A Pepe Escobar Duet: Two Complementary Essays

I don’t think Pepe planned for The Cradle and Strategic Culture to publish his essays on the same day, but that’s what happened. IMO, they need to be paired, which is what this effort will achieve. I agree with Pepe that the Global War OF Terror that was already in full swing and which 11 September 2001 escalated is now defunct as it no longer functions as the screen the obscure the implementation of the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992 that was upgraded in 1996 to the goal of attaining Full Spectrum Domination and reiterated in 1999. So, with that thought in mind, let’s get to the first essay published by The Cradle, which is now an official enemy of the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals:”

Colonization … is the best affair of business in which the capital of an old and wealthy country can engage … the same rules of international morality do not apply … between civilized nations and barbarians.

– John Stuart Mill, quoted by Eileen Sullivan in “Liberalism and Imperialism: JS Mill’s Defense of the British Empire,” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 44, 1983.

The events of 11 September 2001 were intended to impose and enshrine a new Exceptionalist paradigm on the young 21st century. History, though, ruled otherwise.

Cast as an attack on the US Homeland, 11 September 2001, immediately generated the Global War on Terror (GWOT), launched at 11 pm on the same day. Initially christened “The Long War” by the Pentagon, the term was later sanitized by the administration of Barack Obama as “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).”

The US-manufactured War on Terror spent a notoriously un-trackable eight trillion dollars defeating a phantom enemy, killed over half a million people – overwhelmingly Muslims – and branched out into illegal wars against seven Muslim-majority states. All of this was relentlessly justified on “humanitarian grounds” and allegedly supported by the “international community” – before that term, too, was renamed as the “rules-based international order.”

Cui Bono? (who stands to gain) remains the paramount question related to all matters related to 11 September 2001. A tight network of fervently Israel-first neocons strategically positioned across the defense and national security establishments by Vice President Dick Cheney – who had served as secretary of defense in the administration of George W Bush’s father – sprang into action to impose the long-planned agenda of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). That far-reaching agenda had waited in the wings for the right trigger – a “new Pearl Harbor” – to justify a slew of regime-change operations and wars across much of West Asia and other Muslim states, reshaping global geopolitics for the benefit of Israel.

US General Wesley Clark’s notorious revelation of a secret Cheney regime plot to destroy seven major Islamic countries over five years, from Iraq, Syria, and Libya all the way to Iran, showed us that the planning had already been done in advance. These targeted nations had one thing in common: they were resolute enemies of the occupation state and firm supporters of Palestinian rights.

The sweet deal, from Tel Aviv’s perspective, was that the War on Terror would have the US and its western allies fighting all these serial Israeli-profiting wars on behalf of “civilization” and against the “barbarians.” The Israelis couldn’t have been more happy or smug about the direction this was going.

It’s no wonder that 7 October 2023 is a mirror image of 11 September 2001. The occupation state itself advertised this as Israel’s own “11 September.” Parallels abound in more ways than one, but certainly not in the way Israel-firsters and the cabal of extremists leading Tel Aviv expected.

Syria: the turning point

The western Hegemon excels in constructing narratives and is currently wallowing in the Russophobia, Iranophobia, and Sinophobia swamps of its own creation. Discrediting official, immutable narratives, such as the one about 11 September, remains the ultimate taboo.

But a false narrative construct cannot hold out forever. Three years ago, on the 20th anniversary of the Twin Towers collapsing and the onset of the War on Terror, we witnessed a great unraveling in the intersection of Central and South Asia: the Taliban were back in power, celebrating their victory over the Hegemon in a discombobulated Forever War.

By then, the “seven countries in five years” obsession – aiming to forge a “New Middle East” – was being derailed across the spectrum. Syria was the turning point, though some would argue that the tea leaves were already cast when the Lebanese resistance defeated Israel in 2000, then again in 2006.

But smashing independent Syria would have paved the way for the Hegemon – and Israel’s – Holy Grail: regime change in Iran.

US occupation forces entered Syria in late 2014 under the pretext of fighting “terror.” That was Obama’s OCO in action. In reality, though, Washington was using two key terror outfits – Daesh, aka ISIL, aka ISIS, and Al Qaeda, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, aka Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – to try to destroy Damascus.

