The USA's new Nuke - Shale oil

Interesting things happened in March of 2014. Russia invaded Crimea and the world waited with held breath to see how the world would respond. The response would come rather quickly in the form of sanctions. Sanctions that on the surface looked rather mild. Echoes of Georgia 2008 were feared. As was the case then it appeared now that the West was too preoccupied elsewhere to deal properly with Russian aggression.

The sanctions quietly struck at Russian energy expansion aspirations. One of the results of which is the recent halting of the South Stream Pipeline. Behind the scenes something else was happening in the United States. Shale oil production began pumping at an unprecedented rate. Global production had dropped significantly, but U.S. shale production picked up the slack.

On March 24th the leaders of the G8 decided to suspend Russia's membership effectively becoming the G7. 4 days later Barrack Obama would meet with King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia. The public reason for the meeting was that Obama wanted to "reassure" the King on U.S./Saudi relations. He wanted to make it clear that the United States wold not pursue a "bad" nuclear deal with Iran. Whatever else said or discussed was off the record. My guess is that Obama warned his ally of the impending "Shale Boom". They must have discussed their mutual benefit from it.

Some say that the Shale Boom is anything but a benefit to the Saudi Kingdom. In fact the recent OPEC decision not to cut production was seen as a direct attack on shale production. The theory is that the cost to extract shale oil is too expensive to maintain at a low Price Per Barrel (PPB). With both U.S. Shale and OPEC production high the PPB would be so low that Shale producers couldn't keep up.

So who are the losers and who are the winners in this situation? The Saudis have the only reserves in the area large enough to maintain production at such a reduced PPB. The Iranians simply don't. King Abdullah must have smiled at the thought of prolonged and extended nuclear talks with the west. As long as the talks are extended and sanctions are in place the low PPB can effectively hemorrhage the Iranian economy. It's no coincidence that the clear advantage this gives the Saudis over Iran is similar to the advantage this gives the West over Russia.

Think about it. The only people that can play this game and win from it are the Americans and the Saudis. The economies of both Russia and Iran are nearly solely based off of hydrocarbon sales. In time their currency and economies will buckle.

Eventually the low PPB would have an effect on Shale production...but it would take awhile. But let's say that happens. The shale producers will pull back on production, the PPB would rise and that would reopen the profitability to start production again. This model has effectively turned the United State's Shale production into the modern day economic nuclear weapon. Rather than NORAD the frackers now have their thumbs on the "red button". Ready and willing to press it should they have to. Should a country such as Russia or Iran step out of line the U.S. and Saudi Arabia could tank the global PPB again.

We all noticed when Regional powers such as China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc began building up and modernizing their armed forces. The development of new weapons of war has been reported on every front page for the past decade. As tanks roll into Eastern Ukraine, S300 missiles ship to Syria, and satellites enter orbit the most potent weapon of them all was being developed in Southern Texas. The United State's new weapon of war has been developed, tested and as of March 2014 has been deployed on the battlefield. Companies such as Exxon, Marathon and Conocophillips have joined the likes of Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop.

With the Saudi ability to maintain high production regardless of cost and the U.S. ability to manipulate production based off of high or low PPB a new oil production model has been created. That model effectively weaponized Shale oil. But maybe the bigger story here is the diminishing role OPEC will play going forward. You could make the argument that OPEC has been broken by this. Oil is entering a market where those that can manipulate it have changed. Nations that haven't diversified their economies enough will find themselves on uneasy ground.

What's Putin's next move - The Russian Playbook

Russian military units began pouring into Eastern Ukraine this past weekend. No longer trying to hide or be covert. Russian war equipment theatrically paraded across the border with their unit designators on display for all to see. It’s no coincidence that a small army of reporters and tweeters were on site to witness the entire show.

They weren’t even trying to hide it. They might as well have been passing in review in the middle of Red Square.

