Shifting strategic alliances

[LuisDantas]

(...)

What's more interesting, is that the building belligerence there doesn't follow "Cold War" lines: Traditionally US-aligned Taiwan is siding with China over the Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands dispute; and US-occupied South Korea, which is formally allied with Japan, is siding with China over the Japanese PM's visit to a war shrine honoring Japanese soldiers who committed genocide against the Chinese and Koreans long, long ago. North Korea, meanwhile, which occasionally rattles its sabers to get attention, is largely ignored by everyone.

The US, meanwhile, has become the world's Bozo. We have the power to destroy the world, but are led around by the nose by third-rate countries like Iran. We're trying to "pivot to Asia", whatever that's supposed to mean; but the countries in that region have come around to the understanding that All we have to offer are empty threats and promises; and that, when push comes to shove, every country must act in its own interest.

(...)

There are some good points here, but I find your understand of them a bit exotic. In which sense could it be said that Iran is "ledding" the US, for instance?

A far more rational and credible interpretation is IMO that there are limits to how far one can be pushed into following the will of others.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

There are some good points here, but I find your understand of them a bit exotic. In which sense could it be said that Iran is "ledding" the US, for instance?

A far more rational and credible interpretation is IMO that there are limits to how far one can be pushed into following the will of others.

Hi, Luis

I had to do some lookups on "ledding", thinking it might be new computer jargon. I presume you are referring to my comment that because of Bozo Obama, the Iranians are leading us around. Also, I'm not sure what the "pushing into the will of others" is all about. I imagine that has something to do with Obama's phoney "red line", which he used for years to get the Israelis to go along with allowing Iran to get nukes.

At the moment, the US simply has no Middle East policy. In Syria, we continue to insist that Bashar al-Assad be removed from office; but we have absolutely no power to back up such a demand (power that is not used is not power). Meanwhile, we are fighting against Assad's opponents (Al Qaeda) in Iraq -- howbeit in a lame sort of way, supplying tanks and drones to fight an army that relies mostly on suicide attacks and IEDs. We've simply wimped out, and others are stepping up to the plate to take our place.

The "Geneva Deal" with Iran, meanwhile, is a farce:

Huge Russian-Iranian oil-for-goods deal worth $18bn p.a. nullifies sanctions
DEBKAfile Special Report January 11, 2014, 12:44 PM (IDT)

-- Huge Russian-Iranian oil-for-goods deal worth $18bn p.a. nullifies sanctions

Iran blatantly defies five key Geneva Pact commitments - heads for nuclear arsenal
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report Jan 9, 2014, 10:20 AM (IDT)

-- Iran blatantly defies five key Geneva Pact commitments - heads for nuclear arsenal

For the record, we've actually been fighting on Iran and Russia's side since the fall of the Soviet Union. We overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iran's most powerful enemy, in Iraq. Meanwhile, we drove Al Qaeda, another bitter enemy of Iran, from Afghanistan. All the while, we pretended to be against Iran. Remember the Iran-Contra deal in the 1980s? Probably before your time. There again, we were quietly playing footsie with our presumed "enemy".

We switched sides, then, in the 1980s, under Reagan. Every US President since then -- GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush and now BH Obama, has fought for Iran's interests while officially opposing them with slap-on-the-hand sanctions. Obama has simply been the worst one at hiding this fact, and the first to be openly caught out with his "Red LIne" bluff.

Is that being "led around"? Maybe not -- maybe it's just wandering around aimlessly; and someone SHOULD take us by the hand and lead us, like a child, so we don't get run over.

​

 

[BlandOatmeal]

GOG, MAGOG AND TURKEY

I found a good analysis in the news, about the state of Turkey-Israel relations. The gist of the article is that (1) Turkey's PM Erdogan is intent on restoring the fortunes of the defunct Ottoman Empire and once again being the chief power in the Middle East, and that (2) Israel is trying to keep relations with its northern near-neighbor as stable as possible in the meantime. Here's the article:

Israel “Apologized” But It Won’t Forget
April 25, 2013 | Filed under: Featured News,Geopolitics
by Michalis E. Diakantonis

"...Erdoğan remains firmly committed to the vision of reviving the Ottoman Empire and considers his country as the next great power in the Middle East.

