flagging fiat dollar.

The fact that this proposed “Caliphate” would be ostensibly Muslim might be irrelevant.  The crucial fact might be that the Caliphate was a single authority and therefore capable of issuing a “petro-currency” that was backed by petroleum rather than gold or the promises of central banks.

Written by: ALFRED ADASK – continue reading at ADASK’S LAW

By

Leave a Reply