It would be best if we explain the key aim of the 2 families. Both want a one-world government – each for their own reason. The Rockefeller family’s vision of a global government entailed on efficiency, not ideology. This was the underlying reason why Nelson Rockefeller and his brothers pushed for the establishment of the UN in New York City. The brothers paid $8 million for the land, and had the UN built according to their specs. The UN banks with the Chase Manhattan Bank; and till today, the UN is within the Rockefeller orbit.

The Rothschild family had another vision that was based on the cult formed by some radical Levites in Palestine in the year 950 BC. This cult grew in power over the next 3,000 years. It had many leaders in the past, and its current leadership lies with the Rothschild family. The “unofficial government” of this group went by many names, such as the Levites, then the Pharisees, then the Talmudists, and finally to the Illuminati Council, established in Frankfurt in 1773. Between 1820 and 1830, the Rothschilds assumed the leadership. From it emerged the doctrine of Zionism, in September 1882.

1 The Rockefeller Game-Plan

 To get this answer, it would be best to go back to 1990. The Soviet Union had come to an end in 1990. This was America’s most important geopolitical rival. With this, America became the undisputed superpower.

 In 1991, the US coalition destroyed Iraq and its military. This brought to an end the stigma of America’s “Vietnam humiliation”. Both of these changed the position of the US on global affairs.  This made George Bush to boast that the US had now started to follow the rules of a “new world order”.

In 1992, the New York Times published a Pentagon memo called “Defense Planning Guidance”.  This draft called for American military dominance over the world, particularly over Eurasia, including Russia and China, by preventing the rise of any potentially hostile or rival power. This became known as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine”. 

Then, in 1997, we have the famous book published by Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Grand Chessboard “. In reality, this was a book meant for the upper levels of the Rockefeller Empire and its associated networks of power. It was an “instruction “manual for the future trend of American geopolitics. A decade later, this theory was transformed into practice following the attacks of 9-11.  The Rockefeller Empire mandated that US foreign policy should aim to secure what the Pentagon termed “Full Spectrum Dominance”. The control of oil and gas by the big 4 Anglo-American oil giants (in the Rockefeller orbit), BP and Shell (both in the Rothschild orbit) – was the cornerstone of their global strategy. In order to control those global oil and gas flows, the US needed to project its military power far more aggressively, to achieve a total military supremacy, which was what Full Spectrum Dominance was actually about.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ideological war between communism and capitalism had come to an end. From now on, the war will be economic. Remember Kissinger’s infamous maxim – “control the oil, and one can control the destinies of nations”. The Rockefeller aim was to control the oil and gas of the Middle East. By doing so, it would be in a position to control energy flows to these two regions- Europe and Asia. It would then be in a position to dictate the future economic trajectories of these two regions – the chief economic rivals of the US. By shattering these 7 countries of the Middle East, it will be possible to control the region if it is broken up into several pieces.

By the time 2000 came, the Rockefeller policy for the region was now set in stone. What would transpire over the next two decades was the implementation of these policies. A certain faction within the Rockefeller Empire issued a report called the Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, in September 2000. This was an indication of America’s plans to use military force to change the global architecture in its favor, again.  Its first major move came with the birth of the SCO, in June 2001. The SCO was first conceived by Russia and China back in 1995, as the Shanghai 5. The US aim was to intercept the impulse of Eurasian nations to get together and save themselves from American greed. Within 3 months of this, the US – more specifically, David Rockefeller- created the 9/11 incident to justify American intervention in Afghanistan.

Wesley Clark, a former US Army general, recalled a moment on September 20^th, after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in 2001 when he visited the Pentagon. He was TOLD ABOUT  out how the US was going to “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off with Iran”. None of these states had any obvious connection to the events of 9/11. The one that did have such a connection – Saudi Arabia – was not on the list and has remained one of the United States’ most favored client states. The order of targets prioritized by Washington had to be modified – and the timeline was way off – but the realization of that 2000 PNAC blueprint is closer than ever.

Access to Oil

The 2001 Pentagon memo shown to Clark was, in fact, a reworking of a military blueprint for the Middle East that had been circulating in Washington for even longer – and had nothing to do with responding to 9/11 or terrorism. It was all about securing the oil and gas , plus Israel’s place as a forward base for US interests in the oil-rich region. Israel was to be used to achieve this plan.

