|
|
SMatthewStolte- re: 'peace in the Middle East.'
You inadvertantly put your finger on the problem. Yes, we could, and perhaps should sigil for peace in the Middle East. But it's a very complex topic, one that would have to deal with the US's pandering to Israel set up in the post-WWII 'security triangle.' As the US emerged from the war a superpower, Europe broken and cowed, it depended on fossil-fuel technology for its new supremacy. This meant dealing with the Middle East. But why deal when you can divide and conquer? So, the US engineered a series of treaties and money bribes, probably called 'loans,' to the non-Arabic Middle Eastern powers, Turkey, Israel, and then, Iran. They were to keep the oil supplies not secure, but volatile, and to keep the factionalization of the Arab world at a high level. When Gemal Abdul Nasser of Egypt nationalized various Egyptian commodities (oil, the Suez Canal, cotton...), US interests were jeopardized. Shortly thereafter, the Six-Days war.
The situation is fantastically complex. I can refer further if anyone is interested. |
|
|