US Foreign Policy and Diplomacy under Joe Biden

Well that's a shame

I guess from India's point of view the whole of Pakistan is an Islamist mess and it doesn't matter who gets elected there as they'll all just be competing with each other to be tough and belligerent towards India anyway

Nevertheless, I don't know about his popularity or what people hold him accountable for - but to have a democratically elected leader deposed so blatantly by the US and its agents in the country will probably turn even many of his opponents amongst the population towards outrage. As one way or the other it's an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty.
I doubt we've seen the end of this. Any government that replaces his has a serious problem with legitimacy and the people there can end up outright rejecting it.

My opinion is that India's frontiers are being pressed

An ongoing regime-change operation in Sri Lanka, where LGBT groups are holding rallies merging into the Muslim minority's rallies.

And now a seemingly successful regime change operation in Pakistan, although like I said, I doubt it's the end of the story

India's policies are too independent for Washington and thus it's playing the same game as it did with Russia earlier when it orchestrated regime changes in the Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and was even working towards one in Kazakhstan.
It's a geopolitical version of gunboat diplomacy. Either bend your policies our way, or your neighbouring countries now under our control - will give you problems.

In Pakistan it seems the army chief was calling for diplomacy with India over issues.
So in practice both sides of the political divide are sending feelers to India and rummaging around for possible support.

This is a good position for India to be in - but it should remember that if the subservient to the US government wins out there; it's own sovereignty will be hemmed
An independent Pakistan under Khan may give India problems in the future too but it's still a preferable alternative, and if support is given to him then he will certainly owe a few favours

Chinese influence in Pakistan meanwhile came for nought if they couldn't act to prevent this effective coup.

The time for India to become a great power is now. Afterwards it may stick to neutrality and a non-aligned policy, but it must achieve the freedom to do that first by securing independent neighbours too.

flamming_python wrote:In Pakistan it seems the army chief was calling for diplomacy with India over issues.
So in practice both sides of the political divide are sending feelers to India and rummaging around for possible support.

There is a theory in India that New Delhi itself doesn't want the destruction of Pakistan because the North Indian & Western Indian leadership may need to leverage Pakistan to deal with Indian states in the East and South at some point of time.

Minus the religion, North Indians and Gujaratis share almost the same culture with Pakistan. And traditionally much like the Brits the North Indian leadership considers Hindus from eastern & Southern India as rivals. Since 1947 India has had just two Prime Ministers from Southern India (just one of them was allowed to complete his term) and none from the East.  

Therefore, New Delhi interfered in Bangladesh in 1971 to save 90,000 Pakistani soldiers from Hindu mobs, allowed Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons (so that this development can be used as an alibi for not invading Pakistan) and now is allowing Pakistan to acquire submarine based second strike capability.

The Delhi, Mumbai leadership survives by cornering resources from other parts of the country. Ergo, they will do whatever it takes to maintain stability in Pakistan.

GarryB wrote: but the point is that he is not rabidly anti Russia or India, which makes him better than any likely alternative.

He may not be anti Russia but he is rabidly anti India, more so to prove his loyalty to the Punjabi military establishment.
He pioneered drone attacks inside Indian territory. In fact even the Pak Army had warned him about not going overboard with these attacks.

Eventually, last month India "misfired" a BRAHMOS missile inside Pakistani territory to remind them that there is a threshold to India's patience.

TBH, he was an "asset" for India. The manner in which he destroyed Pakistani's economy is not something that India could have ever achieved.

Sujoy wrote:

flamming_python wrote:In Pakistan it seems the army chief was calling for diplomacy with India over issues.
So in practice both sides of the political divide are sending feelers to India and rummaging around for possible support.

There is a theory in India that New Delhi itself doesn't want the destruction of Pakistan because the North Indian & Western Indian leadership may need to leverage Pakistan to deal with Indian states in the East and South at some point of time.

Minus the religion, North Indians and Gujaratis share almost the same culture with Pakistan. And traditionally much like the Brits the North Indian leadership considers Hindus from eastern & Southern India as rivals. Since 1947 India has had just two Prime Ministers from Southern India (just one of them was allowed to complete his term) and none from the East.  