The 5 countries in the region- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman hold roughly  50-60 % of all oil and gas reserves in the world- some 1.2 trillion barells.  Working on a annual 3 % extraction rate, this works out to some 36 billion barells, or roughly 100 million BPD- which is what the world currently consumes. This is besides the gas in the region- which can produce more than 1 trillion cubic meters annually. The combined export revenues of these exports can amount to some $50 billion per month. This is what is driving the lust for this wesaalth by the Rockefeller Empire, not to mention its geopolitical advantages.

 Israel, in turn, was going to use the US to achieve its aim of destroying its bneigbirs in order to achieve their Greater Israel project.

So, each family thought they were getting the best deal, while in reality; they were “frenemies” in the best of sense. Where are they now?

 1 Iraq: The invasion of Iraq by the US and UK, on false pretenses, led to the removal of r Saddam Hussein of the Iraqi state. The country was plunged into a devastating sectarian war from which it is still struggling to recover.

2 Somalia:  The country has been destabilized since the late 1980s, due to its location and oil reserves. In 2006, it was subject to a US-backed Ethiopian invasion. Since then, the country is undergoing a brutal war between various armed groups.

3 Sudan: originally part of Egypt, until the British carved Sudan out from Egypt and gave it its independence. Starting in the mid-1980s, London launched a insurgency against Khartoum. There were two reasons for the attack on Sudan. The first was as a means of putting pressure on Egypt – “behave towards Israel or face consequences”. The second was that large oil reserves were found in Sudan. Then in 2011, Sudan was split up into 2 parts. And, over the past year and half, Abu Dhabi and its leader- MBZ- working on behalf of the 2 families launched a regime-change operation to unseat the Sudanese government, as it wanted to give a naval base to Russia. This has resulted in damage to infrastructure, loss of life, starvation and mass displacement of its peoples.

4 Libya: NATO meddling in Libya, again on false pretenses, led to the removal of dictator and the collapse of the Libyan state in 2011. It has been run by warlords ever since.

5 Lebanon: We know about the recent events in this country.  Meanwhile, the terms of surrender to end Israel’s savage bombing of Lebanon do not look designed to hold. The already fragile sectarian arrangements barely gluing the Lebanese state together are almost certain to come unstuck in the coming months.

6 Syria: The last Arab country on the list. Weakened by nearly 60 years of unrelenting pressure, and crippled by sanctions and terrorism and wars, Syria was at its most vulnerable recently, when the US, Israel Britain and Turkey decided to mount a takeover of Syria by terror groups. The destruction of these various states created the space for new ultra-violent, intolerant Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS) group to flourish.

7 Iran: the last target on the Pentagon’s list, is now fully in the cross-hairs. Deprived of allies in Syria, and now largely cut off from its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, Tehran is as vulnerable as it has ever been. None of this is accidental.

Were western publics not so deeply influenced by years of disinformation and lies from their politicians and media, they might by now be starting to see a bigger picture gradually coming into focus. Later, in a document published in 2000 (the PNAC), they clarified that the US must ensure it retained “forward-based forces” in the Middle East to maintain military dominance there “given the longstanding American interests in the region”; those interests primarily being, of course, oil. The ultimate concern, the paper explained, was stopping China from developing closer ties to key oil states such as Iran. The authors of these documents would soon be holding key positions in the George W Bush administration that took office in January 2001.Ensconced in the Pentagon and State Department; they were only too ready to exploit 9/11 as the pretext to fast-track their pre-existing agenda, as Clark understood from the Pentagon memo.

Israel had to be helped to begin “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria”, observed the authors, and then “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”. The next stage would be to “wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran and Syria”.  The champions of this idea were an increasingly influential group called the neoconservatives – or neocons for short. This group was actually a joint venture between the 2 families. We shall now turn to the Rothschild game-plan for the region.

2 The Rothschild Game Plan

As we have detailed in many articles on this site, we have written about the Talmudic Creed and the rise to power of the Rothschild family- the current flag bearers of this creed. This family has founded and financed the Zionist Project.

In 1982, the Rothschild’s had one of their minions publish a report, called the Yinon Plan.

Israel, a “Hidden Superpower”

Israel is the visible tip of an invisible empire – the Rothschild Empire. As such, it has to fulfill its mandate. And what is its mandate? To make Jerusalem the capital city of the world government, and to make all of humanity be its’ slaves – irrespective of race or creed. It is impossible to analyze the international situation portraying Israel as a “satellite”, or a “client state” of the US, as it has acquired many of the characteristics of a “hidden superpower”. Its ascension was greatly facilitated – there is no other logical way to explain it – by its special links to the world financial power of the Rothschild’s and the rise of its power during the 19^th century.

Israel has not only a regional, but a truly global agenda, from Ukraine to Brazil and from Britain to Sudan, and from India, to China and South Africa. It is also able to intervene to the internal affairs of major European powers, as well as in the US, and Russia. And now, it’s getting a foothold within the Arab countries.

Fast forward to today. New York wants to blow up the Middle East in order to cripple its economic rivals, such as China, Iran, Russia and the EU. In this plan, Israel will be badly damaged, and may not survive. While London and Israel want to change how this happens. Their main aim, currently, is to destroy Iran, as Iran is the backer of both Hezbollah and Syria. If this is done, then Israel will then be in a position to re-structure the boundaries of its enemies – the Arabs. It knows that it cannot rely on America to support it fully, thus, it has embarked on a process of roping the Arab nations on its side. To better understand its long-term plans for the region we have to study the Yinon Plan. This plan was researched and released in 1982. This was while Israel was conducting its second invasion of Lebanon. Israel thought it was winning, and in its ego, it released this paper outlining their future plans for the region. One thing about the Zionists- they love to boast.

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon: aka the Yinon Plan

In his diaries, Theodor Herzl, wrote that the area of the Jewish State stretched from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates. The “Greater Israel” (or the “Yinon”) plan, first drafted more than a century ago, entails “weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia”. And then “a number of proxy States” would be created and include “parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, Iraq and Saudi Arabia”.

The Oded Yinon plan was to capture the Middle East through Divide and Rule in order to capture the region to steal its resources. It was called ‘ISREAL PROJECT’ to topple the ottoman empire in order to settle the FAKE Hebrews in the stolen Palestine, then create chaos and wars based on ethnic and religious divide to bring the region under control. There would have been Zero success if the WEST did not support their proxy, Israel, economically, military, politically against their VICTIMS. Israel could NOT survive an hour without full support from the West. Israel cannot fight on the ground, only from the sky bombing her victims using the airplane, fighter Jet dropping bombs from the sky killing the babies. The criminal West is 100% complicit in this genocide. The Islamic resistance was not fighting only with Israel. They were fighting with US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey at the same time, funded by the Arab states.

In 1906, the British PM, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, told the audience that the Arab land is necessary for the survival of the western empire; thus, the region should be brought under control to be able to steal its resources. Thus, we need to inject an agent [Israel] to be able to control the region with its resource.  Bannerman said:

“There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another … if, perchance, this nation were to be unified into one state; it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body [ISRAEL] should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

So, we shouldn’t view the events of the last month as random or spontaneous, because they are neither. Everything that has taken place aligns closely with a strategic blueprint produced by a Zionist intellectual (Oded Yinon) more than four decades ago and which concocted “an accurate and detailed plan….for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states.” 

This is where readers need to pause for a moment and honestly consider whether this accurately explains the endless fighting and turmoil we’ve seen in the Middle East for the last two decades?

The answer is: It does. Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria etc. These are not just countries; they are agenda items on a Zionist checklist for regional domination. So, stop thinking that the wars have something to do with Assad or oil or pipelines or Hamas or even Israeli security. Because they don’t. These are wars aimed at establishing Israeli hegemony across the Middle East. The Muslim Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. …every Arab Muslim state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging. All of the Arab states east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with conflict… This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.

“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today….” Oded Yinon

Repeat: “This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run.” In other words, inciting ethnic and religious violence against other groups within the society, is the operational strategy for achieving regional dominance. In order to establish Israeli security, Arabs must be encouraged to kill each other.

Regarding the Palestinians, there’s this little nugget: Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea, they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan. 

Keep in mind, this was written in 1982 which means there was never any intention of exchanging land for peace or fulfilling their obligations under US Resolution 242 to evacuate the occupied territories. It was always a ruse aimed at confusing credulous nitwits in the US. The core of the “clean break” strategy called for the Israel and the U.S to reject “land for peace,” the idea that Israel would withdraw from the occupied Palestinian lands in return for peace….

