by Andrew Korybko
All the chaos that’s been unleashed in Eurasia can be attributed to the existential battle between the Exceptionalists and the Integrationalists, represented respectively by the unipolar and multipolar worlds. A lot has lately been written about the emerging triangle of defensive and incorporative interests between Russia, China, and Iran, yet not much has been published about the offensive alliance between American Exceptionalism, Zionism, and Wahhabism, the three ideologies dedicated to dividing the diverse multipolar forces in Eurasia and perpetuating unipolar dominance. The aim of the piece is not at all to demonize the identities mistakenly caught up in blanket association with these ideologies (Westerners, Jews, Muslims), but rather to illustrate how the most extreme strains of thought tangentially associated with them have become the most destabilizing forces in Eurasia, and how the ‘unholy alliance’ between these three has emerged as the primary driver of conflict in the supercontinent.
The Three Exceptions
A brief definition of the three instigators of instability is as follows:
Adherents of this ideology hold an ingrained belief that the country’s unique geography and place on the historical timeline endows its leadership with the right to proselytize (even militarily, if need be) its governing, economic, and social models all across the world.
Proponents assert that Jews have a special relationship with God and an historical imperative to recreate the Biblical Israeli state, which thus gives their leadership the right to do whatever is deemed to be in their global interests.
Unquestioning and fervent conviction in the “pureness” of this strain of Islamic interpretation emboldens its practitioners to commit whatever means of savagery and barbarism are necessary to create a global un-“Islamic State”.
These three ideologies share pivotal structural similarities that essentially make them separate faces of the same actor, a modern-day Cerberus, if one will. Here are the most important commonalities that tie them together:
The practitioners of these ideologies identify themselves as “special”, thus convincing themselves that they’re entitled to break established rules and enact a plethora of double standards in order to shape the world according to their design.
Each of these movements believes that their success is inevitable, and that it’s a question of “when” not “if” they succeed.
Accordingly, in order to facilitate their historical inevitability, they must partake in a global strategy designed to safeguard their interests and promote their core entities (the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, respectively).
Antagonism To Multipolarity:
By their very nature, none of these ideologies is compatible with multipolarity and the plurality of geopolitical thought, which is why they’ve been harnessed to come together as the Cerberus in attempting to halt and reverse this global trend.
One mustn’t make the mistake of forgetting that these movements are not representative of the majority of their blanket associates (Westerners [Europeans are subordinated as second-rate Exceptionalists under American tutelage], Jews, Muslims), although each ideological vanguard attempts to create the illusion that this is so in order to ‘justify’ and ‘legitimize’ its extreme minority control over affairs.
The Interplay Of Interests
The Cerberus is formed of three different faces that each espouse a different variation of seemingly incompatible Exceptionalism, but in reality they’re each complementary to one another’s long-term goal in defeating multipolarity. Per their shared hypocritical standards, the only inclusiveness allowed in their vision is the convergence of American Exceptionalism, Zionism, and Wahhabism as an ultra-exclusive unipolar super model. It will later be argued in another section that this unstable arrangement is a geo-ideological gambit that could seriously backfire against Zionism and Wahhabism, all to the US’ eventual geopolitical benefit (and perhaps even through its own hand).
Before getting to that point, however, it’s necessary to chronicle how the convergence of interest between these three ideologies came to be in the first place and what interplay of interests lays at the crossroads of their strategic cooperation. While it may be possible to document such examples prior to World War II, it wasn’t until its aftermath that the relationships really began to come to light and were activated on a massive regional scale throughout the entire Mideast, initiating the destructive processes that have accelerated in the present day.