Therefore, New Delhi interfered in Bangladesh in 1971 to save 90,000 Pakistani soldiers from Hindu mobs, allowed Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons (so that this development can be used as an alibi for not invading Pakistan) and now is allowing Pakistan to acquire submarine based second strike capability.

The Delhi, Mumbai leadership survives by cornering resources from other parts of the country. Ergo, they will do whatever it takes to maintain stability in Pakistan.

Before the British came, India was dominated by the Mughals, who were Muslims from the east of the Indian subcontinent, and in a sense its where Pakistan's identity derives from. Pakistan is the expression of the Indian subcontinent's Muslims wanting to dominate the economy and trade of greater India's population, as they once did. And hence why Pakistan's policy towards India is essentially expansionist, standing as the guarantor of the Kashmiris, and with further ambitions to win the support of India's wider Muslim population.

Pakistan's relation to India is much like the Ukraine's to Russia - it's a sort of anti-India, that was in the past supported by the West, and recently has been more supported by China, and from that Pakistan traditionally gets its benefits.
Russia failed unfortunately to pull the Ukraine away from the West, and then to attempt to solve the issue in a different way other than militarily - and will pay the price for it. But it's not too late for India.

Like with the Ukraine, it's important to note that Pakistan's identity is not purely artificial, it does have history behind it like I mentioned, and it has a mandate from its own people to exist, it didn't get declared by accident.

Hence Pakistan is not going away and shouldn't. However what India needs, is a Pakistan that is not some puppet of either the West or China, but one that in fact, is as close politically and economically as possible - to India itself. If it's not possible to pull Pakistan into India's orbit, then it should at least be supported as an independent country, with which areas of mutual collaboration are possible, and with whom trust can be built gradually. Eventually, you can have something like a South Asian EU - with the relationship between Pakistan and India being like the one between France and Germany, and with other regional states such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan - pulled into their mutual orbit.

The US is concerned about the growing Chinese influence in Latin America:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-military-watching-chinas-presence-110100878.html

With empty hands, by Kirill Benediktov for RTinRussian. 18.07.2022.

Much was expected from the visit of the aged US President Joe Biden to the Middle East. And not only in the corridors of the White House and the State Department, where this visit was being prepared: in connection with this trip, certain plans were made both in Jerusalem, and in Riyadh, and in Abu Dhabi. It’s just that, as usual, different players hoped for different things: in Israel, they hoped that the visit of the “leader of the free world” to the eastern capitals would lead to further rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and, accordingly, strengthen the security of the Jewish state, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf cherished dreams of lucrative purchase contracts American weapons on preferential terms, but in Washington this trip was considered as the last and radical means to cope with rising gas prices in America itself.

Everyone was disappointed.

“Biden at the Arab summit failed to achieve neither security nor oil commitments,” Reuters candidly admits . Instead of concrete steps that would convince US allies in the Middle East that America still considers them as priority partners, Biden got off with meaningless words. “The United States is investing in building a positive future for the region in partnership with all of you, and the United States is not going anywhere,” he said in Jeddah. However, the summit communiqué is extremely vague, and Saudi Arabia, Washington's most important Arab ally, has not supported US attempts to lay the foundations for a regional security alliance: a kind of Middle East NATO to fight Iran and its Shia-supporting Axis powers.