American interference, at the behest of Israel, has left the Middle East in ruins, with over a million dead and open wars raging in Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, and with Iran on the brink of a nuclear arsenal, being pushed against its own inclinations to this eventuality. Since the pro-Israel lobbying groups in the United States are quite powerful, the Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, especially in recent decades. This decision “is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region”, which would benefit both New York and the supporters of the “Greater Israel” plan. The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East. The Yinon Plan is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority, which “stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the Balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states”.  Iraq is outlined as the centerpiece to the Balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World, with its division into “a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims”. The Yinon Plan calls for a divided Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria, and that the partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan is also consistent with it.

The Zionist plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia. However, the “Yinon Plan” “also calls for dissolution in North Africa”. Israel appears to be “interested” in Africa not only because of potential benefits to be derived from political cooperation with this region and joint efforts to fight Islamic extremism but also due to the plethora of natural resources on this continent. Africa is rich in deposits of manganese, platinum, copper, iron and uranium ores, in crude oil and gas, and in other natural resources.

From the Nile to the Euphrates

This map explains it all – the Zionist/Rothschild dream of taking over the region: from the Nile to the Euphrates, and then south ending at Medina. Why Medina? Because they were thrown out of a place near Medina called Khaybar. And, they have vowed to get it back.

“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”.

Now, in the aftermath of the 1990/91 Gulf War, the US and its allies defeated Iraq. The White House, under pressure from Saudi Arabia, held a peace conference in Madrid. Israel was not happy, but was brought screaming and kicking to the table, and in which the US forced Israel to resolve the Palestinian issue- as it was hampering American efforts to achieve control in the region. This deal was the Oslo Accords of 1993 brokered by the Clinton White House. Israel refused to abide by this deal, which led to a follow-up deal, called the Wye Agreement, in 1998. To obtain records of talks between Arafat and Clinton, the Mossad tried to blackmail Clinton, using a female Levite Jew called Monica Lewinsky. This failed spectacularly.

 On July 8, 1996, Richard Perle, and a team of American neo-cons, had been tasked by Netanyahu—through the Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS)—to draft a strategy for abrogating the Oslo Accords and overturning the entire concept of “comprehensive land for peace,” in favor of a jackboot policy of U.S.-Israeli-Turkish raw military conquest and occupation.

It has become a self-evident truth that, since the Bush “43” and Sharon governments came into power simultaneously in early 2001; “A Clean Break” has been the guiding strategic doctrine of both—particularly following the irregular warfare attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

By 1996, Israel  had formalized their plan for “remaking” the Middle East into a document  it called “The Clean Break “.It proposed that Israel should tear up the Oslo Accords and any moves towards peacemaking with the Palestinians – the title’s “clean break” – and instead go on the offensive against its regional foes, with US backing.

 This neo-conservative-authored paper presented in 1996 to the then Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu offered a bold strategy to provide “Israel the room to engage every possible energy in rebuilding Zionism”, and strengthen and increase its influence in the Middle East. “Our claim to the land – to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years – is legitimate and noble,” the authors proclaimed. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them” through means including “reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone”.

The paper emphasized that Israel needed to enhance its strategic position independent of the US, in order to deny the US any leverage it may want to exercise on Israel to maintain stability in the region under the “peace process”.  The paper betrays a high degree of discomfort regarding US influence over Israel and suggests ways to actively neutralize it.

The policy document demanded: 1) Destroy Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, blaming them for every act of Palestinian terrorism, including the attacks from Hamas. 2) Induce the United States to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. 3) Launch war against Syria after Saddam’s regime is disposed of, including striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and targets in Syria proper. 4) Parlay the overthrow of the Ba’athist regimes in Baghdad and Damascus into the “democratization” of the entire Arab world, including through further military actions against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and “the ultimate prize,” Egypt.

The paper bemoans the status quo , and proposes that a key ingredient of the “US-Israeli partnership” must be “mutuality” and that Israel must position itself to be the protector of the “West’s security” in the Middle East rather than being a junior partner. Such strategic co-dependence, specifically between Israel and the US, and to a general degree between Israel and Western powers, would imply dismissing the strategic status quo. Thus, to achieve a “clean break”, the security map of the Middle East would have to be significantly re-built to assign Israel an apex role, rather than being just a party to territorial disputes with its neighbors and being treated as another ally, albeit a strong one, along with Washington’s oil-allies in the region.