"... In conclusion, the Netanyahu’s “apology” seems to be a realistic foreign policy decision of Israel, which feels to be threatened by the recent developments in the Middle East and it’s trying to preserve its regional security. The arrogant and aggressive rhetoric of Erdoğan and his excessive hegemonic ambitions pose a risk for Turkey, as Israel –which has largely based its survival on its historical memory- won’t easily forget the provocative attitude of Ankara. This means that if Turkey doesn’t change soon its foreign policy, it will be forced to ask its own “apology” in the future."

-- Israel

The article is written by a Greek -- a nationality which, with the possible exception of the Armenians, are the people most intimately aware of how Turks think -- so it is probably more accurate than anything one might get from Reuters, Al Jazeera or CNN. It is interesting to me, because "reviving the Ottoman Empire" is exactly the motive that would impel the Ezekiel 38-39 invasion of Israel.

Understanding Ezekiel 38-39, on the other hand, requires a knowledge of history that pre-dates 1960: in other words, hardly anyone today can make heads or tails of the countries mentioned in that prophecy. I hope to post two maps here -- one of the Ottoman Empire in its glory, and one of the Middle East in Ezekiel's time. In that day, "Gog" was "Gyges", the ruler of the contemporary dynasty in Lydia (western Anatolia). "Gomer" (the Cimerii, on the Black coast of Anatolia, "Meshech & Tubal" (in Cappadocia, central Anatolia) and "Beth Togarmah" (in ancient Armenia, which is now eastern Anatolia) were all in what is now Turkey. Whereas "Gog" was a personal name, moreover, "Magog" was a geographical name for Turkey: it reflected the very earliest settlers in the area, the Paleo-Hittites or "Hattites" (not to be confused with the Hittite settlers in ancient Canaan, called "Heth") (cf. Genesis 10). It was probably used in conjunction with "Gog" for the sake of alliteration.

Here are the maps:

The Middle East. Top: The Ottoman Empire, 1699. Bottom: The Persian, Lydian, Babylonian and Egyptian Empires, c. 550 BC.
​

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Conservatives will never be happy until everyone is under their rule, and living by their command.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Conservatives will never be happy until everyone is under their rule, and living by their command.

Conservatives???? I'm afraid Idon't follow you. Please cite names.

While we're on the subject of conservatives, I've been doing some lookups concerning the relationship between a very conservative regime, namely, Iran, and the current government in Afghanistan -- especially as the longstanding alliance of the United States, Russia and Iran is becoming daily more obvious.

The United States first became involved in Afghan affairs around 1979, when we got kicked out of Iran. In December of that year, the (Communist, and therefore "conservative" in modern parlance, or "liberal" in my own dinosaur upbringing) Soviets invaded Afghanistan to support the Left-leaning regime there. We, of course, supported the opposition, creating a group called "Al Qaeda":

​

Zbigniew Brzezinski, then advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, with CIA asset "Tim Osman" (Osama bin Laden?). (for illustrative purposes only. For reservations, see Tim Osman was bin Ladin? )
​

(Note that Brzezinski was a Liberal, and bin Laden a Conservative, so you can draw your own conclusions about which of the two wanted to take over the world). Al Qaeda had support among the Pushtun-speaking minority in the south of Afghanistan, and was backed by (besides the US CIA) Pakistani intelligence. The north of Afghanistan was, of course, occupied by the Russians and other Soviets. After they withdrew from that mainly Persian-speaking half of Afghanistan, they were replaced by the "Northern Alliance" -- which was supported by Iran.

During the Iran-Contra affair, the US Administration was using the Iranians as go-betweens in its clandestine efforts to circumvent the US Congress and aid anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua (around the time that the CIA was helping US-trained General Mejia Victores in neighboring Guatemala to overthrow the popular anti-Communist, but unfortunately Christian, leader, Efrain Rios Montt). At that time, Iran was engaged in a vicious war with Saddam Hussein, leader of neighboring Iraq, who was supported by the US Congress.