At first glance, this is strange, because the kingdom has a vested interest in preventing Iran from becoming a regional superpower and pushing the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf into the background. But the fact is that the model of "Middle East NATO" in the view of Washington must necessarily include Israel - the best friend of the United States in the region. And to harness Jerusalem and Riyadh in one cart is very, very difficult. Recall how much effort Donald Trump spent on concluding the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and the UAE, and he had a very powerful Middle East team, which was personally supervised by his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Biden's team of diplomats is no match for Trump's, and Sleepy Joe himself was not eager to establish friendly relations with Saudi kings and princes, especially with the heir to the throne, Mohammed bin Salman (in the States, he is usually called simply MBS). The reason is in the story of the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who wrote a column for The Washington Post and was a consistent critic of Prince bin Salman. In 2018, Saudi intelligence agents captured Khashoggi at the premises of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul, tortured him and eventually dismembered him with a bone saw. According to Turkish intelligence, which is trusted in the US, this was done on the personal orders of the heir to the throne. In 2018, Saudi intelligence agents captured Khashoggi at the premises of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul, tortured him and eventually dismembered him with a bone saw. According to Turkish intelligence, which is trusted in the US, this was done on the personal orders of the heir to the throne. In 2018, Saudi intelligence agents captured Khashoggi at the premises of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul, tortured him and eventually dismembered him with a bone saw. According to Turkish intelligence, which is trusted in the US, this was done on the personal orders of the heir to the throne.

When Biden launched his 2019 presidential campaign, he vowed to make Saudi Arabia a rogue state and repeatedly claimed that Mohammed bin Salman was personally responsible for Khashoggi's assassination. In the first year of his presidency, he stubbornly avoided direct negotiations with the prince, which, of course, did not contribute to the strengthening of American influence in the kingdom either. But when gasoline at US gas stations soared to $ 5 per gallon, the Americans began to sadly joke: “I need a second job to be able to drive my car to the first one,” Biden had to forget about his intention to punish the Saudi prince and fly to bow to him.

The flurry of criticism that fell upon the already extremely unpopular president in connection with this visit (not only the Republicans scolded him, but also his fellow Democrats) forced Biden to justify himself very clumsily.

“This is not what it seems,” the owner of the White House tried to convince journalists, insisting that he was flying to Jeddah not to meet with Prince Mohammed, but to communicate with the leaders of nine Arab states - America's allies. At the same time, everyone was well aware that the main purpose of Biden's visit was to convince the ruling family of the al-Sauds to increase oil production in order to somehow cope with "Putin's inflation" - if anyone has forgotten, this is already the official term with which American propaganda is trying to disguise the monstrous failures in economic policy made by the White House administration.

But even with this, Biden did not succeed.

He met with Prince bin Salman and bumped fists with him - a common practice in the post-pandemic world - but this caused even more outrage from human rights advocates than a simple handshake. Photos of the smiling president and prince went around all the world's media. “Biden, who defends Ukraine, human rights and democracy from Russia, at the same time went to meet with the ruthless and repressive Saudi leader, which he seemed to like,” said Aaron David Miller, a seasoned diplomat who served as adviser to the six ( !) US Secretaries of State at the Arab-Israeli talks. “He confirmed the leadership of Mohammed bin Salman and traded his status as president for a number of achievements, mostly in the interests of Saudi Arabia.”

Biden later exacerbated his clumsiness by telling reporters that he told the Saudi prince everything he thought about him and the "outrageous" killing of Jamal Khashoggi at the very beginning of the meeting. “I was direct when I talked about it. I have made my point crystal clear!” the American president assured reporters. But Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir immediately denied Biden's speech: he did not hear the White House owner tell bin Salman that he was responsible for the murder of Khashoggi. All that happened was a short and "less contentious" exchange of views on human rights issues. And, apparently, the American leader failed to convince the Saudi prince that he was right.

“America's attempt to impose its values ​​on other countries by force could backfire,” according to al-Jubeir, the prince replied to Biden. “It didn't work when the US tried to impose values ​​on Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, it backfired. Countries have different values ​​and these values ​​should be respected!”

Translated from the Eastern diplomatic language into Russian: do not tell us how to live and what to do. Otherwise, the consequences can be extremely unpleasant (for the US, of course).

It's not surprising that the prince had the courage to talk like that to "the most powerful man in the West." It is surprising that, having come to beg the al-Saud royal family to save America from sky-high fuel prices, which are about to turn into a crushing defeat for the Democrats in the midterm congressional elections, Biden generally raised the topic of the assassination of Khashoggi and bin Salman's personal responsibility for it. Even if it happened not during a meeting with the prince, but at a briefing with journalists.