This isn’t surprising at all. In fact it’s a textbook move by Vladimir Putin. A textbook the Russians have been following since the Soviet Union fell in 1991. When the USSR fell there were two main strategic priorities the Russian’s were concerned about. The first and most important was Ukraine which is Russia’s gateway to Western Europe. Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said the following regarding Ukraine’s importance to Russia:

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

The second was Georgia which is Russia’s gateway to the oil and warm waters of the Middle East. Russia has had aspirations to extend into the Middle East ever since the Stalin days. Both Ukraine and Georgia are the two geographic pivots necessary for Russia to become an empire.

The Soviet Union officially dissolved on Christmas day 1991. The leadership of the new Russian Federation identified their two main priorities and assessed risks. The Soviets had devoted much to Ukraine over the years. The result of which was a heavily entrenched political support base. Ukraine and Belarus along with Russia became the founding members of the new Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Georgia however was another matter. The Russians knew that the Georgian political elite were ready to turn to NATO. To counter this they flamed ethnic fires with two ethnic groups within Georgia. Ossetians in the North and Abkhazians in the North West.

The conflict began as simple protests but it quickly escalated. Ossetians and Abkhazians began attacking Georgian government buildings with home made weapons and hunting rifles. Pretty soon the separatists began getting weapon supplies from Russia. The conflicts came to a close with Russia brokering a cease fire that left Georgia fractured. Two autonomous regions emerged - Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

If this sounds familiar to you….it should be. If you played the news broadcasts of Ukraine today side by side with those from Georgia in 1992 you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. The tactics used are near identical. Remember when the Russian separatists shot down Malaysian commercial flight MH17? That exact same scenario happened in Abkhazia in 1993. Only in Georgia the separatists shot down more than one commercial plane.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-23/news/mn-38196_1_georgian-army       

The process the Russians followed in Georgia is strikingly similar to present day Ukraine. Moscow helps to force a stalemate by supplying the separatists with arms. Once that stalemate happens they help broker a ceasefire.There’s usually a caveat in that ceasefire that states that the Russian military guarantees the peace and will intervene if it’s broken. The end result is an autonomous region within the country that is loyal to Russia.

Fast forward to 2004. Ukraine was on the verge of their “Orange Revolution”. Like the Georgians in 1992 the Ukrainians now looked to the West rather than to Moscow. The uprisings forced a recount in the their ongoing presidential election and the heavily Russian supported Viktor Yanukovych was ousted.

The Orange Revolution would spread to both Belarus and Russia herself. Russia had to do something….

Russia had already laid the foundation for their response back in Georgia in 1992. In 2008 “color revolutions” had spread from Ukraine to Belarus and Russia. For seemingly no reason at all the autonomous region of South Ossetia began shelling various Georgian positions. Georgia counter attacked and closed in on South Ossetia. On cue Russia invaded into Georgia backed up by Abkhazian forces from the North West. The conflict would later end again via a Russian brokered cease fire.

The message was clear - the Soviet Union may be gone but the Russians are still in control. The Georgian conflict sent ripples of fear all over the former Soviet Bloc. The “color revolutions” died out and Ukraine began to slide back under Russia’s thumb.

Ukrainians now in 2014 see themselves as the Georgians of 2008. Russia following their textbook has positioned Kiev to have to make the same decisions Tbilisi made in 2008. If the autonomous regions in Eastern Ukraine begin shelling Ukrainian positions, like the South Ossetians did, Ukraine will have to react with caution and restraint. If they over react Russia will use that to send another message and will fully invade Eastern Ukraine.

What happens next?

I really think that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was something the Russians didn’t expect to happen. They assumed they’d always be able to manipulate Ukraine using their political and economic stranglehold they enjoyed in Kiev. However, when Yanukovych’s regime was ousted Putin was forced to escalate the timeline. 2008 Georgia was brought to 2014 Ukraine. If Ukraine continues their push to integrate into the EU and forge a relationship with NATO Russia will push the autonomous regions in Eastern Ukraine to begin shelling Ukrainian positions….a la South Ossetia 2008. Moscow will wait and gauge their reaction.

If Georgia continues their goals of joining NATO Russia WILL annex either Abkhazia, South Ossetia or both. They’ll most probably annex Abkhazia and dangle South Ossetia as a future warning.