That was conclusively proved by a declassified 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document, later confirmed by General Michael Flynn, the DIA’s chief when the assessment was written: “I think it was a willful decision [by the Obama administration]” when it comes to helping, not fighting, terror.

ISIS was conceived to fight both the Iraqi and Syrian armies. The terror group was an offspring of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), then renamed Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), then rebranded as ISIL, and finally ISIS, after it crossed the Syrian border in 2012.

The crucial point is that both ISIS and Nusra Front (later Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) were hardcore Salafi-jihadi Al-Qaeda offshoots.

Russia entering the Syrian theater at Damascus’ invitation in September 2015 was the real game-changer. Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to actually engage in a real war on terror in Syrian territory before that terror reached the Russian Federation’s borders. This was captured by the standard formulation in Moscow at the time: the distance from Aleppo to Grozny is only 900 kilometers.

The Russians, after all, had already been subjected to the same brand and modus operandi of terror in Chechnya in the 1990s. Afterward, many Chechen jihadis escaped, only to end up joining dodgy outfits in Syria financed by the Saudis.

The late, great Lebanese analyst Anis Naqqash later confirmed that it was the legendary Iranian Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani who convinced Putin, in person, to enter the Syrian theater of war and help defeat the terrorism. This strategic masterplan, it transpires, was to fatally debilitate the US in West Asia.

The US security establishment, of course, would never forgive Putin, and especially Soleimani, for defeating their handy jihadist foot soldiers. On the orders of President Donald Trump, the anti-ISIS Iranian general was assassinated in Baghdad in January 2020, alongside Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, deputy leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), a broad spectrum of Iraqi fighters who had coalesced to defeat ISIS in Iraq.

Burying the legacy of 11 September

Soleimani’s strategic tour de force of setting up and coordinating the Axis of Resistance against Israel and the US was years in the making. In Iraq, for instance, the PMUs were propelled to the forefront of the resistance because the Iraqi military – US-trained and US-controlled – simply could not fight ISIS.

The PMUs were created after a fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Sistani in June 2014 – when ISIS began its Iraqi rampage – by imploring “all Iraqi citizens” to “defend the country, its people, the honor of its citizens and its sacred sites.”

Several PMUs were backed by Soleimani’s Quds Force – who, ironically, for the rest of the decade would be invariably branded by Washington as a master “terrorist.” In parallel, crucially, the Iraqi government hosted an anti-ISIS intel center in Baghdad, led by Russia.

The credit for defeating ISIS in Iraq went mostly to the PMUs, complemented by its help to Damascus via the integration of PMU units into the Syrian Arab Army. That was what a real war on terror was all about, not that misnomered American construct called the “War on Terror.”

Best yet, the indigenously West Asian response to terror was and remains non-sectarian. Tehran supports secular, pluralist Syria and Sunni Palestine; Lebanon features a Hezbollah–Christian alliance; Iraq’s PMUs feature a Sunni–Shia–Christian alliance. Divide and Rule simply do not apply in a homegrown anti-terror strategy.

Then, what happened on 7 October 2023 propelled the regional resistance forces’ ethos to a whole new level.

In one swift move, it destroyed the myth of Israeli military invincibility and its much-lauded surveillance and intelligence primacy. Even as the horrifying genocide across Gaza proceeds unabated (with possibly as many as 200,000 civilian deaths, according to The Lancet), the Israeli economy is being eviscerated.

Yemen’s strategic blockade of the Bab al-Mandeb and the Red Sea to any Israel-linked or destined shipping vessel is a masterstroke of efficiency and simplicity. Not only has it already bankrupted Israel’s strategic Eilat Port, but also, as a bonus, has offered a spectacular humiliation of the thalassocratic Hegemon, with the Yemenis de facto defeating the US Navy.

In less than a year, the concerted strategies of the Axis of Resistance have essentially buried six feet under the fake War on Terror and its multi-trillion-dollar gravy train.