But the fact that the results of Biden's visit to the Middle East turned out to be more than modest is not at all surprising.

"All that the American president and his foreign policy team have managed to achieve is a vague agreement that Saudi Arabia is committed to "maintaining the balance of the world oil market for sustainable economic growth."

On Saturday, bin Salman said the kingdom would increase its production capacity to 13 million barrels a day. The American media were quick to pass off this statement as a great White House victory, but the devil, as you know, is in the details: in fact, the prince said that Saudi Arabia will increase its production capacity to 13 million barrels per day by 2027 from a nominal capacity of 12 million barrels for the time being, after which "the kingdom will no longer have the ability to increase production."

That is, we are talking about increasing the possibility of oil production by 1 million barrels per day, stretched over a period of five years. At the same time, now, having the ability to produce 12 million barrels nominally, Riyadh produces about 10 million barrels under an agreement with other members of the same OPEC+ group that determines global oil prices. Suppose the kingdom will produce in five years not 10, but 11 million barrels - this will not save either American car owners or Democrats in the elections this November.

By the way, while Biden was negotiating in Jeddah, Washington was preparing for a trade war with the very OPEC, on which the immediate future of the United States now directly depends. The Washington Times reported that the US Congress has again begun considering the NOPEC (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act) anti-cartel bill, which allows the federal government to bring antitrust claims against OPEC members and other oil exporters involved in cartel agreements in the oil market in the courts.

It is not certain that lawmakers on Capitol Hill will be able to pass this bill (it has been traveling on various congressional committees for a couple of decades), but the very desire to threaten sanctions against those on whom the immediate future of the United States directly depends vividly characterizes an American foreign policy that is acquiring everything. more symptoms of schizophrenia.

Biden came to Saudi Arabia hoping to secure an oil deal to help drive down gasoline prices, which are pushing inflation past a 40-year high and threatening his ratings . “He is leaving the region empty-handed but hopes that the OPEC+ group, which includes Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers, will increase production at the August 3 meeting.”

Notice I didn't say "Russia", it was Reuters.

So, as a result of the most intense and scandalous foreign visit during his presidency, Biden: a) tarnished his reputation as a defender of democracy and human rights; b) rehabilitated Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with amazing friendliness; c) disappointed Israel and the countries of the Persian Gulf with the absence of a coherent strategy for maintaining security in the region; d) achieved nothing but vague promises to increase Riyadh's oil production in some indefinite future; e) once again demonstrated the dependence of the United States on OPEC +, and therefore, to a certain extent, on Russia.

Great diplomat, great.

https://russian.rt.com/opinion/1027162-benediktov-baiden-saudovskaya-araviya-vizit

Not surprised by this one bit:

https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/0a26a379?fbclid=IwAR1l10pRDzIj94LyKk4zvOqBs36fg1tGOLpcxP8MVYlRoRNVbsUjtQsXdM8

With yesterday's anti-referenda UNGA racket vote, Yanquiland has stepped right up now into diplomatic terrorism too.
It's the return and predominance of barbarism in world affairs as has not been seen since the Third Reich.

What Yanquiland put utmost into question with the UNGA vote was the validity of referenda as a democratic means of political science. Russia should proceed with a worldwide effort to rise again this tool as a sound mechanism for the people's expression of its legitimate will (Scotland, Catalunya - hello there Mr. "Burrell" -, Corsica, Puerto Rico and so many other examples).

How is the CIA able to infiltrate in Iran like this? I thought Iran had more control over something like this:

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/10/28/691741/Foreign-spy-agencies--behind-Iran-riots

Rand corporation on how to destroy Russia:



https://www.globalresearch.ca/rand-corp-how-destroy-russia/5678456



https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html

The G20’s Balinese Dance and Biden’s Calming Words, by Pepe Escobar for Asia Times. 11.16.2022.

Balinese culture, a perpetual exercise in sophisticated subtlety, makes no distinction between the secular and the supernatural – sekala and niskala.

