“. . . they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace . . . .” Ezekiel 13:10)
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.
Note that in A.D. 1971, President Nixon closed the “gold window” and the US dollar became a pure fiat currency. Soon afterwards, deals were struck by the US with Saudi Arabia and then OPEC wherein those oil-producing nations guaranteed to sell their crude oil only for US dollars. As a result, any nation that wanted to purchase crude oil had to have US fiat dollars to do so. The resulting demand for US fiat dollars gave those dollars a perceived value. The US fiat dollar–no longer backed by gold–was implicitly backed by petroleum and became the highly-desired “petro-dollar”.
The fiat US fiat dollar seemed to continue to serve as World Reserve Currency. But was the World Reserve Currency really the fiat dollar backed only by the “full faith and credit of the American people”? Or was the World Reserve Currency the “petro-dollar” backed by the crude oil of Saudi Arabia, OPEC and virtually all of the Middle East oil producing nations? Which version of the “dollar” had the real value? The fiat dollar? Or the petro-dollar?
What if (technically speaking) the real “World Reserve Currency” for the past 40 years was not the fiat dollar, per se, but was the “petro-dollar”? If that were true, would the New World Order have loyalty to the fiat dollar or to control of the Middle East as the primary source of “petro” in a “petro-currency”? That “petro-currency” might be the US fiat dollar, or it might be some other completely new fiat currency that was the only currency the oil producing nations would accept as payment for their crude oil.
I’m convinced that the New World Order can’t come to power and global control without a single, global currency that is fiat (intrinsically worthless and therefore able to be printed in unlimited quantities) that, nevertheless, everyone values. This one-world currency could not be backed by gold because there’s a limit to the supply of gold and therefore a limit on the amount of one-world currency that might be issued. But such currency might be backed by something like petroleum which is in constant demand, constantly consumed and therefore constantly produced.
Nations are addicted to crude oil just as crack addicts are addicted to crack. You get some, you consume it, you need more. You get more, you consume it, you again need more. If you can only get more crude or crack with a particular currency, your addiction to crude/crack becomes an addiction to that particular kind of currency. It doesn’t matter if the only currency that can purchase crude or crack is Monopoly Money. If that’s what the addicts need to get their next crude/crack “fix,” they’ll do anything to acquire more of that currency. The resulting demand for the one currency able to purchase crude oil (the “petro-currency”) can make even Monopoly Money seem valuable.
So, suppose the the New World Order’s primary need was for a “petro-currency” (other than to the overly-indebted and fading fiat dollar) able to unite the world. Would the NWO’s primary objective be to control of the Middle East in order to control the flow of crude oil? Or might the NWO’s objective be to control the Middle East in order to control the global supply of petroleum, and thereby control the issuance of a new “petro-currency” able to: 1) replace the fiat dollar; 2) serve as a new global reserve currency; and 3) provide a fresh monetary foundation for the New World Order?
• A new “Caliphate” over the Middle East would surely claim to be a devoted Muslim institution. But, at the top, might a new Caliphate be controlled (bribed) by the CIA or some agency of the New World Order? (After all, the CIA has allegedly been supporting ISIS—and thus, has been indirectly supporting the movement for a new Caliphate.)
Is it possible that a restored “Caliphate” is more a dream of the CIA and/or New World Order than a dream of Muslims? Do The Powers That Be give a damn who controls Syria, Iraq, Iran or the entire Middle East? Or do they only care who issues and controls the next petro-currency?
• Historically, the maxim “Divide and conquer” doesn’t stand alone.
It’s followed by a second maxim: “Unite and rule”.
It appears possible for the Middle East to become “divided” by Muslim holy war. Is that division intended by Israel, the US, the New World Order and/or the remaining major power to implement some sort of “conquest” of the Middle East nations? Or is that potential division primarily intended to implement some sort (any sort?) of ultimate unification of the Middle East that would not only allow unified control of Middle East crude oil, but also the unified control over issuance of a new global “petro-currency” backed by Middle East crude oil?
Is it possible that “He who controls the petro-currency, rules the world”?
Would it follow that He who intends to rule the world must first create and control a petro-currency?
• Of course, I’m just spitballin’ here. I’m not making any predictions. I’m jus’ sayin’ “What if?”
In fact, the probability of a “unified” Middle East is low. Some Sunni and Shiite Muslims probably hate each other as much (maybe more) than they hate Jews. We aren’t likely to see a unified Middle East unless something poses such an horrific threat to both Sunnis and Shiites that they are forced abandon their antagonisms and unite.
The only way a “unified” Middle East might emerge is in the aftermath of a truly horrific regional war that killed massive numbers of both Sunni and Shiites. Such war couldn’t be fought by mere, blood-thirsty Muslims eager to behead each other. A Middle East war sufficiently horrific to justify regional unification would have to involve the detonation of several nuclear weapons by two or more Middle East nations. We’d have to see something like a nuclear WWIII erupt in the Middle East before we could expect Middle East unification.
I’d bet we’d have to see at least three major Middle East cities of two or more nations be “nuked”. We’d have to know that the resulting casualties ran into several tens of thousands, and perhaps a few hundreds of thousands. Then, even the Muslim psychopaths might be willing to lay down their scimitars and consent to regional unification (and a single, global, petro-currency backed by access to Middle East crude).
I don’t expect a nuclear WWIII to break out between Sunni and Shiite nations anytime soon—if ever.
At least, I don’t expect that sort of war to break out among Muslims without some outside “help” from Israel, the US or the New World Order.
But if a false flag event occurred where a nuclear device exploded in a major Sunni or Shiite city (or especially at a major Sunni/Shiite religious shrine) that could be blamed on one of those competing sects, Katy bar the door. Heads would roll. Big time. And several more nuclear detonations could be expected as one side or the other tried to “get even”.
After a few more nuclear devices exploded and killed massive numbers of Muslims, even the Muslim fanatics would be forced to admit that it was time to play nice and unify–perhaps under the “humanitarian” control of the UN or NWO.
• The ZeroHedge.com article continued:
“Since the 1970s, we haven’t felt the ultimate consequence of trouble in that part of the world, which would be an interruption in the oil supply coming out of there. Back then, there might have been something we could do about it. Now there is nothing we can do but stand on the sidelines and wait.”
It’s true that there’s virtually nothing our government can do to restore peace in the Middle East. But, if the Bible is true and our leaders shout, “Peace, Peace—but there is no peace,” why not go with the prophetic flow towards war?
I.e., even if our gov-co is powerless to restore peace in the Middle East, it’s not true that there’s nothing gov-co can do but stand by helplessly and wait.
What our government does have power to do and, at least, appears to already be doing, is to fan the flames of holy war between Sunni’s and Shiites, and thereby drive the Middle East into chaos. (What the NWO’s motto? “Out of chaos, order”? In other words, create chaos and then impose order where the people gladly serve and obey the NWO.)
Our gov-co may be powerless to bring peace to the Middle East. But, acting on behalf of special interests and/or the New World Order, our gov-co is not powerless to bring war.
Conventional wisdom dictates that the real prize in the Middle East is control of the production of crude oil. Conventional wisdom is probably right.
But, is it possible that the primary value of controlling the Middle East is not control of crude oil so much as control over issuance of the world’s next petro-currency?
Inquiring minds . . . , etc.
We shall see.