Georgia and Ukraine represent Russia’s primary targets, but keep in mind the effect all this will have on the rest of the region. Places such as Moldova, Belarus and even Russia’s own populace will be watching.

Moscow is following a geopolitical playbook using plays they’ve already ran. Realizing and understanding this is key to predicting what they want and what they’re willing to do in the future.

Why is Oil Crashing? - What can history tell us?

James Fairgrieve was a British geographer and geopolititian in the early 1900’s. One of his theories was that imperialists throughout history had been primarily driven by the search for energy. Over the centuries the political center of the world usually shifts toward which source of energy is relevant at that time.

The 1970’s showed the world just how important hydrocarbons had become to the global economy. The Middle East became the political center of the world. OPEC would reduce oil output and embargo the West for supporting Israel. On top of that, the overthrow of the Shah in Iran would all but hault oil production for Tehran.

1970’s Oil Crisis

The result - oil prices went through the roof. Heavily industrialized countries that depended on oil saw stagnant economic growth. The world found themselves grouped as such:

1. Heavily dependant on foreign oil supplies. Recession imminent. (Western Europe)
2. Partly reliant on foreign oil mixed with a steady domestic supply. (United States)
3. Domestic oil production is the primary source of GDP. (OPEC countries and USSR)

Oil became an extremely powerful tool the world’s geopolitical players would use to impose their foreign policy and ensure their interests.

History would later see Kissinger persuade the Israelis to leave the Sinai and the Golan Heights. The oil embargo would soon be lifted. Oil production would normalize and with that the Brent crude price per barrel would go down.

1980’s Oil Glut

Ronald Reagan would use the 1970’s energy crisis as a playbook for economic warfare. It’s rumored that President Reagan sent CIA director William Casey to Saudi Arabia in 1981 to initiate a lethal strike aimed at the Soviet Union’s pocket book.

The deal - Saudi Arabia was weak in military hardware. They were threatened on every border by Iraq, Iran, and the USSR. The Soviets had coveted the Middle East since before WW2.

Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov traveled to Berlin in 1940 for a meeting with Hitler. The reason? Hitler wanted to lure Stalin into an alliance. He knew that the best way to win a war in Western Europe was to ensure he didn’t have to fight the Soviets on his Eastern flank. Hitler and Mussolini both figured that Stalin wouldn’t intervene. Stalin wouldn’t risk spilling Russian blood for the sake of the English and French.

Hitler decided to dangle the idea of inviting Russia into the trio of Germany/Italy/Japan. A “Four-Power Pact” rather than the “Three-Power Pact”. Hitler’s meeting with Molotov was to discuss these terms and to divvy up the spheres of influence they would each inherit after the war.

What was Stalin’s primary condition for joining with Hitler? Straight from Molotov’s mouth:

“The first protocol, dealing with the spheres of influence, must recognise that the area south of Batum and Baku in the general direction of the Persian Gulf is recognised as the centre of gravity of the aspirations of the Soviet Union.”

The Russians were basically quoting James Fairgrieve. They recognized that the Middle East was now the “political center of the world”. It was the Russian “center of gravity”. The German’s, however, invented geopolitics and would never agree to this. Hitler never replied to Stalin’s conditions and the Soviets would never join the Three-Power Pact.

CIA Director Casey and President Ronald Reagan believed the Soviet’s still saw the Middle East as their “center of gravity”. The Saudis believed this as well. The deal was simple. The United States promised military backing and equipment so that Saudi Arabia could solidify their borders. In return the Saudis promised to defy OPEC and over flood the market with oil. The United States would also ramp up production. The result - The 1980’s Oil Glut. Oil prices dropped so low that the USSR lost billions per day. They would never recover and the Soviet Union inevitably would collapse.

There’s the history. What does that show us today?

Has anyone noticed their gas prices lately? Why on earth are oil and gas prices going down in a world that is ripped by instability? Here is a graph that shows oil prices over the past 6 months:

As you can see there’s been a dramatic drop in the price per barrel since mid June. What’s the catalyst making this happen?

