How Will We Recover? Thoughts On Election 2016


Campaign 2016 Debate.jpg

The question of whether or not Bernie Sanders was the best candidate has a frank answer – of course he was.

In my last article I explained why he isn’t necessarily the most “presidential” of the nominees.

The president’s aptitude is measured by a number of things. These include both superficial and essential judgements.

In today’s election, superficiality has overwhelmed the political environment. In fact, this has damaged American democracy – at least in the short run.

There are several issues which I think the United States government has to address while other issues can be pushed down the list of priorities. Today we have voters turned into sudden political experts, demanding Hillary Clinton be jailed based on some partisan witch hunt to blame her entirely for Benghazi. Where were these gallant and honorable voters during the Bush years? Selective justice, indeed.

Bernie was conscientious of Palestine; Black Lives Matter; Immigration; Socio-Economics; and so forth. These are the pressing issues of our time.

What he was not prepared for was realpolitik, particularly in foreign relations. The so-called “revolution” Bernie wished to usher, appears to have been pushed through the wrong mechanism – politics. Sure, politics changes things – but real change comes from the people, especially in democracies. Just look back at our history. It was always the US government responding to people’s movements – not empty political promises.

When it comes to foreign policy – both Clinton & Trump – the party nominees – are terrible.

Bernie was prepared to show more restraint in the Middle East (where necessary) and bridge gaps between nations whom we have historically vilified, perhaps a continuation, and even, intensification of Obama’s reconciliatory foreign policy approach. Obama’s approach however was not entirely reconciliatory – as evidenced by Libya. But his withdrawal of forces in Iraq and his restraint in Syria has also cast him in better light than his interventionist predecessor.

Bernie would have also likely been less hawkish than Hillary with Russia. I do believe personally that Hillary “flexes US muscles” towards Putin simply to incite US nationalism and gain the patriotic vote – which is dangerous. But it is much less dangerous than Trump’s approach – exploiting conspiracy theories about Russia and portraying himself as a Putin-apologist. But remember – Trump is playing his own game. Remember what Hitler did to the Soviets? But Putin isn’t a soviet – per se. He is not foolish either. In fact Putin likely doesn’t care for either candidate. He would have equally preferred Bernie Sanders – the whole world would have. Putin still likely prefers Hillary too – contrary to her and Trump’s rhetoric. Things are dichotomous people – it isn’t just this or that explanation. Politics is a deep twisted game for a reason…

Oddly enough Bernie was betrayed by his own party.

Both parties have hawkish foreign policies whether or not their rhetoric is contradictory – Hillary exhibits “some” liberalism here, with the Iran Nuclear Deal serving as an example – as well as the recent Wiki Leaks revelations, which show Clinton’s desire to distance the US from Saudi & Qatari debacles in the ME, mainly their direct support for ISIS.

Both parties are reluctant for comprehensive minority-right reform and socio-economic reform, while it is certainly more characteristic of the GOP.

While Bernie may not be the JFK we are looking for – he certainly embodied the principles of JFK. Hillary – not so much. But her centrist appeal makes her a much more presidential candidate than her maniacal counterpart. About this there is no question.

The GOP betrayed itself too – by allowing Trump to destroy it. I am no GOPer but it should have definitely been Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio up there debating Clinton and Bernie as her running mate. Instead we have this s*** show. Pardon my french.

The West – led by America – is experiencing an identity crisis. It is caught between improving its own democracy on one hand and containing its imperial ambitions on the other. Meanwhile, the East retaliates with every move.

When will the world have the right leadership that can understand these complexities, and make them plain and known to the public, which appears vastly misled, misinformed, and galvanized in the wrong direction?

Hopefully sooner than later, because I don’t think I can handle this election any longer. The extraordinary shamelessness which has been displayed by the right has undoubtedly tarnished the US’ image at home and abroad.

How will we recover?

Surely, Clinton’s political trajectory is incomparably more promising for America’s future. You are free to disagree, but if that puts a fascist in the White House – don’t come complaining in 2020.

Who Really is ‘Presidential’? Thoughts Ahead of Tonight’s Debate – #Election2016


Trump__Clinton-2.jpg

Bernie Sanders was not presidential [sadly to say – despite many of his ideals being great – if not the best compared to his counterparts].

That is something the American people are struggling to grasp – especially the youth.

What is – ‘presidential’?