Those were the days when the United States, led by a charismatic Actor-President, Ronald Reagan, was effectively at war with itself. Reagan served out his term, and was replaced by former CIA Director, George H. W. Bush, who fought AGAINST Saddam Hussein after the latter invaded Kuwait. He remained on good terms with the Al Qaeda-affiliated Afgan mujahideen, however, who fought, ironically alongside the Syrians (whose leader, Hafez Assad, hated Saddam), joined in the war against Iraq. Around the same time, Al Qaeda operatives were busy trying to blow up the World Trade Center in New York. They failed, but kept on trying, and succeeded on 9/11 2001. Put in simple terms, we still had no idea what side we were on in 1991, but we were actually fighting on the side of Iran (by getting rid of their arch-enemy Saddam).

After the 9/11 attack, we countered by an attack on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, not surprizingly enlisting the aid of none other than the formerly Iranian-supported Northern Alliance. Now, over 12 years later, we are finally getting around to leaving Afghanistan; and we find that our Afghan allies are warming up to, surprise, surprise, surprise, the Russians and Iranians! "Fortunately" for us, there is no conflict of interest here, seeing that the US itself has turned its back on its Sunni and Jewish allies in the Middle East in favor of the Holy Man in Tehran.

The first group of Afghans granted employment visa to Iran
Saturday, 11 January 2014 17:02

-- The first group of Afghans granted employment visa to Iran

Iran increases oil swap with Afghanistan, Pakistan
MENAFN - 06/01/2014

-- Iran increases oil swap with Afghanistan, Pakistan - MENAFN

Iran’s Chabahar port transforms its position
By MICHAEL TANCHUM
01/05/2014 23:00

"... While Iran and India traditionally have been allies in Afghanistan against Pakistan, New Delhi’s drive to construct a deep-sea port at the Iranian city of Chabahar along with transportation corridors running northward has been motivated by New Delhi’s economic rivalry with Beijing.

For Iran, it means a centrally important position in the emerging pattern of trade between Europe and a rising Asia..."

-- Iran

India and Afghanistan allied with Iran against Pakistan?? That's not how it's been presented to the American public for 12 years; but it is the way I've been describing things in this thread.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

So your point is what? Obama is evil? No kidding, he's an American politician- news flash, they all are. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at? What's your point in all of this? For the record, I seriously doubt the US will ever have a president or a majority of congresspeople who actually care more about the people than money and power. This isn't news; this is life as usual here.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

So your point is what? Obama is evil? No kidding, he's an American politician- news flash, they all are.

That's not my point at all. No offense meant; but you have no idea what I'm talking about.

So I'm not really sure what you're getting at?

Exactly.

What's your point in all of this?

In all WHAT? In posting this thread? I've said that already -- it's to help people understand the news.

For the record, I seriously doubt the US will ever have a president or a majority of congresspeople who actually care more about the people than money and power. This isn't news; this is life as usual here.

You seem to take a very dim view of Americans -- apparently of your friends, neighbors and relatives, since any of these might conceivably become a politician. That's unfortunate. I live in America, and have known all sorts of people. They're generally a likeable lot, and I don't think power and money would corrupt them any more than it would me. I have made the following my own prayer:

Prov. 30
[1] The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,
[2] Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.
[3] I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
[4] Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
[5] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
[6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
[7] Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die:
[8] Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:
[9] Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

Concerning Mr. Obama,

(1) I see him as a continuation of George W. Bush, as far as foreign policy is concerned; except that "W" was much better informed on these matters. Obama and his team, for instance, have made many enemies of old friends of America, starting with PM Gordon Brown of England. That incident was so outrageous, it had to stem from some sort of mental malfunction.

(2) I don't think he's as smart as "W", but I think his IQ is still above normal. "W" is a brilliant man, with an IQ estimated at 125. This is 5 points higher than the most "stupid" President (Hiram Ulysses Grant, whose IQ is estimated to have been 120 and who, incidentally, won the most horrific war in US history). Any IQ above 100 is considered "above average", by the way. Mr. Obama's has never been measured nor scientifically estimated, as far as we are informed, and he keeps his college records a tightly guarded secret. The smartest US President was John Quincy Adams, with an estimated IQ of 169. Next in line was Thomas Jefferson, with 154, and there are many former Presidents not far behind him. Albert Einstein's IQ has been estimated at around 160, and mine is recorded as 140.

