https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/12/19/anarchy-in-levant-your-future-dream-is-chaos-scheme/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDz1PdMWao
https://michael-hudson.com/2024/12/the-u-s-strategy-of-controlled-anarchy-syria-ukraine-and-beyond/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke9UvCezqIo
The U.S. Strategy of Chaos: Unpacking the Turbulence in the Middle East and Ukraine
The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and Ukraine is marked by persistent conflict and instability, a scenario that seems paradoxical given the United States' capability to broker peace. Michael Hudson and Pepe Escobar offer compelling insights into why the U.S. actively fosters these turbulent conditions rather than seeking resolution.
A Strategy Rooted in Control
Both Hudson and Escobar articulate that the U.S. operates under a strategy designed to ensure dominance over crucial geopolitical regions. As Hudson explains, the U.S. benefits from ongoing chaos in the Middle East and Ukraine by using these conflicts as vehicles for exercising its influence, often through proxy forces like Israel and Ukraine themselves. Armed with the military resources and ideological backing from the U.S., these nations are positioned as frontline defenders capable of engaging adversaries without direct American involvement.
Historically, this approach can be traced back to the 1970s, during which figures like Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Herman Kahn laid the groundwork for U.S. foreign policy. Their strategies revolved around the creation of local factions, such as the Wahhabi jihadists in Afghanistan, to fight on behalf of U.S. interests. This pivotal shift meant that the U.S. could leverage proxy armies to maintain conflict, sidestepping the political backlash that comes with deploying its own troops.
The Failures of Conventional Warfare
Recent military analyses reveal a stark reality: U.S. war games indicate that American forces would likely struggle against adversaries in both the Middle East and Ukraine. This dissonance between expected outcomes and the realities on the ground contributes to the U.S.'s hesitance to bring an end to these conflicts. Instead, Washington maintains a façade of involvement while outsourcing the damage to allied nations, all while presenting itself as a moral arbiter.
Hudson points to a troubling trend where civilian populations become primary targets in what can only be described as acts of terrorism. The rationale for this brutality rests on an assumption that breaking the will of the enemy through psychological and physical warfare will secure U.S. goals — a dangerous gamble that underscores the moral depravity embedded in these military strategies.
The Complexity of Alliances and Future Directions
Complicating matters further, Hudson and Escobar discuss the changing nature of global alliances. Countries like China and Iran are rapidly transforming the geopolitical landscape, fostering cooperation among historically rival factions, including those in the Palestinian movement. This shift represents a direct threat to U.S. hegemony, which has traditionally relied on playing factions against each other.
Both analysts caution that if the U.S. does not reassess its longstanding support for Israeli policies, especially in the face of mounting opposition, it risks alienating a considerable portion of the Middle Eastern populace while bolstering anti-American sentiments. Hudson likens the situation to the historical failings of the Soviet Union, suggesting that just as America capitalized on Moscow's weaknesses in the past, the current geopolitical climate could spell disaster for U.S. interests if left unaddressed.
A Divided Military Strategy
Internal divisions within U.S. military perspectives are becoming increasingly evident. On one side, there are “realist” strategists advocating for practicality and a reassessment of commitments, particularly given the potential for catastrophic outcomes. On the other, a more ideologically driven faction, often aligned with neoconservative principles, pursues aggressive foreign engagement despite the risks. This schism reflects the broader tensions within U.S. policy, where calls for peace from various factions increasingly clash with a warlike logic that has no sustainable basis.
The Road Ahead: Impediments to Peace
The dialogue also reveals a sense of urgency regarding the need for a pragmatic reassessment of U.S. foreign policy. Hudson and Escobar imply that the time may be ripe for the U.S. to embrace a win-win scenario where peaceful relationships with Arab nations take precedence over the historically symbiotic yet damaging U.S.-Israeli alliance. However, this requires a paradigm shift — a departure from entrenched ideologies that view conflict as a necessary means to ensure stability and control.
Despite the challenging landscape, there are small signs of changing perspectives, particularly among those nations historically aligned against U.S. interests. Yet Hudson warns that if this change does not manifest soon, the potential for escalation into broader conflicts remains a looming threat.
Conclusion
The current turbulence in the Middle East and Ukraine is not simply a series of unfortunate events but the culmination of a carefully orchestrated strategy by the U.S. to control significant regions through chaos. Both Michael Hudson and Pepe Escobar elucidate the frameworks of deception and manipulation that characterize American foreign policy, suggesting that peace, stability, and sustainable relationships with global powers should become the new objective. In a world increasingly cognizant of U.S. failings, the opportunity for reevaluation may be on the horizon — but whether it will be acted upon remains uncertain. Recognizing that today’s crises are rooted in historical patterns of behavior offers a crucial lens through which one can understand the pressing necessity for change.