Donald Trump – is not presidential. But for reasons different than Bernie. Bernie is, well, simply put, without any character, really. Despite all the slogans and witty catch phrases, Bernie is just another product of social trends. He isn’t Justin Trudeau. He isn’t Obama. He just doesn’t have any flair. Americans like intellect – but they equally value humor; athleticism; suaveness – or “swagger” in today’s terminology. None of these are characteristic of Sanders.

The same could be said of Donald Trump but for different reasons. He is too uneducated, vulgar, impolite, erratic & irresponsible for such leadership – if not to hold any post. He can barely manage his own funds – or his father’s, rather.

That isn’t to say that Hillary Clinton is ‘presidential’.

Back in ’08, I hadn’t heard of a guy named Barack Obama, but as the campaign progressed, I realized – I had just witnessed the rise of an extraordinary individual. This man is beyond brilliant – something that few people truly appreciate. I can say that the world appreciates Obama more than America – which is quite telling. That isn’t necessarily true – a lot of Americans love our current president. But the ‘other side’ is equally if not more bent on voicing their hatred – to put it ‘mildly’.

Ahead of tonight’s momentous occasion, the first live debate between Clinton & Trump – I share the following sentiment. People often expect too much. This is a sign of…a lack of experience maybe. But other forces play a role too. The world is suffering and yet, the average American struggles to understand the nooks and crannies of his or her own political system and culture.

As an Armenian-Syrian immigrant living in America – I must say that my perspective should be heeded. There are many causes which are directly connected to me that have yet to be addressed or have been horribly managed, by the US wholly but also precisely by US president Barack Obama, whom I continue to support. Why? Because I am not a perfectionist in the political sense – and expect some compromise – not always – but in times of necessity and urgency. There is much change, and much work to be done in the stride towards justice – but it is just that – a stride – a path. We cannot be held back by radical expectations which in themselves seek to paralyze our sense of progress. That being said it is clear to me there is only one candidate worthy of a vote in this election and that reasoning is from contrived a moral and practical logic – that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

So while she isn’t necessarily the perfect candidate – relative to America’s choices – she is definitely presidential.

The US president is a person of immense wisdom and discipline; responsibility and sacrifice; public service and family value. Which of the two candidates possesses these qualities? And if you have to think twice – think again.

What gets me is that Americans want to change parts of their system that are less relevant to domestic and global wellbeing while ignoring the more pressing issues. And then when a tragedy or crisis occurs, Americans are left wondering how or why. Instead of a Wall Street revolution there should be a minority rights and immigration reform revolution. Instead of a focus on spreading democracy abroad we should be seeking to reduce our arbitrary and partial political influence overseas. Issues like these are costing us – but instead Americans wish to focus on ideological ambiguities and polarized politics.

That is why the candidates have dwindled down to the current options available – one representing the so-called establishment while the other represents the ugliest part of the establishment disguised as anti-establishment.

It is undoubtable that America and the world must implement comprehensive political reform – but this is likely an impossible feat under the auspices of a hypothetical President Trump. On the contrary, Hillary, like Obama (but perhaps to a lesser degree since she is more hawkish) – will pave the road for future generations to at least further the cause of progressivism in its purest form.

Perhaps future generations will reflect a more balanced perspective on US politics – representing minorities; women; LGBTQ; etc. But this cannot be associated with any particular ideological strand or populist trend as it has been in this election. American individualism and personal responsibility, contrary to the ‘8th grader youtube conspiracy video viewer mentality’ – is not preserved or protected by the far left or right – but rather, by a careful, tolerant moderate centrist. So when I say that Hillary Clinton is in fact presidential – that is precisely why. She isn’t just the echo of our grievances – but also of our reason.

A Hitlerian Revisitation?


hitler.jpg

Bernie Sanders is the voice of the American youth.

What we can learn from ‘Brexit’ is that the youth are largely anti-conservative.

As Hillary Clinton gears up to the final moments of the presidential election, the nation is wondering if the worst might actually come true – a Donald Trump victory.

Donald Trump is bad for a lot of reasons, besides the most obvious which include his disdain for anything but himself. He is racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, ethnocentric and when it comes to ideology or economics he is practically clueless – simply exhausting the funds of his father’s enormous wealth.

Last week the DNC was hacked. Accusations are now thrown at the Russians. US media has entertained the idea of Russian-Trump collusion. Such is naive for a variety of reasons. The broader world does not care for a Hitlerian revisitation. Furthermore, America is ashamed to admit its own doing. Once again. Surprised?