As much as Israel profited from events after 11 September, Tel Aviv’s actions after 7 October rapidly accelerated its unraveling. Today, amidst massive Global Majority condemnation of Israel’s Gaza genocide, the occupation state stands as a pariah – tainting its allies and exposing the Hegemon’s hypocrisy with each passing day.

For the Hegemon, it gets even more alarming. Recall the 1997 warning of Dr Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski: “It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America.”

In the end, all the combined sound and fury of 11 September, the War on Terror, Long War, Operation This-And-That over two decades, metastasized into exactly what “Zbig” feared. Not only has a mere “challenger” emerged, but a full-fledged Russia–China strategic partnership that is setting a new tone for Eurasia.

Suddenly, Washington has forgotten all about terrorism. This is the real “enemy” – now considered the top two US “strategic threats.” Not Al-Qaeda and its many incarnations, a flimsy figment of the CIA’s imagination, rehabilitated and sanitized in the previous decade as those mythical “moderate rebels” in Syria.

What’s even more eerie is that the conceptually nonsensical War on Terror forged by the neocons immediately after 11 September is now morphing into a war of terror (italics mine), embodying the desperate Hail Mary pass by the CIA and MI6 to “confront Russian aggression” in Ukraine.

And that’s bound to be metastasized into the Sinophobia swamp because those same western intelligence agencies consider the rise of China to be “the greatest geopolitical and intelligence challenge” of the 21st century.

The War on Terror has been debunked; it is now dead. But get ready for serial wars of terror by a Hegemon unaccustomed to not owning the narrative, the seas, and the ground. [My Emphasis]

As I look upon history, the most important allies of the emerging Global Majority appear to be the two major personality flaws that have always afflicted the ancien regime—Pleonexia and Megalomania—while continuing to reply on their longtime primary means of support—their rentier income now coming from more sources than mere land rent, the staple for thousands of years. Pepe’s final sentence of appraisals is key, particularly the lack of narrative control as was just admitted by the illegal sanctioning of Russia’s RT. What the Outlaw US Empire can’t admit is the global internet is actually the culprit if one is to be named, but that’s too important for the Empire to try and turn off—the newest form of Samizdat has won again. Now for Pepe’s SCF essay, “BRICS, the rise of China and how the Hegemon buried the concept of ‘security,’” which as always results from too much knee-jerk and not enough brain use:

The first meeting of security experts/National Security Advisors under the expanded BRICS+ format at the Konstantinovsky Palace in St. Petersburg unveiled quite a few nuggets.

Let’s start with China. Foreign Minister Wang Yi proposed four BRICS-centric security initiatives. Essentially, BRICS+ – and beyond, considering further expansion – should aim at peaceful coexistence; independence; autonomy; and true multilateralism, which implies a rejection of Exceptionalism.

At the BRICS table, the overarching theme was how member-nations should support each other despite so many challenges – mostly unleashed by you-know-who.

On India, Secretary of the Russian Security Council Sergei Shoigu, meeting with Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, stressed the strength of the alliance, “confidently standing the test of time”.

The larger context was in fact offered in parallel, in Switzerland, at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, by the always delightful Foreign Minister S.Jaishankar:

“There was a club called G7, but you wouldn’t let anybody else into it – so we said, we’d go and form our own club (…) It’s actually a very interesting group because if you look at it, typically any club or any group has either a geographical contiguity or some common historical experience or a very strong economic connect.” But with BRICS what stands out is “big countries rising in the international system.”

Cut to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, stressing how Russia and Brazil “have similar approaches to key international issues”, emphasizing how Moscow cherishes the current “bilateral mutual understanding and interaction, including in the light of the simultaneous presidencies of BRICS and G20 this year.”

In 2024, Russia presides over BRICS while Brazil presides over the G20.

The Russia-Iran strategic partnership

President Putin, apart from addressing the meeting, had bilaterals with all the top players. Putin noted how 34 nations “have already expressed their desire to join the activities of our association in one form or another.”

Meeting with Wang Yi, Putin stressed that the Russia-China strategic partnership is in favor of a just world order, a principle supported by the Global South. Wang Yi confirmed President Xi Jinping has already accepted the official Russian invitation for the BRICS summit next month in Kazan.