(3) I have never seen a reliable "evil index". Hanlon's Razor says,

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

[BlandOatmeal]

GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA IN TURKEY

I am not a devotee of science fiction; so if you are a purist, please forgive me. There is a power struggle going on in Turkey, that somehow conjures up pictures in my mind of two sci-fi monsters, Godzilla and Mothra. The Turkish power struggle involves two former allies, Prime Minister Erdogan and Muslim preacher Fethullah Gülen. In the movie, Mothra manages to defeat Godzilla... but is the earth now safe?

​

Ever since 1923, Turkey has been a secular republic. Between 1952 and 2002, that republic was kept on an even keel only by numerous military coups. In 2002, the Islamist AKP party took control of the government; and since then, it has systematically gutted the power of the military with purges that replaced secular officers with Islamic ones. During that power takeover, Erdogan and Gülen were allies. As Erdogan became more and more authoritarian, however, and Gülen's power base steadily grew, the two fell out with each other. Now Turkey is gripped in a scandal of corruption trials and cover-ups that make Watergate look like a parlor game played by Victorian ladies.

Here's a recent article about the rift:

A Brother's Vengeance: The Preacher Who Could Topple Erdogan
By Maximilian Popp
January 09, 2014 – 12:36 PM

-- Turkey: Erdogan Sees Power Threatened by Muslim Cleric Gülen - SPIEGEL ONLINE

My interest in Turkey stems from an end-times prophecy (Ezek 38-39) about that country, which I mentioned in a previous post. In that prophecy, Turkey allies itself with Iran, Sudan and Libya for an attack on the resurrected state of Israel. Since Israel was dispersed among the nations ever since the days of the prophecy, until 1948, the fulfillment of the prophecy coult not have happened before then; and what has prevented it from happening in recent years is the rift between Turkey and Iran, caused mainly by the two countries backing opposing sides in the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon Civil War now raging.

PM Erdogan is a strong opponent of Israel, and the two countries came close to blows a few years ago over a Turkish attempt to run the Israeli arms blockade on Gaza. The US has since sought to keep Turkey and Israel from fighting one another, because both are US allies. With America's crumbling influence in the area in recent months, though, that restraint may no longer have effect.

If Gülen's numerous, united, cult-like followers manage to cause the fall of the current government, there is nothing to say that the current bad but managed situation will continue; and if I were an Israeli Jew, I would be concerned about what might ensue.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, Luis

I had to do some lookups on "ledding", thinking it might be new computer jargon. I presume you are referring to my comment that because of Bozo Obama, the Iranians are leading us around. Also, I'm not sure what the "pushing into the will of others" is all about. I imagine that has something to do with Obama's phoney "red line", which he used for years to get the Israelis to go along with allowing Iran to get nukes.

Okay, shall we stop now then?

I have no interest in lending prestige to these fantasies of yours. They are really out there and destructive. I don't even see a clear entry point for attaining meaningful communication at such a level.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

That's not my point at all. No offense meant; but you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Which is why I started off saying "so your point is what?"

You seem to take a very dim view of Americans

Exactly, and I'm not shy about hiding it.

Concerning Mr. Obama,

(1) I see him as a continuation of George W. Bush, as far as foreign policy is concerned; except that "W" was much better informed on these matters.

Really? The man who said he didn't need to read a newspaper? Most American presidents have never really cared about foreign policy, only insofar as it benefits America, and particularly, American politicians.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Which is why I started off saying "so your point is what?"

Exactly, and I'm not shy about hiding it.

Really? The man who said he didn't need to read a newspaper? Most American presidents have never really cared about foreign policy, only insofar as it benefits America, and particularly, American politicians.

I am not interested in partisan politics here. You obviously do not know what this thread is about, as you say; so perhaps you should go to a thread you understand.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I dont think anyone understands what this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I dont think anyone understands what this thread is supposed to be about.