Putin did not attack the DNC. This accusation is another right-wing conspiratorial narrative.

The right is built on paranoia and fear. It is a culture of self-depriving asceticism that results from a superiority complex; this in turn feeds authoritarianism and irrational radicalism. This pride is a hatred of freedom; a desire for exclusive freedom. Call it privilege; or apartheid.

That is why the right feeds on Islamophobia and sensationalist news coverage to perpetuate a narrative that builds on fear.

That the US is accusing Russia of hacking DNC emails prematurely is telling. There is such a disconnect between world powers. At least on the world stage. Who knows what is happening behind closed doors. But what is clear is that in plain view, the Russians are underestimating how much a US candidate can influence global politics. Trump would be a disaster for everybody but himself. He is just another pawn of global interests; despite his attempt to portray himself as the exact opposite – a force against the “global world order”. Even accusations about Trump’s involvement with Russian oligarchs is a stretch – not because oligarchs don’t exist; rather because they are largely exiled from Russia.

Recent attacks in France were apparently linked to ISIS. ISIS is not a political terror group – it is a religious terror group. The religion is not Islam – rather it is is Islamism. It is fueled and funded and caused mainly by the intimate US-Saudi relationship, which has preserved and perpetuated Wahhabism. ISIS cannot be understood as a coherent political movement. Nor can it be lumped into the same category as groups like Hezbollah, which has a coherent political strategy that does not make religion its focal point, but rather the political objective of Lebanese sovereignty.

Turkish politics has continued along its downward spiral into abyss. Erdogan is retreating to reconciliation with authoritarians he isolated after the Syrian revolution. If Erdogan was smart, he’d not only play these cards in his benefit – he would align this with Turkish national interest. What is more important to the Turks, a friendly West or sovereignty?

That is a question every non-Western leader is forced to answer, which is because the West, led by America, has been bent on violating national sovereignty since WWII. The world knows that America is the greatest and strongest nation on earth but that does not mean it is infallible. A better world would still exhibit American leadership, but it would also exhibit cooperative measures between world powers and periphery states, with a common respect for sovereignty. Under such culturally relative conditions, world peace, security, freedom, prosperity and cultural traditions can all be cultivated. Irrational politics, and radical assertions that play on miseries and insecurities and elusive calls for power-hunger are threats to all of this.

Democracy might or might not work everywhere. The violation of sovereignty works nowhere.

Put that into perspective.

Shultzgate


o-DEBBIE-WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ-facebook.jpg

Perhaps this is wishful thinking but, there should be a protest against the Democratic nomination as a result of the recent revelations regarding DWS’ e-mail.

Otherwise we may be giving Trump a really weak contender, which doesn’t change the fact that Hillary is the better candidate. But with this revelation, I wonder why she is in fact, the candidate. That curiosity might be exploited by Trump to feed his cynical, apocalyptic narrative about the US government.

Bernie was the ideal progressive candidate, but if Hillary does remain the candidate, which is the likely scenario, she is undoubtedly preferred to her fascist opponent, despite her own bourgeoisie detachment from society.

But the DNC nomination should be boycotted given this leak.

Bernie should still have a chance.

That’s when reality sinks in – so-called “realpolitik”.

What is apparent is that the American political culture continues to delegitimize itself, which is weakening public trust in government and thus reducing civic involvement.

This gap is being filled by wingnuts.

Let’s just hope we can defeat the maniac on the right. We’ll deal with our leftist problems after. Priorities, no?

In the wise but perhaps blunt words of fellow patriotic Americans Nipsey Hussle & YG: FDP!

Yervant


IMG_0195.JPG

“He who is conceited cheats himself.”

A quote from my grandfather Yervant, a truly magnificent spirit in all his splendor. He came to this country in 1920 to study at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the first ever Armenian-Syrian to do so, but was unable to stay due to troubles at home. I dedicate my pursuit of life’s wonder to him, from whom I have inherited this deeply embedded ambition.

Who is responsible for Istanbul attack?


_90157997_mediaitem90155949.jpg

On June 28th, a group of suicide bombers conducted an attack on Turkey’s Istanbul Ataturk Airport, killing 41 people and injuring 239. As the world mourns the tragedy, investigators seek to bring justice to the perpetrators. But who is responsible? And Why?

Is it Daesh (ISIS)?

Is it PKK?