Sekala is what our senses may discern. As in the ritualized gestures of world leaders – real and minor – at a highly polarized G20.

Niskala is what cannot be sensed directly and can only be “suggested.” And that also applies to geopolitics.

The Balinese highlight may have featured an intersection of sekala and niskala: the much ballyhooed Xi-Biden face-to-face (or face to earpiece).

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs preferred to cut to the chase, selecting the Top Two highlights.

1. Xi told Biden – rather, his earpiece – that Taiwan independence is simply out of the question.

2. Xi also hopes that NATO, EU and US will engage in “comprehensive dialogue” with Moscow.

Asian cultures – be they Balinese or Confucianist – are non-confrontational. Xi laid out three layers of common interests:

- prevent conflict and confrontation, leading to peaceful coexistence;

- benefit from each other’s development; and

- promote post-COVID global recovery, tackle climate change and face regional problems via coordination.

Significantly, the three-and-a-half-hour meeting happened at the Chinese delegation’s residence in Bali, and not at the G20 venue. And it was requested by the White House.

Biden, according to the Chinese, affirmed that the US does not seek a New Cold War; does not support “Taiwan independence”; does not support “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan”; does not seek “decoupling” from China; and does not want to contain China.

Now tell that to the Straussians/neo-cons/neoliberalcons bent on containing China. Reality spells out that Xi has few reasons to take “Biden” – rather the combo writing every script in the background – at face value. So, as it stands, we remain in niskala.

That zero-sum game

Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo was dealt a terrible hand: how to hold a G20 to discuss food and energy security, sustainable development and climate issues when everything under the sun is polarized by the war in Ukraine.

Widodo did his best, urging all at the G20 to “end the war,” with a subtle hint that “being responsible means creating not-zero-sum situations.”

The problem is a great deal of the G20 arrived in Bali bent on zero-sum – seeking confrontation (with Russia) and hardly any diplomatic conversation.

The US and UK delegations avowedly wanted to snub Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov every step of the way. France and Germany were a different matter: Lavrov did speak briefly with both Macron and Scholz. And told them Kyiv wants no negotiation.

Lavrov also revealed something quite significant for the Global South:

"US and the EU have given the UN Secretary General written promises that restrictions on the export of Russian grain and fertilizers will be lifted – let’s see how this is implemented.”

The traditional group photo ahead of the G20 – a staple of every summit in Asia – had to be delayed. Because – who else – “Biden” and Sunak, US and UK, refused to be in the same picture with Lavrov.

Such childish, un-diplomatic hysterics are profoundly disrespectful towards ritual Balinese graciousness, politeness and a non-confrontational ethos.

The Western spin is that “most G20 countries” wanted to condemn Russia in Ukraine. Nonsense. Diplomatic sources hinted it might be in fact a 50/50 split. Condemnation comes from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, UK, US and EU. Non-condemnation from Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkiye and, of course, Russia.

Graphically: Global South against Global North.

So the joint statement will refer to the impacts of the “war in Ukraine” on the global economy, and not “Russia’s war in Ukraine.”

The collapse of the EU economy

What was not happening in Bali enveloped the island in an extra layer of niskala. Which brings us to Ankara.

The fog thickened because on the backdrop of the G20, the US and Russia were talking in Ankara, represented by CIA director William Burns and SVR (Foreign Intel) director Sergei Naryshkin.

No one knows what exactly was being negotiated. A ceasefire is only one among possible scenarios. And yet heated rhetoric from NATO in Brussels to Kyiv suggests escalation prevailing over some sort of reconciliation.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was adamant; de facto and de jure, Ukraine can’t and does not want to negotiate. So the special military operation will continue.

NATO is training fresh units. Next possible targets are the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and the left bank of the Dnieper – or even more pressure in the north of Lugansk. For their part, Russian military channels advance the possibility of a winter offensive on Nikolaev: only 30 km away from Russian positions.

Serious Russian military analysts know what serious Pentagon analysts must also know: Russia has used at best only 10% of its military potential so far. No regular forces; most of them are DPR and LPR militias, Wagner commandos, Kadyrov’s Chechens and volunteers.