Hello, informed. Actually, they do. For every post here, including the incendiary comments, there are at least ten readers. Give the readers credit for understanding what they read.

If you have particular trouble in understanding this thread, perhaps you should return to the OP. I explained everything quite clearly there. Thank you for your interest, and your comment.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I dont mean to be rude, but the fact that a lot of people open the thread does not mean they understand what you are trying to accomplish or what it is supposed to represent - particularly given how few have responded to you. This is particularly evident from the posts that have been made in the thread by members other than yourself - the comments have been very piecemeal and lack a common subject, this seems to indicate a general uncertainty about what the thread is supposed to be about.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

AUTONOMY AND OIL

Two stories caught my attention today, stories from two different countries that read amazingly similar to each other. In the case of Libya, the self-proclaimed Cyrenaica autonomous region plans to ship its oil overseas, despite a threat from the central government to sink ships that load oil there. In the case of Iraq, the internationally recognized Kurdish Autonomous Region has been pumping oil to neighboring Turkey without central government permission, and Baghdad threatens to retaliate.

Libya oil crisis exacerbated by push for autonomy
Imed Lamloum

"...Danger of a naval confrontation On Wednesday, Abd Rabou Al Barassi, who heads its executive bureau, said oil exports would resume despite a government ban, raising the prospect of a confrontation with the navy.

"“We announce our intention to trade in crude after the government failed to meet our demands,” Barassi said.


"He said guards would provide protection for all vessels entering the port of Al Sedra to prevent any repetition of an incident on Sunday when the navy blocked two tankers from docking in the port to take on crude..."

-- Libya oil crisis exacerbated by push for autonomy - DAWN.COM

Iraqi PM Maliki threatens to cut funds if Kurdistan pipes oil to Turkey 12.1.2014
Reuters

"...Crude from Kurdistan used to be shipped to Turkey through a Baghdad-controlled pipeline, but exports via that channel dried up a year ago from a peak of around 200,000 bpd due to a row over payments for oil companies operating in the region.

"Since then, the Kurds have been exporting smaller quantities of crude to Turkey by truck whilst laying their own independent pipeline, which was completed late last year....

"Kurdish leaders publicly say they are committed to remaining part of a federal Iraq, rather than seeking secession, but oil is a highly sensitive issue in volatile relations with Baghdad.

Companies that have risked exploring for oil in Iraqi Kurdistan had welcomed its plans to pipe oil to Turkey as a signal they might begin to generate export income from their investments, despite Baghdad's objections.

Those companies include Gulf Keystone, Genel Energy , Norway's DNO, Hungary's MOL and Britain's Petroceltic and Afren.

Copyright ©, respective author or news agency, Reuters

-- Iraqi PM Maliki threatens to cut funds if Kurdistan pipes oil to Turkey

In the OP, I noted that the current world political situation can be explained in terms of three competing blocs. The first bloc is enormous and powerful, comprising NATO, Russia, Iran and others -- a bloc which, coincidentally, signed an accord today concerning nuclear weapons. The second bloc is nearly as large, but far less powerful, being centered on China.

The third bloc is extremely small, but accounts for the majority of conflicts and security situations in the world. It consists of militant armed Islamists, drawing from dozens of countries and deployed to dozens of countries, backed -- for the most part clandestinely -- by the Islamic, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated, ruling party in Turkey and a handful of allies. It is interesting, that both of the oil shipment disputes I mentioned above involve either a Muslim Brotherhood-oriented region (Cyrenaica) or Turkey.

Both of these disputes are going on in countries undergoing civil wars, which are on the verge of breaking apart.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE "GENTLEMAN'S CLUB" JOINS IRAN

As I mentioned in my previous post, Iran now finds itself in public accord with the major world powers:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. Photo: U.S. Department of State.
​

Iran and World Powers Agree on Implementation of Interim Nuclear Accord
January 12, 2014 11:24 pm

-- Iran and World Powers Agree on Implementation of Interim Nuclear Accord | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

What interested me the most about the above was not any substance in the agreement (There is none; but the fact of the agreement itself, and its bearing on the great strategic shift happening this year, is). It is its juxtaposition to another article, showing the intentions of Iran -- and quite possibly of this entire Unholy Alliance?