1. Dramatic increase in production from the U.S.
2. Dramatic increase from Libya (despite internal turmoil).
3. Saudi Arabia increases production despite OPEC objections (sound familiar?).

First of all, who benefits from this? Who gets hurt?

Russia

It’s hard for me not to quote Sean Connery from The Hunt for Red October, “Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary.”

We’re pulling the same levers we’ve pulled in the past. It’s amazing that the Russians haven’t diversified their economy away from hydrocarbon sales. Reagan furiously opposed the Urengoi pipeline that began Western Europe’s dependency on Russian gas. He warned the Europeans that Russia would gain a significant strategic advantage over them, but the pipeline was built regardless.

We’re seeing the result of that today in the proxy war in Eastern Ukraine. It’s not a coincidence that as the Russians began to support the separatists in Eastern Ukraine the price of oil began to drop out of the cellar. The Ukraine crisis and this modern day “oil crash” happened one after the other. The United States has played this move before and the Russians know they have little to counter it with. Washington D.C. sent a clear message to Russia. That they’re not only willing but completely able to crash Moscow’s economy if provoked to do so.

Putin now has to try and increase demand so that the PPB (price per barrel) goes back up. Look for them to increase cooperation with China. China has the demand to effect the PPB. My guess is that we’ll see news come from that in the near future.

Iran

Tehran is in an interesting predicament here. Their heavily sanctioned economy is also primarily driven by hydrocarbon sales. At the same time they’re locked in intense negotiations regarding their nuclear program. This gives the U.S. and Saudi Arabia a lot of leverage. It may force Iran to make considerable concessions.

It’s important to note that, just like in the 80’s, we must have promised the Saudis….something. The Saudis main struggle right now is Iran. Proxy battles between the Iranians and Saudis are being fought all over the Middle East. In Yemen, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, etc. Even the Iranian/U.S. rapprochement itseIf is a major setback for the Saudis. If a deal was indeed made look for progress on one of these fronts. Would the U.S. consider backing out of the Iranian nuclear talks all together to appease the Saudis? I guess we’ll find out soon.

Libya

The situation in Libya is interesting. Quite frankly I’m shocked that Libya has been able to produce as much oil lately as they’ve been. The central government has had to relocate as militias have gained more and more power daily. Somehow, Libya was able to flood the global oil market with a billion barrels per day.

Where is the Libyan oil coming from? Primarily from the Waha oil field. The Waha oil field is operated by 3 companies: ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp, and Marathon Oil. All U.S. based companies. Draw your own conclusions there…

Conclusion

James Fairgrieve made an observation in the 1900’s that very well could have influenced Russian geopolitical thinkers for the entire century. What was theory in Fairgrieve’s time became very much the reality in the 1970’s and 80’s. The players back then are the same today. The conflicts are a bit different but the circumstances are remarkably the same. The biggest difference from the old Cold War to our new one today is in the timeline. Economic warfare such as this was Reagan’s knock out final blow. The United States this time has used it as their opening salvo.

Understanding the situation in Ukraine

Kiev and Russian backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine have agreed to a ceasefire while they work on the details of autonomy for the Donetsk/Luhansk regions. A few skirmishes have flared but all in all the ceasefire appears to be holding.

Many people in the West are left scratching their heads wondering what the deal is. What does this mean? What is Putin doing? What’s the end game?

How did we get here?

It’s been both amusing and disturbing how the media has reported on the Ukraine crises. Regardless of whether it’s TV, radio, or print you’ve probably been duped into thinking that after much struggle the evil Vladimir Putin twisted his mustachios and walked away having outsmarted the West. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let’s make this abundantly clear...Russia has endured a tremendous loss in Ukraine. When Viktor Yanukovych halted deals with the EU he made it very clear that Ukraine was no longer neutral and would be a partner with Russia. This effectively alienated 75% of the country and plunged them into full on revolt. The rumor from the inside walls of the Kremlin is that Putin fired his entire staff of Ukrainian advisors after Yanukovych was deposed. He was furious with their reckless miscalculation.