The Americans suddenly interested in talking, and Macron and Scholz approaching Lavrov, point to the heart of the matter: The EU and the UK may not survive next winter, 2023-2024, without Gazprom.

The International Energy Agency has calculated that the overall deficit by then will approach 30 billion cubic meters. And that presupposes “ideal” circumstances this coming winter: mostly warm; China still under lockdowns; much lower gas consumption in Europe; even increased production (from Norway?).

The IEA ‘s models are working with two or three waves of price increases in the next 12 months. EU budgets are already on red alert – compensating for the losses caused by the current energy suicide. By the end of 2023, that may reach 1 trillion euros.

Any additional, unpredictable costs throughout 2023 mean that the EU economy will completely collapse: industry shutdown across the spectrum, euro in free fall, rise of inflation, debt corroding every latitude from the Club Med nations to France and Germany.

Dominatrix Ursula von der Leyen, leading the European Commission, of course should be discussing all that – in the interests of EU nations – with global players in Bali. Instead her only agenda, once again, was demonization of Russia. No niskala here; just tawdry cognitive dissonance.

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/the-g20s-balinese-dance-and-bidens-calming-words/

Spot on

It is a jumping jack secret that true US foreign policy is run by Victoria Nuland's frenetic and insane husband, Robert Kagan, at his headquarters in the State Department, comfortably seating at his desk in Washington, DC, from where he handles several top people, including Joseph Robinette Jr, Antony Blinken and Nuland proper:

Biden responded to the reconciliation of Iran and the Saudis with insanity, by Dmitry Bavyrin for VZGLYAD. 03.11.2023.

Iran-Saudi reconciliation breaks American architecture in the Middle East.

A sensational event took place in Beijing: the representatives of Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed to move from blood feud to good neighborliness. This breaks the entire architecture in the Middle East, which the Americans have created for themselves. And the first reaction of the President of the United States could be considered a shock if we did not know something else about Joe Biden.

The agreement between the Iranians and the Saudis is sure to go down in the textbooks, unless it is blown away on the bumps of the next historical turn.

But the decisive role in it certainly belongs to the energetic crown prince and prime minister of the Saudis, Mohammed, the main engine of foreign and domestic political reforms in the kingdom. He is 37 years old, his father - King Salman - recently turned 87. The heir is preparing to come in earnest and for a long time.

Formally, the parties agreed  only on the beginning of the process of normalizing relations and on the first step - the opening of embassies. But this is the first step in many decades away from a major civilizational conflict. The confrontation between Tehran and Riyadh was a determining factor not only in regional politics and even global politics, but also the fuel in the confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites, which, unfortunately, takes place not only in theological disputes.

During the hot phase of the war in Syria, this essentially resulted in ethnic cleansing, only carried out on a religious basis.

This is also why the Iranian-Saudi agreements have become something of a sensation. They did not expect anything of the kind, on the contrary, they feared that the conflict would turn into a full-fledged war, which both sides would probably have declared sacred.

Back in late autumn , this war was predicted by the American media, and Russian experts, although they knocked on wood, nevertheless admitted that there were many reasons for it, and it would become - God forbid - extremely cruel.

Of course, theological differences are not the main reason for mutual hatred. It's just that she was the first - the split occurred immediately after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The Shiites are those who considered him the only legitimate successor to Imam Ali. The Sunnis formed their own caliphates. But at the first stage of the land, where both Iran and Saudi Arabia are now located, it was Ali who obeyed.

The creation of the Saudi state already in the 20th century was associated with the destruction of Shiite shrines in the holy cities for all Muslims - Mecca and Medina, and this was done by the troops of the founder of the ruling dynasty. Thus, the religious conflict took hold in the form of endless proxy wars between Tehran and Riyadh, which permanently risked falling into a war of annihilation.

Under the Pahlavi Shah, relations with the Saud family were more or less normal, but it was an absolutely artificial situation. At that time, even with Israel, Iran had normal relations, since Tehran was guided strictly by the United States and severely suppressed any dissatisfaction with the actions of its small elite.