The removal of Saddam Hussein, enunciated to be a key goal in “Clean Break”, was to be the first phase of this new strategy of independence through co-dependence. Israel continues to be committed to their basic plan: Destroy Iran and Syria, and make Israel the dominant power in the region, and drive the Palestinians across the Jordan River his own people.

An opening is created- The strategic space created from the ruins of the Iraqi state and its pillars offers immense opportunities by employing persecuted minorities as proxies that can provide a strong foothold in a pivotal oil-rich nation hundreds of miles away from Israel. Furthermore, the Kurdish beachhead in Iraq would serve to project influence in key adversaries such as Iran and Syria.

The introduction specifically proposes three new policies: Rather than pursuing a “comprehensive peace” with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to “contain, destabilize, and roll-back “those entities that are threats to all three.

If Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Lebanon and Syria, Israel can shape its strategic environment, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Assad from power in Syria —an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, and can manage its own affairs.

The Map of the “New Middle East”

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”

The map below  is a 2006 proposed plan to redrawn the borders of the Middle East by Ralph Peters, a retired United States Army lieutenant colonel, author, and Fox News commentator. It was original published in the Armed Forces journal.  It was issued on the eve of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Once again, the US loves to boast about their plans for the region. Washington called this the “New Middle East“and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East “.

The map would make sweeping changes throughout the region such as:

Israel: Returns to its pre-1967 borders

Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq All lose territory to create a Free Kurdistan.

• Free Kurdistan: New state created for the Kurds.
• Greater Lebanon: a reborn Phoenecia that also gains territory at the expense of Syria.
• Greater Jordan: gains territory at Saudi expense.
• Sunni Iraq: One of three successor states to Iraq, this one would obviously be primarily Sunni.
• Arab Shia State: Another sucssor state to Iraq, would house Iraq’s current Shia population along with gaining territory from Iran.
• Islamic Sacred State: A new state that would act as an Islamic Vatican carved from Saudi Arabia.
• Saudi Arabia: Loses territory to Jordan, Arab Shia State, Yemen and the Islamic Sacred State.
• Yemen: Gains land from Saudi Arabia.
• UAE: Loses territory to Arab Shia State, although Dubai likely to remain an independent playground for the rich.
• Kuwait and Oman would retain their current borders.
• Azerbaijan: Gains territory from Iran.
• Iran: Loses land to Kurdistan, Arab Shia State, Azerbaijan and Free Baluchistan but gains territory from Afghanistan. The goal is to make Iran even more Persian.
• Free Baluchistan: New state  to be carved from Pakistan and Iran.
• Afghanistan: Loses land to Iran in the west but gains land from Pakistan in the east.
• Pakistan: Loses territory to both Free Baluchistan and Afghanistan. It now lies almost entirely east of the Indus.

Keep in mind this map is nearly 18 years old. The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region.

The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran and Syria is under occupation by foreign forces, and it is on the verge of being partitioned.  A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.

NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO.  Iran continues to be demonized by the Western media, with a view to justifying a military agenda. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a “civil war” characterized by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda. Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a “divide and conquer strategy” which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.

Dear reader. Now you have an idea of the game-plan of the 2 families to break up the Middle East, and take control of the region’s oil and gas. Now America does not need this oil and gas. Rather, the plan is to take control of these oil and gas fields, and then deny them to its economic rivals. The terms and conditions that New York will demand of Europe and Asia will be such, that to give in, means surrendering their economic, political, and financial independence. These countries realize that, thus, one will see an increasing involvement by the military forces of the countries that would most likely be negatively impacted by America’s grip over their energy sources.

The Religious Aspect

Dear reader. Geopolitics is not the only issue in the Middle East. There is also the aspect of religion. Eventually, within a few years, the geopolitical wars of the region will morph into a religious war, starting in the Middle East and spreading out throughout the world.