Annexing Crimea was a last ditch effort and one that Putin had no choice but to take. Yes, he gained Crimea….but he LOST Ukraine. Moscow’s strategy since the fall of the Soviet Union has been to keep Ukraine neutral. Neither tipping one way or the other. The usually patient and calculating Putin uncharacteristically moved too soon. This had the effect of pivoting Ukraine towards the West rather than to Moscow. Putin has been in full on chaotic damage control ever since.

What does Ukraine mean to Russia?

First of all, it’s important to identify what Ukraine’s importance is to Russia. That’ll be important to clarify when we contrast Ukraine’s importance to the West.

Ukraine is Russia’s strategic priority in Central/Western Europe. Ukraine represents the gateway of either foreign invasion into mother Russia or mother Russian invasion into Western Europe.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor in the late 70’s and early 80’s. In the book The Grand Chessboard Brzezinski says this about Ukraine:

“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”

“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”

Russia must maintain influence over Ukraine if it ever aspires to be a dominant Empire again. Even if Putin see’s those aspirations as being far off or even untainable again Moscow must continue to pursue it. To do otherwise would show considerable weakness to Russia’s periphery, the rest of the world, and their own citizens.

Ukraine represents Russia’s symbolic and actual desire to be an empire once again.

What is Russia’s strategy in Eastern Ukraine?

Putin’s Ukrainian strategy is similar to what he has done in other breakaway regions in Eastern Europe such as Georgia and Moldova. The goal is to unite and arm minority ethnic Russians and have them claim self determination.

If the host nation responds violently Putin can intervene claiming humanitarian relief to ethnic Russians. If the host nation grants autonomy Putin can use the threat that eventually the autonomous region may eventually try and achieve full on independance. Possibly even amalgamation by Russia entirely.

The threat of ethnic instability will be a considerable lever Moscow can pull to gain leverage. That along with energy control is how Russia manipulates her periphery.

The biggest problem with this strategy is two fold:

1. Putin is stoking ethnic tension in an area that is highly volatile. At a time where nationalism and far right groups are gaining ground rapidly. Ethnic Ukrainians are rising up in considerable numbers. Rather than having a favorable opinion towards Russians or even neutral, Putin has turned Ukrainians into enemies.
2. Ethnic Russians in many regions that Putin is employing this strategy are on the decline. Ethnic Russian birth rates are going down in places like Eastern Ukraine, the Caucasus, Georgia, etc. The older generation that remember the glory days of the Soviet Union are dieing out.

What does Ukraine mean to the United States?

Ukraine has no immediate strategic value to the United States. Ukraine’s primary purpose for the U.S. is to distract the Russians. Washington knows that Ukraine is vital to Moscow and this provides an obvious weakness. Russia can never let Ukraine fall out of influence. They’ll literally drop everything they’re doing to run to that battle field. It’s that important.

6-12 months ago Moscow was making a push into the world that we hadn’t seen in a long time. They were challenging US interests in the Middle East, South America, etc. Putin made considerable strides in Syria, Egypt, Venezuela, and China. He also stepped up aggressive politics in his periphery attempting to gain leverage in the former Soviet influence states of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, etc.

From the Western point of view it appeared that Putin had reached a point where he believed that the time was ripe to expand Russian influence and power in the world. It’s of no coincidence that the Ukrainian revolution quickly followed. Overnight Moscow went silent on Syria, Egypt, etc. All Russian assets focused on Ukraine. This in turn freed up the U.S. and her allies to re-engage and gain momentum in other parts of the world without Russian interference.

What is the United State’s strategy in Ukraine?

The United States will not resort to a strong military response in Ukraine. Don't take this the wrong way. We're definitely not scared to do it. In fact if we were really serious about halting Russian advances in Ukraine we would most definitely encourage NATO to put boots on the ground in Eastern Ukraine.

George Kennan was the father of the Soviet containment policy and had this to say about the Russians:

"Soviet power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventunstic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point.

Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns."

We have no intention of forcing Putin to back down so early in this conflict. If we did we would have responded as per our knowledge and doctrine on Russia tells us what will work. This doctrine is true today just as it was in the 50's. Show Putin you're willing to hit him on the jaw....he'll back down.

The truth is we don't want him to back down yet.  We want this to drag on as long as possible.

Long term strategy

Putin looks to control the Russian periphery with minority ethnic Russians and natural gas control. The United States pursues a strategy of economic reform and maintaining pro democracy groups that form mass demonstrations like the one at Maidan.

There of many examples of how the U.S. tempts nations with their economic superiority. Even in Eastern Europe. In the 1950’s during the Cold War General Electric bought into light bulb manufacturing in Hungary. That along with other Western foreign investment provided a considerable temptation to the native Communist party.

More recently, the United States has almost single handedly transformed Poland into one of the strongest economies in Europe. Between 1992 and 2001 the United States pumped in over 50 billion in foreign investment. You can track U.S. interest in a country by following foreign investment.

Today in Ukraine we see similar signs that U.S. economic power is starting to sneak in. Organizations such as the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC) are quietly bringing in Western companies to invest.

U.S. energy company Westinghouse has also moved in to supply Ukranian Nuclear facilities with nuclear fuel. This is part of a much larger plan to begin weaning Europe off of Russian energy as a whole.

Conclusion

In the end Ukraine currently represents two things: A grand strategy to Russia and a grand Distraction Mechanism by the West. Remember that geopolitics ultimately is a big game against competing nations. The name of the game is who can politically dominate the most space. Russia is concentrating on her region and the U.S. is more concerned with Russian interference in other parts of the world.

As for the Ukrainians? The name of their game is the same as its been their entire existence. Survival. Survive while being tugged on between powerful outsiders. Caught in the middle of an argument they didn't  start. Geography is cold and and without empathy. Ukraine is an example of a nation destined for struggle based off of its unforgiving geography.

Arming the Syrian Rebels - A bad idea

Last week the United States Senate voted to arm and train the Syrian rebels. It’s amazing to me how such an awful idea can appear the absolute right choice to policy makers. I think it’s important for not only Americans but the majority of the West to realize what it is we’re supporting here.

The Middle East and Western manipulation.

Ever since the end of WW1 Western governments have been putting their fingers in the Sykes-Picot damn hoping it won’t burst. For nearly 100 years the Middle East has been on fire moving from one war or conflict to another. It’s of no surprise that the people living in the west have rationalized this areas constant state of warfare as being due to it just simply being a highly volatile place. Western societies are so far removed from the Middle East that understanding the “Why” of the problem was never considered important.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire T.E. Lawrence suggested the Middle East be split up like so:

Lawrence’s main dealings were with the Hashemite family who were the rulers of the Hejaz. The Hejaz is in present day Saudi Arabia and contains the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Lawrence wanted to give the majority of the land to the Hashemites, but he made sure and allocated mandates for both the British and the French. You can see he was conflicted on what to do with the Kurdish lands. He marks those simply as question marks.

I truly think that Lawrence loved the Arabian lands. He really wanted to give the Arabs a kingdom that ruled over the former Ottoman areas in the Middle East. Dealing with the Hashemites seemed like the best way to go. They had direct lineage to Muhammad and were influential during the Umayyad Caliphate. Their King was ruler over the Hejaz which gave them credibility all over Islamic lands.

However, Arab tribes were highly competitive. The Sykes-Picot Agreement played off of Arab rivalries. The S/P map looked like this:

The al Saud’s would immediately rebel against the Hashemites attacking and conquering the Hejaz. As a consolation prize the British would create TransJordan to give to the Hashemites. The Hashemites were also given the Kingdom of Syria but France would renege on that deal. Again, as a consolation prize the Hashemites would be given Iraq. Syria, Iraq, and Jordan were all made up countries with made up borders. Half of them given away as consolation prizes. The Saudis would maintain their border and respect the new nation states as part of a British treaty.