Hezbollah’s Missiles Can ‘Pinpoint’ Targets Anywhere in Israel, Iran Military Leader Says
January 12, 2014 4:33 pm

-- Hezbollah

For those who might be wondering, Hizbullah is under the control of Iran, which supplies them with advanced missiles with which to attack Israel. Apparently, there is nothing in the gentleman's agreement that touches on this.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

ODDS AND ENDS: WHERE DOES NORTH KOREA FIT IN?

In working a jigsaw puzzle, sometimes one finds what appears to be a "fit"; but when most of the other pieces are in place, one finds that the presumed fit was wrong, and there was a better one.

Many have commented over the years, about the strong connection between the nuclear weapon and missile programs of North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Syria. Though separated geographically, all these states had a political bond between them: namely, that they were all rogue states and sponsors of terrorism. Now that the Iranians are glad-handing the most powerful leaders in the world, they may want to distance themselves from their throw-your-uncle-to-the-dogs barbaric friends. At the same time, Pakistan has a nuclear deal with the Saudis, who are bitter enemies of the Iranians.

What's next in store for North Korea? The starving-poor country, that shuts off all its lights at night to save power, is apparently engaged in redoubled efforts to pruduced nukes:

Activity Seen at North Korean Nuclear Plant
By CHOE SANG-HUN
Published: December 24, 2013

Satellite images from Major Development: Reactor Fuel Fabrication Facilities Identified at Yongbyon Nuclear Complex | 38 North: Informed Analysis of North Korea
​

-- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/w...ay-be-producing-fuel-for-nuclear-reactor.html

My guess is that N Korea will continue to coordinate closely with Iran; and when Iran is ready to test a bomb, N. Korea will host the test. Pakistan, meanwhile, will probably continue to draw away from them, as will China. In my "three-bloc" scheme, this effectively puts North Korea in league with the US and NATO -- a curious place, indeed.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

(snip -- duplicated below)

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE CHINA-MIDEAST CONNECTION

In photo ops of the recently signed Geneva Accords concerning Iranian nuclear weapon production capabilities, the Chinese delegate is standing alongside representatives of the US, UK, France, Germany and the EU, and next to the new "partner", the Theocracy of Iran. On the surface, it would seem that Chinese foreign policy was at one with that of the others; and for the moment, it is: all these countries are concerned primarily with the free flow of commerce, and the progress of globalization, at the expense of individual aspirations and freedoms around the world.

The camaraderie ends there, however: There is a serious competition among these countries which, in the Indian Ocean in particular, can be condensed into rivalry between (1) a rapidly rising China, that is becoming increasingly dependent on energy supplies from the Middle East, and (2) her economic rivals. What's more, this is not just a matter of economic competition: Military forces are increasingly becoming involved, as well as the establishment of rival bases. A good overview of the situation is presented here:

International Relations in an Emerging Multi Lateral World
The Indian Ocean Region: A Story Told with Pictures

-- The Indian Ocean Region - A* Story Told with Pictures

The "picture" in this article that particularly caught my attention was a picture of the following ship in Indian Ocean waters,

One of Japan's 4 Kongo Class Aegis guided-missile-system destroyers, part of a fleet of 44 destroyers
​

and the accompanying text,

"By most standards, Japan is now the world’s number two naval power."

The link (which is broken) references the following article:

Japan’s New Blue Water Navy: A Four-year Indian Ocean mission recasts the Constitution and the US-Japan alliance
By the Asahi Shinbun

"...According to its commanders, the unit which is now operating in the Indian Ocean is the thirteenth. So far, forty-seven ships, including convoy ships, supply ships, minesweepers, and others -- with 9,260 sailors -- have been dispatched. The ships sail from five bases in rotation, but two supply ships have been dispatched five times each..."