These are both valid suggestions, based on the history of violence among both groups.

Based on the PKK’s terrorism tactic, the attack in Istanbul does not necessarily fit their profile. According to news sources, though unconfirmed, the PKK usually target Turkish nationals. The conflict between the PKK and the Turkish government surrounds the Kurdish question of identity and statehood in the Middle East. The Kurds have been without an autonomous country and do not enjoy equal rights in Turkey. Iraqi Kurdistan is the only region where Kurds enjoy a degree of nationalism but it is far from being a nation-state.

Why would Daesh or ISIS commit the attacks?

Turkey has been supporting the armed insurgency against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad since its inception. The majority of Daesh or ISIS fighters are not Syrian but foreign nationals, from Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, North Africa and Central Asia, which raises the question as to whether this a so-called civil war between state and opposition or an international conflict between states. Is Syria a proxy conflict waged between global powers? Is this the continuation of the so-called “Great Game”?

If Turkey has stood against the Syrian government, thereby granting ISIS leverage directly or indirectly, then why would such an attack take place?

Since the emergence of ISIS, and the corresponding terrorist attacks globally which have victimized France, America and Turkey to name just a few, the political dynamic of the Syrian conflict has shifted. The ouster of Assad, like that of Mubarak, Morsi, Ben Ali, Abdullah Saleh, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi, was originally argued as the procurement of stability and justice in the Middle East. The outcomes have proven otherwise. The tyrannical leadership of these autocrats is undoubtable, but is there another force enabling this instability to begin with?

As a result of ISIS’ apparent indiscriminate violence, fundamentalism and fickleness, Turkey has, like the US, altered its position internationally. Just last week, Turkey announced reconciliation efforts with its historical arch-rivals, Israel and Russia. Russia has arguably maintained the Syrian government since its intervention.

Could this rapprochement have provoked backlash from ISIS against Turkey? Were these two gestures of international rapprochements with ISIS’ nemeses, Israel & Russia viewed as a form of betrayal by the terror group?

As investigations continue, emerging facts will likely give this blurry picture some lucidity.

But a shifting world order is evidentially not as far off as one might have expected, particularly after England’s vote to leave the EU.

As the migrant crisis continues, and Middle Eastern instability intensifies, one might ask why foreign powers have prioritized their ambitions over practical politics.

One cannot speak of justice in the Middle East while neglecting the bedrock of human security – sovereignty.

Until this is realized, fanaticism and instability will continue to overshadow justice in the Middle East.

 

 

The End of Populism? Fate of the Americas


150907_r26949webillu-1200-620-28192038.jpg

Appeals to alleviate the suffering of the poor and disenfranchised – that is the crux of leftism. Class conflict, civil liberties but also post-colonialism and critical race theory come into play here.

The rise of Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, marked the first time in US history that a candidate with such an ideology gathered immense support. The populism resonated mainly with Americans who are critical of unfettered capitalism.

On the other hand, a different type of populism spawned – right-wing ultranationalism. Candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump ring a bell. In Latin America, these two bipolar forces have been rejected after almost a century long struggle with them. In Argentina, citizens elected Mauricio Macri over his Peronist opponent, Daniel Scioli. Since Peronism embodies populist nationalism in Argentina, drawing criticism from the right and the left, a decline of populism in the country of Argentina may be evident. Perhaps it is too early to tell. But seeing that this challenge to populism has spilled over also into Brazil with the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, which has seen a back-lash against socialism; and in Peru, where citizens rejected the right-wing populism of Keiko Fujimori in favor of her center-right opponent, there is reason to believe that anti-populist trend may be developing.

The economic crises affecting Venezuela have made left-wing populism less appealing for the rest of Central and South America. Not to mention, there are no executive term limits in Venezuela. This association between socialism and authoritarianism has made left-wing populism less appealing.

In the United States, Bernie Sanders successfully rallied the nation behind a socialist agenda, an unprecedented feat. Still such populism was all in all rejected as it becomes more and more apparent that Hillary Clinton, his more centrist Democratic opponent will take the nomination.

The triumph of centrism in the Americas has seen both leftists and rightists working to ostracize radical populism, a somewhat unsurprising continual of bureaucratic politics in the Western hemisphere; that is if Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump. Leftists of all persuasions, and even some on the center-right, are hoping that Trump’s extreme right-wing campaign run will come to an end. If collective consciousness in the US is echoing the conscience of the Americas, then perhaps Trump will suffer the same fate as his right-wing counterpart in Peru.