Putin also met with the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Ahmadian. Putin confirmed he is expecting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for another visit to Russia, apart from the BRICS summit, to sign their new strategic partnership agreement.

Geoeconomics is key. The development of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) was confirmed as a top Russia-Iran priority.

Shoigu for his part confirmed, “We are ready to expand cooperation between our security councils.” The deal will be signed by both Presidents soon. Moreover, Shoigu added that Iran’s entry into BRICS advances cooperation among members to form a “common and indivisible architecture of strategic security and a fair polycentric world order.”

Now compare it with the new collective West “strategy” – adopted by U.S., UK, France and Germany: another sanctions wave against Iran related to the case of Iranian missiles transferred to Russia.

Ahmed Bakhshaish Ardestani, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, confirmed early this week that Iran is sending missiles and drones to Russia as part of their defense agreements.

But the heart of the story is that these missiles are Russian anyway; they are just being produced in Iran.

While security was being discussed in St. Petersburg, China was hosting the BRICS Forum on Partnership on New Industrial Revolution 2024 in Xiamen, in Fujian province.

Talk about interlocking BRICS cooperation: as sanctioned-to-oblivion Iran has been trying to get access to new industrial technologies, Iran-China collaboration on everything from AI to green technologies will be surging further on down the road.

A new Eurasian security architecture

The heart of the matter is China’s rising and rising status as the top global trade power – as scores of nations across the Global South adapt to the fact that interaction with China is the privileged vector to improve their own domestic living standards and socioeconomic development. This monumental shift in international relations is reducing the collective West to a bunch of headless chickens.

China’s increased power is reflected in every major geoeconomics move: from the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), a mega inter-Asia free trade agreement (FTA) to the countless ramifications of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects, and all the way to BRICS+ cooperation. The future of all Global South nations involved spell out getting closer and closer to China.

In sharp contrast, the Hegemon – and that is bipartisan, all the way down from the rarified plutocracy – simply cannot contemplate a world that it does not control. An EU prone to acute disaggregation basically “reasons” along the same lines. For the whole collective West, the demented double trouble desire of maintaining hegemony while preventing the rise of China is unsustainable.

Add to it the mad obsession of the current U.S. administration to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia since it rejected Moscow’s late 2021 proposal for a new European security architecture, actually an “indivisibility of security” concerning the whole of Eurasia.

This new pan-Eurasian security system proposed by Putin was discussed in detail at the latest Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. Putin actually stated that a “decision was made to turn the SCO regional anti-terrorist structure into a universal center tasked with responding to the entire range of security threats.”

It all started with the concept of “Greater Eurasian Partnership”, which Putin advanced in late 2015. That was refined during his annual address to the Federal Assembly last February. And then, in a meeting with key Russian diplomats in June, Putin stressed that the time was right to kickstart a comprehensive discussion of bilateral and multilateral guarantees embedded in a new vision for collective Eurasian security.

The idea, from the start, was always inclusive. Putin stressed the need to create a security architecture open to “all Eurasian countries that wish to participate”, including “European and NATO countries.”

Add to it the drive to conduct discussions with all sorts of Eurasia-wide multilateral organizations, such as the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the CSTO, the EAEU, the CIS, and the SCO.

Crucially, this new security architecture should “gradually phase out the military presence of external powers in the Eurasian region.” Translation: NATO.

And on the geoeconomic front, apart from developing a series of international transportation corridors across Eurasia such as the INSTC, the new deal should “establish alternatives to Western-controlled economic mechanisms”, from expanding the use of national currencies in settlements to establishing independent payment systems: two top BRICS priorities, which will feature prominently in the Kazan summit next month.

We want a three-front war

As it stands, a deaf, dumb and blind Washington remains obsessed with its single-minded declared goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.

Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov cuts to the chase: “It is impossible to negotiate with terrorists”, adding that “no schemes or so-called ‘peace initiatives’ to cease fire in Eastern Europe without taking into account Russia’s national interests are possible. Conferences won’t help either, no matter how beautifully they are named. As in the years of the Great Patriotic War, fascism must be eradicated. Goals and objectives of the special military operation will be fulfilled. No one should have any doubts that this is exactly how it’s going to be.”