There are many reasons why the 2 families and their supporting networks of power cannot tolerate religion as it gives humanity hope. These two families dominate the business of the 5 poisons of society – alcohol, drugs, gambling, sexual immorality and interest. Were more people to become Muslim, these trillion dollar industries would vanish. There are other reasons too. A very important article by the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, so it must be read very carefully to know how the liberal and modern Western leaders think about dealing with Arabs and Muslims (since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Flood) at least, please do not neglect to read this important and dangerous article published by the prestigious British newspaper The Sun- a paper within the Rothschild orbit.

 Starmer says: We must be honest with ourselves, and clear at the same time about our relationship with the Arab and Islamic world and tell the truth to our children so that we do not clash with them one day, or that they feel intellectual turmoil and psychological contradiction syndrome, between their belief in liberal values ​​and the needs of our national security, whose contradictions have been increased by the cognitive revolution, information technology and cross-continental means of communication.

 *Our differences are not really with the Islamic peoples or the ruling regimes, because the regimes revolve around us and derive their survival from us, and implement our policies that serve Western national security first, regardless of their national security.

*So where does the reality of the crisis lie in our relations with the Islamic world as a whole and the Arab world as the center of this world?

*Our real problem lies with (Islam itself and with Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam himself) because it is a civilized religion that has detailed answers to all existential and civilizational questions, and it is a stubborn competitor to Western civilization, which has begun to lose its brilliance, while Islam and Muhammad are becoming increasingly brilliant even within our European societies, which liberal values ​​have allowed freedom of thought and weakened the authority of the Church, and this free and abstract thinking has led many elites and youth to embrace Islam, because they found in it all the answers to their psychological, spiritual, existential and social needs that our contradictory civilization has drowned them in.

 *Our real problem is with Islam itself and will remain so because we have no choice but to confront the Islamic flow and Islamic thought in all ways, because the other choice is to acknowledge that Islam is the true religion of God and the religion of Jesus and all the prophets, and this will lead us to embrace it, so that we may reach the kingdom of God in this world and the afterlife. This will take us back to square one in the conflicts of religion and state in Christian thought, although there is a vast difference between Islam and Christianity on these issues.

*We have no choice but to resist Islam, even if this leads to our countries and institutions abandoning liberal values. We must enact laws that push Muslims to leave Europe. Sweden is an example, which imposes homosexuality, perversion, and atheism laws. This is what most prompts Muslims to leave Europe or assimilate into its civilization and lose their faith in Islam. We must also prevent immigration from the Islamic world to Europe and America, even in cooperation with Islamic countries, and open the way for the immigration of non-Muslim peoples.

*On the other hand, we must continue to support Israel, no matter how harsh its measures are, so that it does not allow the establishment of a nucleus for an Islamic regime in Gaza that encourages Islamic peoples to follow its example. In this regard, it is possible to benefit from the great support that Israel enjoys from Arab countries, which fear the establishment of any Islamic or democratic regime. This is a third important point, which is supporting Arab regimes, their institutions, armies, and various agencies that prevent the establishment of any regime that derives its values ​​from the teachings of Muhammad and his holy book.

 *It does not matter whether what we are doing is wrong or invalid or legitimate or illegitimate, this is a matter that must be settled and we must work on it and through it. We are facing a major challenge between our liberal values ​​and our national security, which are now two contradictory values, and the Islamic momentum emanating from everywhere in the world as if it were water vapor that we do not know where the sun rose from. We must not test the correctness and incorrectness of Islamic values ​​because that may lead most of us to Islam and the religious values ​​of Muhammad. At the same time, there is a need for doses of Christianity, but in a controlled manner that does not affect the achievements of Western civilization, with the aim of limiting the penetration of Islam into our lands.

*We are now between contradictory and frightening options because continuing with our liberal options makes us lose immunity from the Islamic invasion, and returning to the church destroys our liberal values ​​and affects our civilizational achievements. Generations have grown up in the West who do not believe in Christ and will not be able to return to the church after the winds of unlimited openness.

 *What I fear is that in the future we will have no choice but to push towards a major war that will limit freedoms, disrupt public life, ignite endless wars in Islamic countries, and deprive Islam of the climate of peace through which it can expand.

*Unless we address this, mosques and minarets will fill Europe, and Islamists will control parliamentary seats, public opinion, and the economy in any European election, and then rule Europe with the teachings of Islam.

This, then, is the fear of the ruling elites in the West. It is a fight they are going to lose, no matter what they do.

Our next article is called “Israel & the US destroy Syria”