Ideologically, Hillary Clinton is more inclined towards moral positions than any GOP candidate. That does not dismiss her drawbacks – a shady past; corporate cronyism; silence on minority rights; and hawkish neoconservatism in foreign policy.

Bernie Sanders would have likely been the best option for America – but one of the greatest ailments of America is the lack of ethnic and minority representation. Bernie Sanders, nor any contender, addresses this reality. Perhaps that is why Bernie Lost. But another explanation for Bernie’s loss could be America revulsion towards left-wing populism.

What the U.S. really needs is a center-leftist candidate like President Obama. This isn’t to suggest that he is flawless. Nobody is. Furthermore, there remains much work to be done domestically and internationally. The point here is that the democratic track is morally superior to the republican track, not indefinitely, but based on practice, policy & foundation.

WMDs, The War on Terror & Unicorns: What Deludes Us?


heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq.jpg

The risk posed by nuclear weapons is valid. But does this threat increase with the use of terrorism?

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but new technological innovations have changed the way it is conducted [Chaliand & Blin 2007]. Furthermore, terrorism is currently used to describe attacks on civilians, usually by non-state actors whereas historically it was used more to describe state-terror . This could imply that terror was more commonly practiced by states in the past. Perhaps the reason for this is the emergence of government by the people, in the form of democracy, therefore changing the relationship between civilian and state. Has democracy made civilians more vulnerable targets of warfare?

This leads to the main question being addressed – should politicians be concerned about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The answer would be yes in a logical sense. American politicians are however in an odd position given that the majority of nuclear weapons in today’s world are in the hands of its allies, some of whom, like Pakistan and Israel for example, reside in the most volatile regions in the world. What would happen if this instability led to nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists?

But US policy in the regions where such a scenario is possible is arguably counterproductive in this regard. The US strategy consists of military initiatives and interventionism. For this reason, weaponry and ideology have trickled down from the US’ closest allies to fanatical groups.

Perhaps a more policy oriented approach is necessary. While President Obama has not necessarily avoided military deployment – comparatively, he has shown reluctance [Indyk et al 2012].

This approach is arguably more effective. The fear of the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorism wouldn’t really exist had it not been for bad US foreign policy, but more importantly, the threat itself doesn’t exist anymore than any other threat. Tackling it should be about preventing its likelihood in the long-run. This means reconsidering policies and allies in regions like the Middle East, and South Asia [Obama 2007].

 

Chaliand, Gérard, and Arnaud Blin. The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda. Univ of California Press, 2007.

Indyk, Martin S., Kenneth G. Lieberthal, and Michael E. O’Hanlon. “Scoring Obama’s Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 91.3 (2012): 29-43.

Obama, Barack. “Renewing american leadership.” Foreign Affairs 86.4 (2007): 2-16.

How Should America Respond to Terror?


global-war-on-terror-main.jpg

The invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition in 2003 produced a new dilemma for Iraq – a vacuum of power. For almost 4 decades, the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein centralized power, and despite its brutality, stabilized the country politically. But many critics of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East blamed the vacuum of power on the brutality of the dictator himself. The rise of ISIS, and other terrorist organizations, are the products of the stubborn grasp on power held by dictators like Saddam. In Syria, the situation proved to be more difficult. What was initially a similar plan as Iraq broke down into an international competition for spheres of influence, particularly between Russia and America. The crises in the Arab world, spread like a domino effect. It seems that, since the 2003 invasion, toppling leaders was the agenda, but instead of resulting in progressive governance, it has produced a security disaster with an unprecedented rise in terrorism. Libya looks a lot like Iraq, but perhaps worse. It is in shambles – which is a hotbed for terrorists. Since Islamic radicalism appears to be the global menace to security, figuring out how to address these crises are crucial to America’s interests. How should the US respond? Well, the US has already chosen a trajectory of intervention. Based on the literature, I will argue that a reversal of US tradition of interventionism will reduce terror and the threat of insecurity caused by it (Kleveman 2006).

Terrorism rose sharply after 2003. This is supported by the global terrorism database. I argue this directly correlates with the highest period of foreign interventionism in the Middle East, from which terrorism is exported. Central Asia too is equally important as it exports much of the Islamic radicalism we see today (Rashid 2006). In Central Asia, terrorism rose sharply after 2004 – around the same time that the US administration began coordinating cooperative efforts with Central Asia’s most authoritarian dictator, Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, in efforts to suppress Islamic movements, radical and non (Olcott 2007).