And that brings us to the current incandescent juncture. There are only two options ahead for the U.S. proxy war against Russia in Ukraine: an unconditional Kiev surrender, or escalation towards a NATO war against Russia.

Ryabkov has no illusions – even as he puts it quite diplomatically:

“Signals and actions that we are witnessing today are aimed towards escalation. This remark will not force us to change our course but will create additional risks and dangers for the United States and its allies, clients and satellites, no matter where they are.”

After bombing the concept of diplomacy, the Hegemon has also bombed the concept of security. Acute dementia in U.S. Think Tankland has even reached the point of dreaming of a three-front war. And this from an “indispensable nation” whose mighty Navy has been utterly humiliated by the Houthis in the Red Sea.

It is really a spectacle for the ages to see the plutocracy of a 200-year-plus savage nation which essentially looted most of its land from others believe it can simultaneously challenge the Persians, the Russians, and an Asian civilization with 5,000 years of recorded history. Well, savages will always be savages. [My Emphasis]

IMO, it’s not savagery as much as it’s the frustration of being genuinely hindered after having been in the driver’s seat for the last 4,000 or so years in the West, for what’s ultimately being determined is the fate of the Class War that’s been waged on debtors by creditors since the concept of interest was invented and exploited by those able to accumulate wealth. Yes, the players differ today, but the driving force is the same as it’s always been, the outcomes of the dual afflictions: Pleonexia and Megalomania—the unquenchable addiction of wanting more than what one has that belongs to others and the very uncivil ways to acquire them using every and any tool available including war and terror. What’s both sad and ironic is this “dance” is well-known but forgotten at the same time, although that situation’s greatly aided by gross manipulation of historical facts by elites that’s also been ongoing for centuries. And it must be admitted that the current crop of national leaders who are BRICS+ members contain some who remain unreformed and IMO untrustworthy. Perhaps being within a consensual decision-making body where they aren’t top dog will hopefully help them evolve into better people.

Arguably, it’s the rise of these multiple consensual decision-making bodies that are driving the Global Majority to finally stand in solidarity against the small minority of former plundering nations and their vassals, a number of the latter having been colonies within the larger Plundering European Empires, which ought to see them as the first to break away and join the Majority. These aren’t all—SCO, ASEAN, BRICS+, AU, and Arab League—as there are at least another half-dozen of these bodies that are cooperating, not competing, as they build their economic relations and address individual state sovereignty issues, such as food security. The biggest issue for the combined Global Majority is dollar/euro-denominated debt, much of it odious. Clearly, what those states having that problem must do is combine together with stronger nations as they are doing with the goal of forming a security pact, enter into the new international financial and commercial structures, then renounce their odious dollar/euro-denominated debt so they can have the capital available to invest in their own development instead of wasting what they accumulate on continuing their debt peonage. All those arrangements ought to make it easy to defend against any resort to gunboat diplomacy aimed at enforcing the repayment of debt since the Empire and its vassals are essentially no longer capable of such actions as the current conflicts prove. I expect those conflicts to end before 2026, although they could terminate earlier. The emerging international bodies must decide to form an International Tribunal to deal with the massive violations of humanitarian law by the Zionists and their allies—as with Nazism, those crimes cannot be allowed to go unpunished. Nor as with the situation after WW2 can those accused be allowed to escape. Also, a way must be found to try the various types of Nazis within the Outlaw US Empire and its vassals for the crimes they’ve committed.

At the end of this long road, the consensual bodies will be very close to melding into one as the Global Majority ratify and put into practice the several Global Initiatives proposed by China. They can then reconstitute the United Nations by moving its seat elsewhere and reform its key institutions so they’re capable of doing what they were designed to do. Obviously, the key chore will be the need to eliminate both Nazism and its related Hegemony as it will continue to exist within the elite level of the Outlaw US Empire and perhaps a few of its European vassals. Perhaps by the 100th anniversary of WW2’s end, it can be proclaimed that the war’s goals were finally fulfilled—Nazism eradicated, and the Four Freedoms attained for Humanity: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Worship; Freedom from Want; and Freedom from Fear.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!