Guess what was the most enduring legacy of the
Cold War? It was the four-dozen or so hot wars in which the two big powers –
the United States of America and the Soviet Union – were involved either
directly or by proxy.
Instead of competing for the soul of the smaller
nations around the world (many of which had recently won independence from
colonial rule) by offering economic and technical assistance to develop them,
the big powers fought to bring those nations into their spheres of influence.
The result has been the continued underdevelopment of those nations.
Subsequent to that, two things happened that
reversed the status quo. First, the big powers exhausted each other, and one of
them, the Soviet Union, blinked first, causing the Cold War to come to a
temporary halt. But the door was left open for anything unexpected to happen
next. Consequently, it would be foolish at this time to consider this chapter
closed, or try to predict what will happen precisely.
Second, the former colonial powers, led by Britain
and France –– watching China rise to prominence and making serious forays into
the underdeveloped countries –– realized it was useless to continue wasting
resources trying to recolonize the old colonies. And so, necessity made them
discover the virtue of producing wealth, not by subjugating their former
colonies, but by helping them develop and become economic partners with them.
Whereas Russia –– that used to be the Soviet Union
of the Cold War –– joined in the embrace of that trend, having tried it
successfully during the Cold War years by helping Egypt build the Aswan dam and
hydroelectric station, for example, the United States of America lagged behind.
Its capitalist elites preferred instead to invest the surplus capital they were
generating, in the already developed economies.
While America is ambiguous about what it wants to
do next, it remains tethered to the will of the influential Jews, many of whom
are known to be the brain and/or financial muscles that keep Israel afloat and
mischievous. The latter happens to be an artificial concoction that was created
by mistake. It developed into a wannabe colonial power that wants to take the
world back to the era of the Cold War by dragging America into one. The Jews do
it by making America provoke others, hoping that they will respond and start
the process of escalation.
Their current target is Iran, but no serious
flare-up has resulted so far, even if the Jews invested a great deal toward
that goal. You can see how one influential Jew is trying to push America into
such a situation by reading his latest work. He is Bret Stephens who wrote: “To
Thwart Iran, Save Idlib,” a column that also came under the subtitle: “Why is
the administration so reluctant to block Tehran's most dangerous regional
gambit?” It was published on September 13, 2018 in the New York Times.
Bret Stephens makes the point that Syria's
President, Bashar al-Assad has practically won the war against the terrorists
who came to destroy the country but were destroyed instead. The final battle is
in view, says Stephens, and will take place in the Province of Idlib where
Syria's government forces are preparing to launch the final assault against the
terrorist hideout. Alarmed by the prospect of the terrorists being soundly
defeated, Stephens is calling on America to intervene and save them because
that's where Israel has its interests.
You know what my friend? There is nothing
surprising in that, at least not to those of us who are familiar with Jewish
priorities in the region. In fact, every time there is a dispute between any
two parties involving Arabs and/or Muslims, you'll find that the Jews will side
first and foremost with the terrorists. Below them in the priority sequence,
comes Iran. Below that comes Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. Below that comes
Egypt.
So then, what kind of argument is Bret Stephens
making to prod America to save the terrorists? Well, the answer to this
question comes in two parts. There is what Stephens is saying, and there is
what he is not saying.
First, instead of being honest about it and say:
“save the terrorists,” Bret Stephens is saying: “save Idlib,” which to him
amounts to the same thing. Also, instead of saying “save the civilians of
Idlib,” and calling on the terrorists to put down their arms, he is saying that
saving Idlib is worth doing because the act will annoy Iran. And that's good
enough for him.
Second, what Stephens does not mention, is that
the terrorists are using the civilian population as human shield to hide behind.
Apparently, this is okay with him as long as it is Israel and the terrorists
doing it. Stephens is also not saying that as a result of the terrorists using
the civilian population as human shield, the collateral damage will probably
turn out to be high. But that's of secondary importance to him.
What can America do to help mitigate the
suffering? The first thing it should do is call on the terrorists to put down
their arms to save their own lives and those of the civilian population. If
they don't, and they insist on fighting, America could give the government
forces any information it has on the precise location of the terrorists so that
attacking them surgically, will cause minimum collateral damage.
America can also help by administering first aid
to the injured, and help in the evacuation by helicopter if necessary of those
who will need to be hospitalized.