Complete disengagement from the internal political affairs of sovereign states both in the Middle East and Central Asia will allow the natural course of events to unfold – whether that means conflict or not is uncertain. Citizens may choose to overthrow or support their leaders. But involvement by the US has complicated and enflamed tensions. It has blindsided progression in many of these underdeveloped parts of the world, resulting in higher terror recruitment, which ultimately affects the US.

Contrarily, it could be argued that the US ought to engage with rebel groups fighting against both extremists and authoritarians who together, are thwarting any progress and thus further inciting terrorism. In the case of Syria, it appears to be more complex, with the government cooperating against terrorism, unlike for example, the Mubarak, Gaddafi or Hussein regimes. Perhaps, a transitional process in phases could emerge here in which disenfranchised Sunnis can be reintegrated into the political process. But the intransigence of the leadership could prove to be detrimental to this cause. Perhaps this is precisely why the US has been unresolved in its Syrian-policy.

How Arab Unity Became An Oxymoron – Another Tale of Orientalism


sadat-kaddafi-assad.jpg

A more liberal strand of Islam might argue that cultural identity is tied to Islamic heritage. Furthermore, it encompasses all philosophy and knowledge into Islam, as opposed to radical Islam which excludes philosophies from the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and the mystical indigenous religions of various regions in the world, like Central Asia and Latin America.

What if identity, whether it is Chinese, or Syrian, is also tied to an Islamic consciousness?

Let us say for example that Confucius was a Muslim. But only in the philosophical sense.

Let us say that Islam, is a philosophy too, a form of consciousness that becomes intertwined with language and custom.

If that is the case, instead of isolating extremism in Islam – what if we look at national struggles for national representation as well as national struggles for independence through the lens of a struggle for a higher level of consciousness?

In communist China, Islam is systemically suppressed. In the West, Islam is discriminated against. In the Middle East, from where it originates, it is disenfranchised from the political process. Palestine, the crux of Islamic scripture, remains occupied. Mecca, resides in a politically corrupt nation-state. The vast majority of Muslims, shiite or sunni, are living in poverty due both to foreign occupation and arbitrary authoritarian government. Russia is united with many forces, some its enemies, like the US in the fight against radicalism, of course, without looking at the initial cause.

In today’s world we see North Korea and Russia and Iran and China as US arch-rivals. But how can we be so sure? It appears premature to assume that enemies on the media aren’t cooperating behind closed doors. Does the US not benefit from the existence of a constant menace? Fanatical ideology or religion, whether it is coming from ISIS or North Korea, isn’t the concern of the great powers.

The world powers are still playing their great game, and they are doing their utmost to prevent the emergence of an autonomous Middle East (or Latin America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia) that can balance their power, out of arrogance as well as out of the desire to exploit resources and prevent any fair competition in the Middle East.

And fanaticism is working in their favor too, because it does nothing to promote national sovereignty – in fact, it is almost carrying out the neoconservative deed under the guise of a Salafi strain of Islam.

A united, moderate and tolerant Middle East would counter all of these forces – but the greatest obstacle to this includes all the puppet regimes in the Middle East which have resisted challenging Israel militarily – the crucible of Middle Eastern conflict and instability. Once the leadership in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt is overthrown, the Arab front against imperialism can actually hold its ground.

The so-called Arab Spring was a delusional, western manufactured initiative distracting everyone from the real cause of conflict in the Middle East – Occupation.

Democracy is a concept meant for parts of the world where religious sensitivity and culture does not overwhelm the philosophical expectations of the individual. Ideologies like neoconservatism and communism all have threatened the peace and sovereignty of the Middle East. The Arab Spring was a farce attempt in this regard, as much as communism was to liberate Afghanistan, America to liberate Afghanistan afterwards, or Iraq, Libya, Yemen and so forth.

Whether political immorality is exercised by the Chinese, Russians or the Americans, does not matter – the point is that a brainwashing game is being played on the media to blur the lines between good and bad.

But all you need to do to understand who the bad guy is have a basic understanding of boundaries – and that when boundaries are crossed, war ensues.

That boundary has been, since 1948, Palestine.

Until sovereignty is respected, the brainwash will continue, and so too shall conflict.

Democracy will save nothing – unity will.