US foreign policy and the impasse in the Middle East. The unresolved issues of Western geopolitics

In the end, despite the bombastic belligerent declarations of the first days of the crisis, it seems that the Western political leadership has realized the deadly trap that Moscow and Beijing have prepared in the Middle East. And of the war and economic implications it would have both on the ongoing world war and on the already strained Western finances. This is why the Western establishment promptly backtracked on the issue of the ground attack on Gaza and the possibility of a direct (preemptive) attack against Teheran. An attack that would require forces that the West does not currently have and which would entail unsustainable costs. Even considering the fact that such a war would not be limited to the air (with bombings on Iranian and Syrian military structures) but would require the intervention, on a massive scale, of “boots on the ground”. In quantities such as to require an economic and financial effort that we believe, at the moment, to be unsustainable for the West as a whole. Such a move would then unbalance NATO’s military strength on a geopolitical chessboard of secondary importance since the real objective of the geopolitics of the Anglo-Saxon empire remains China (and its Russian ally). We have already had the opportunity to highlight how this crisis, in fact, is completely functional to Beijing’s interests ( Which, by committing huge Western forces in a geopolitical chessboard now completely hostile to the aims of Washington and London, would exhaust their reserves of weapons and ammunition and would make a greater military commitment in the Far East as well as an intervention in favor of Taiwan in the Beijing case impossible wage war on the rebellious island (as he has repeatedly declared he would do if a spontaneous reunion was impossible). The supply of highly advanced technology to Iran (and the factions linked to it) would risk transforming the war into a deadly failure with unpredictable consequences on the economy and military solidity of the West. Even the air and naval umbrella offered to Israel by the Anglo-American fleet (which intervened promptly in the eastern Mediterranean to help its ally), although useful, would not be sufficient to decide the fate of the conflict. If Moscow then supplied Tehran, Damascus and the Hezbollah movement with latest generation jamming tools and cutting-edge anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems (which it has at its disposal), the war would turn into a nightmare for Washington and London and would involve significant losses of aircraft and probably also of naval units. On the other hand, Hamas’s attack on Israel says a lot about what has actually already been supplied to the anti-Israeli forces in the Middle East and how dangerous and deadly it is. Without these instruments of warfare (electronic or otherwise) what happened would not have been possible. That is, it would not have been possible to blind Tel Aviv’s radar and detection systems in an apparently so easy way. This is one of the crux of the matter. And it would explain, together with the geopolitical and geostrategic considerations set out above, why the West refrains from intervening massively in this geopolitical chessboard and why it is desperately negotiating to ensure that the clash does not degenerate into a broader conflict that would be fatal to its own geopolitical interests. Even at the cost of losing face and accepting a defeat that damages their image.


The geopolitical developments in the Middle East warn us of how the balance of power in the world is actually changing. And how, at the same time, US foreign policy is incapable of adapting to the profound changes underway. Victim of a hegemonic claim that now appears not only anachronistic but also completely lacking in strength. Since not only is this no longer justified by the numbers of an economy (the Western one which, although still large, no longer represents the economic engine of the world) in progressive decline but it is not even motivated by a superiority ‘military which, in fact, seems to be present only in the minds of British and American strategists. And then there is what we call the “resource question”. Does the West have the resources for a large-scale confrontation that takes place simultaneously on three distinct geopolitical chessboards (that of Eastern Europe, that of the Middle East and that of the Far East)? In our opinion, no, even considering the war developments in secondary geopolitical theaters (such as the African one) which require (and will require) further efforts from Washington, Brussels and London. Things would certainly be more favorable for the Western establishment if its wishes regarding the Ukrainian conflict had materialized. But since it was not possible to weaken and defeat Russia ( today we find ourselves mired in a war of attrition that requires ever greater economic efforts without any collapse or even collapse on the horizon. a weakening of Putin’s government. And we will be forced to continue this undertaking until Washington and London resign themselves to the evidence. All this associated with the new reality of a world in which the countries producing raw materials are, de facto, freeing the control of their prices from the clutches and manipulations of Western finance. Which, as we have already had the opportunity to underline (, ties the hands of the “money factory” (i.e. the action of Western central banks) due to inflation galloping that does not allow (and probably will no longer allow) the uncontrolled printing of money and an accommodating monetary policy (with more than evident repercussions and consequences on Western economies). All these critical issues represent a mortal threat to the dying Western hegemony on the planet. Even more so today that its war machine, the most powerful in the world until a few years ago, seems no longer able to prevail over those of its geopolitical antagonists (bringing them back to order) and to impose, as often happened in the past , the forced acceptance of the Anglo-Saxon “imperium” on the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *