PRIMEIROS PASSOS DA 3a GUERRA MUNDIAL :

Voltaire.Net, André Chamy, Larouche PAC, Global Research, Mother Jones 
May 2014 - clik 1 - clik 2 - clik 3 - clik 4 - clik 5 
Ocidente em expansão agressiva produz tudo que queria evitar: Eurásia aglutina-se para defesa.
Falha tática divisionista de insuflar conflitos étnicos e religiosos.
An axis has set itself up that starts at the gates of Russia and China to end at those of Tel Aviv. This axis is rooted in Western politicies reserved for this region. The United States, followed by major Western countries, have declared how its economic interests must be preserved at all costs. This biased policy has generated tensions over the years, the source of armed conflicts and street fights that incessantly feed the televised news. This policy, enshrined for some time, was implemented with the support of local stakeholders. 

However, an acceleration took place after the fall of the Berlin Wall, lived as an historical event, which it obviously was, but that marked the advent of an aggressive and contemptuous strategy toward the Middle East. The USSR having disappeared, the countries of the region could not hope for anything other than to rely on Western control, notably that of the United States. Instead of taking advantage of this privileged position as arbitrator, the latter and some other Western countries would favor the crash and the domination of the "extended Middle East" through direct interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in Lebanon, in Yemen and the Maghreb with the declared intention of intervening in Syria and in Iran. The United States has known, since the seventies, following the oil shock, that they must control the sources of raw materials, especially oil, as well as routes for accessing these resources, because they had the bitter experience of discovering this vital necessity both for their economy and for the comfort of their citizens. 

The opinions of experts differ on the assessment of gas reserves and hydrocarbons, but an idea remains constant, that of the finite nature of these treasures that lie in greedy Bedouin hands who have no need of their gold as long as their leisure and fun are funded. At a time when Samuel Huntington’s "clash of civilizations" has replaced the Cold War, Islam has become for the United States the new useful enemy, an "ally" of sorts, against Europe. 

Pragmatic and opportunistic, they have seen in the Islamic movement a "groundswell" and chose to play the Muslim card to better control the arteries of black gold. They had sensed the usefulness of this dangerous ally long before the implosion of communism. Starting also in the 1970s, the United States supported Islamist extremists, from the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood to the Islamist Bosnians and Albanians, from the Taliban to the Egyptian Jamaa Islamyah. There was even talk of their relationship with the FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) which became the violent "GIA" in Algeria. They pampered the Wahhabis at the head of the pro-US Saudi monarchy which finances almost all Islamist networks in the world. They played the sorcerer’s apprentice and fundamentalist movements they believed they could handle sometimes turned against the "Great Satan " to achieve their own goals. In contrast, the U.S. has abandoned or wanted to neutralize Muslim countries likely to gain political power and relative autonomy. Consider President Jimmy Carter’s abandoning the Shah, while Iran was becoming master of its oil. To this is added the will to crush any hint of intellectual independence for even secular Arab countries such as Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Playing with Islamism came to the detriment of secular movements representing an alternative to radical political Islam, the latter representing a safe haven after each failure in this area. 

However, this "Islamism" is obviously not to be confused with the "Islamic" Republic of Iran which has an unusual genesis. Moreover, several authors of distinction studying Islamist movements sometimes make the mistake of confusing the Islamic Republic of Iran with the Islamists, though they have nothing in common, except the fact they reference Islam and Sharia. The fundamental difference is the very definition of political Islam advocated by one and the other.