A natural regional evolution.

The following map is what we’ve had since. It should be very recognizable:

This entire area should hold new meaning now. It should be of no surprise why after 100 years we are still seeing such turmoil. The governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are all Western creations. The Middle East should have gone through a natural evolution after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Instead, Imperialistic tampering stunted their growth.

I believe what we’re seeing now in the MIddle East is the progression that would have taken place back in 1918 if Sykes-Picot would have never happened. I think the U.S. invasion of Iraq created a power vacuum that jump started this process. Then came the Arab Spring...then came a power vacuum in Syria.

ISIS has now carved a path through the Middle East that looks very similar to what T.E. Lawrence originally promised to the Hashemites. Lets be very blunt here. We currently don’t have operational governments in Syria and Iraq. They lack the ability to project power within their own borders.

Basically you have a Middle East that is being fought over by warlords and tribes. Assad in Syria is no more than a warlord that governs the city of Damascus. Likewise the government in Iraq doesn’t govern much outside the boundaries of Baghdad.

In contrast, the Islamic State governs and projects power throughout the borders of two separate states. They have instituted Sharia law in their controlled cities. Most people don’t know this but ISIS controls oil fields that used to belong to both Damascus and Baghdad. The Islamic State sells that oil to neighboring countries….just like a typical nation state.

The Middle East now looks more like this:

The only border lines that actually mean anything are the Israeli, Jordanian, and Saudi lines. Everything else is about to go through significant change. It’s reverting back to not only tribal but clan rivalries. The Sunni/Shia differences are only a fraction of the problem. In some tribes/clans Sunni/Shia inter marry.

Arm the Syrian Rebels?

Now back to the point of arming the Syrian rebels to fight off ISIS. Does that make sense now? Do the rebels in Syria have more conflict with ISIS or with the Western created government of Bashar al Assad? Most people haven’t heard that the American and British journalists beheaded by ISIS were sold to them from a rebel group in Syria.

It is not in the National Interest of the American people to support the rebels in Syria. In the end, this will only increase ISIS’s influence not deter it. More weapons and soldiers will flip and join ISIS. Those that don’t will turn to Damascus and re-engage Assad. Eventually, the power vacuum that widens will open a door for ISIS to move further into Syria.

We have to support a policy that treats the Islamic State as an actual nation state. Now, I don’t support granting it any independant recognized status, but to fight them we have to stop treating them like Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is more like an international espionage group. They work in the shadows training “agents” to attack targets all over the world. The Islamic State is an army that is trying to influence power in a specific space. That right there, in the words of Robert Strausz Hupe, is the definition of geopolitics.

What should U.S. policy be?

To fight any other state abroad we would seek a reliable counter or check to their power. Now is the time to erase Lawrence’s question marks on his map and define the borders of Independent Kurdistan. The Kurds shouldn’t be used as bargaining chips and levers between Iran and Turkey. A strong Independent western backed Kurdistan could be the regional counter that we’re looking for. They could push on the IS from the North and diminish their foothold in both Northern Iraq and Syria. You don’t have to worry about them defecting to ISIS or turning and fighting against Assad. They’ll be defending their homeland.

We would seek to build a coalition. Not just any coalition, but a coalition of nations that have a reason to fight the Islamic State. There is absolutely no reason why French or U.S. aircraft should be bombing ISIS right now. Especially not when Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey could be doing it instead. U.S. and western direct support should be held back as a guarantee. It should not be the first strike option.

Before the President goes to war with ISIS he needs to clearly define our National Interest in doing so. There’s no question whether ISIS should be defeated or not….they should be. The question is how do we manage the situation in a way that improves the overall situation in the Middle East and aligns with the nations national interest.

We simply must reconcile the past. The West is directly responsible for the current turmoil in the Middle East. There’s no denying it. We must now admit that yes we are an empire but there are ways to fix the mistakes of the past. We can’t continue to put our fingers in the dam. We have to let the dam come down and build new infrastructure that’s not founded in deceit.