The Islamic revolution provoked by such a regime and the rise to power of Ayatollah Khomeini brought down these relations in the same way that the Bolshevik coup of 1917 brought down Russia's relations with Europe.

Vladimir Lenin promoted the idea of ​​a world revolution and the overthrow of, above all, European kings and governments. Khomeini - the idea of ​​​​a world Islamic revolution that would crush secular regimes and pro-American monarchies, and above all the Saudis who control Mecca and Medina.

Both the ayatollahs and the Saudis see the Shiites living in the kingdom as the striking force of such a revolution. Riyadh perceives them as dangerous separatists both for this reason and because the Shiites live quite compactly - in the Eastern Province. The main oil reserves of the kingdom are also located there.

Therefore, the ranks of the most active Shiites, including preachers, are periodically thinned out by the Saudis. With the execution of several iconic persons against the background of the massacre in Syria, the current stage of the conflict began, the end of which, it seemed, no one even thought about: in 2016, the Iranians smashed the Saudi embassy and relations were severed at the state level.

It was possible to reverse the conflict through the mediation of China, on its territory (negotiations took place in Beijing) and in the presence of the chief Chinese diplomat on the party line, Wang Yi. Now the Communist Party will claim the role of the main peacemaker, and certainly not without reason.

By and large, the Nobel Peace Prize was previously awarded precisely for such things, until they began to award the devil knows what.

But even if the role of China is secondary (as, for example, the role of Belarus in the signing of the Minsk agreements), in the media space it is clearly the winning side. The point is not only that Beijing has demonstrated the ability to resolve seemingly insoluble conflicts. But also in the fact that this episode can be perceived as part of a global confrontation with the United States and the destruction of Pax Americana.

The conflict between the Iranians and the Saudis was muddy with blood and oil, in which the Americans successfully fished. Confronting Iran has become the foundation of their modern policy in the Middle East. Now the foundation is falling apart, China's partner - Iran is getting stronger from this, and this is happening precisely when Tehran is perceived by the Americans as a dangerous enemy more sharply than usual (due to a possible war with Israel and because of the support that Tehran provides to  Russia , extracting own benefit ).

There is a hypothesis that the alliance of the West with the Saudis, directed against Iran, has significantly harmed the whole world by the fact that it has led to a disproportionate development of Shiism and Sunnism. While the center of Shiism was suppressed, the Sunnis experienced a new religious renaissance, despite the fact that their opponents are considered to perceive the world more mystical, and therefore more religiously tolerant and less prone to extremist forms of proselytism.

However, this is just a theory, and the fact that American strategists in the Middle East are now losing ground from under their feet is a fact. US President Joe Biden reacted to the news from Beijing as if the ground had already left from under his feet and hit his head.

In response to a journalist's question about what happened, the head of the American state said that the improvement of relations between Israel (!) and its neighbors "is for the benefit of everyone." As they say, the curtain.

And what is a curtain for Biden and the United States as a whole is a new hope for the Middle East. Hope for the healing of those wounds that fester for decades and centuries, and maybe even those that come from the millennium before last.

https://vz.ru/world/2023/3/11/1202631.html

Journalist Hersh calls US foreign policy 'total idiocy', by Olga Ivanova for VZGLYAD. 03.12.2023.

The journalist also called US foreign policy "complete idiocy", RIA Novosti reports.

He believes that the notion of American hegemony no longer works.

Recall that the journalist, Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh published an article about the involvement of the United States in the sabotage of the Nord Stream. After that, the Western press began to promote the version that the attack was allegedly carried out by a group of Ukrainian conspirators.

https://vz.ru/news/2023/3/12/1202818.html

One of the good examples of the knock on effect of an Empire losing its fear weapon

Africa Archives
@Africa_Archives
·
12h
The United States of America threatens to withhold aid to Niger due to the military takeover, coup d'état.

Niger Military says they should keep their aid and give it to their millions of Homeless people in the United States of America. Charity begins at home