-- Japan's New Blue Water Navy: A Four-year Indian Ocean mission recasts the Constitution and the US-Japan alliance :: JapanFocus

The main article describes the increasing militarization of the area as evidence of a "multilateral world". Considering that Japan is closely allied with the US, however and is becoming increasingly confrontational vs. China; and that India is also a strong economic competitor of China that has recently skirmished with the latter on their mutual frontier, I do not see this as "multilateral". Rather, I see it as the Chinese themselves see it, as an attempt by the US and friends to encircle their emerging chief competitor. The fact that this rivalry is playing out on the trade route between China and her chief energy supplier Saudi Arabia, moreover, points to an increasing coupling of interests between the two. Considering that Pakistan, moreover, is a close ally to both, points to the budding emergence of a major strategic bloc.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

SUMMARY OF THE "THREE-BLOC" FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING TODAY'S NEWS

After several decades of a "bipolar" understanding of world affairs (The US and allies vs. the Soviet Union and allies), the international scene has variously been described as "unipolar", "multipolar" and "zero-polar". None of these models has adequately described the many conflicts going on in the past twenty-plus years, especially in the Middle East (where most of those conflicts have happened). This has particularly been the case since the outbreak of the "Arab Spring" in early 2011, when the US changed its support from a longstanding ally, Hosni Mubarak, to an opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been illegal and is now labeled by many countries as a terrorist organization. A cascade of related events led to the war currently raging from Iraq to Libya and beyond, and to a second revolution in Egypt to overthrow the Muslim Brotherhood.

Seizing upon the turmoil caused by these events, various Islamist movements, advocating the implementation of Sharia Law and the revival of the ancient Caliphate, have asserted themselves. In tandem with this confusing swirl, Iran has been pursuing the production and deployment of nuclear weapons, causing great concern among its near neighbors. Iran has also been a major actor in the "Arab Spring"-inspired conflicts, particularly the Civil War in Syria. Up until last September, the US and other Western powers opposed Iran and, for the most part, supported the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated parties, after being ousted from power in Egypt, became intimately entwined with more radical Islamist groups such as Al Nusri, Al Qaeda and ISIS.

When the US withdrew its support in Syria from the Muslim Brotherhood, this was a boon to Iran and others backing the ruling regime there. A few months later, the US and its allies completed the transition with the recently signed treaty with Iran, allowing Iran to continue researching nuclear weapon production and developing the means of enriching uranium to weapons grade. Abandoned by their former backer, the Muslim Brotherhood and the other Islamist groups have recently turned upon one another at the same time that Iran, now bolstered by international support, has begun to take a much more assertive role -- particularly in Iraq.

All of the above leaves the uninformed observer with an impression that the world is simply in chaos, and that no sense can be made of the current conflicts. In presenting the "Three Bloc" scenario, it should become -- for the moment, at least -- fathomable. The three blocs are as follows:

I. THE DOMINANT BLOC, led by the US, with NATO, Russia, Japan, India and Iran as major players. Among the minor players are President Bashar al Assad of Syria, and the terrorist groups Hizbullah and al Fatah.

II. THE EMERGING BLOC, led by the rising economic star, China, and countries associated with her. Minor players include Saudi Arabia and their protege, Egypt, along with their de facto ally Israel.

III. THE JIHADIST BLOC. Unlike the previous blocs, which are, for the most part, concerned with preserving the existing world order, the Jihadist bloc desires the replacement of the current order with one based on a world-ranging Caliphate and the establishment of Sharia Law. Most of the backers of this bloc operate in secret, but there are some state sponsors, namely, Turkey and Qatar.

These divisions are not set in stone, and the situation has, as can be seen from all the above, been rapidly changing. This three-part framework, though, seems to apply at the moment and into the foreseeable immediate future.

APOCALYPTIC PROPHECIES

Just about everyone nowadays, religious and otherwise, has some sort of "End Times" scenario worked out in their heads. World-renowned Agnostic Atheist scientist Stephen Hawking, for instance, believes the earth is doomed to be destroyed within the coming Millennium; and proposes the colonization of outer space as a solution. Without claiming that anyone's ideas are inherently "better" than anyone else's, I hope that this thread can provide an understanding of the current situation as a basis for analyzing their beliefs in light of present-day realities.