The American Exceptionalist-Zionist Alliance:
The US emerged from World War II with the capacity to extend its military reach all across Eurasia, but one regional theater (aside from the Soviet Bloc) posed a noticeable problem for its penetration, and that was the Mideast. The US had vested geopolitical interests in shattering Arab unity after World War II (partly in order to preempt the possible creation of a pro-Soviet supranational entity) and creating a geopolitical perch that could allow it to practice a permanent proxy intervention role in picking apart each regional payer, hence the creation of Israel and the formalization of the American Exceptionalist-Zionist strategic convergence. The global significance of the Mideast for American Exceptionalism’s grand strategy will be explained in the following section, but what’s important to understand at this juncture is that American Exceptionalism’s empowerment and support of Zionism was meant to create a proxy partner that had a shared interest in militarily unraveling Arab unity, which is exactly what the ultimate result of the Arab-Israeli wars happened to be.
After the Arab coalitions were defeated, the military component of Arab unity was neutralized, the importance of which cannot be understated. Only through Arab unity could there be a chance of defeating Israel and accordingly remove the US’ intergenerational perch in the Mideast, the geostrategic connecting region between Europe and Asia (and equally positioned to exert influence on both, if properly applied). Israel, unlike any other American allies, is directly dependent on the US for both its creation and existence, and is hence much more reliable as a long-term committed ally (both ideologically and politically) than any other country. The US needs Israel’s strategic location and regional military contracting services to keep Arab governments perpetually weak and divided, while Israel needs the US’ full-spectrum support to continue to exist, thus explaining the intensive depth of support that each entity has for the other.
Despite militarily cracking Arab unity, Israel is inherently incapable of destroying the bond that connects Arab people, hence why another Exceptionalist component had to be brought into the mix in order to achieve this and remove any possibility that an Arab coalition could ever threaten Israel (and by extension, the US’ premier Eurasian super base) again.
The Wahhabist Weapon:
Saudi Arabia’s official ideology, Wahhabism, was thus selected as the destructive ideology necessary to tear apart Arab unity and sow irreconcilable identity discord among the Arab people for generations. It placed its victims on the horns of a major dilemma, in which they were forced to choose whether they were secular pan-Arabs along the model of Nasser or extremist pan-Islamists like the Saudi Kings. While Nasser preached the importance of a progressive republican form of government, the Saudis strictly supported authoritarian monarchism, thus putting the two Mideast ideologies at odds with one another and motivating the Wahhabis to find external support in eliminating the most pressing threat to their ideological existence.
It was through this imperative, namely the challenge that secular pan-Arab republicanism posed to extremist pan-Islamic authoritative monarchism, that the Wahhabis decided to join the American Exceptionalist-Zionist alliance which also was dedicated to defeating the Saudis’ ideological rivals. The Wahhabist virus is such that it’s engineered to destabilize secular pan-Arab governments by forcing each citizen to reconsider their most basic identity, thus theoretically making most of these countries’ citizens vulnerable to its allure. On top of that, not only does Wahhabism preach the need to overthrow secular governments, but it also carries with it militant takfirism that leads to sectarian warfare. Thus, Wahhabism is uniquely positioned to divide Arabs both from their secular governments and also from themselves, thereby presenting the ultimate divisive ideology to ever serve the interests of the American Exceptionalist-Zionist alliance.
While Wahhabism is known for its unflinching ideological hatred, just like the other two Exceptionalist ideologies, it also partakes in major hypocritical standards, namely in the surprise moderation of its policies towards Israel and the US. It holds out the tantalizing hint of conducting an eventual religious war against Israel but notably never takes steps to actualize it. Instead, it focuses all of its time and energy on dividing the Mideast in as many ways as possible (ergo the takfirism that defines Wahhabism), meaning that any slogans against Israel are purely just that, and are designed simply to spread a marketing campaign for more naïve recruits. At the same time, certain Wahhabist elements have a tendency to go rogue and let ideology get the better of their externally imposed ‘practicality’ (whether by design or accident), which can open up either ‘opportunities’ or vulnerabilities for the American Exceptionalists depending on the context (to be explained in a later section).
The Significance Of The War On Syria:
Considering all of the aforementioned agreements in strategic focus endemic to the American Exceptionalist-Zionist-Wahhabist alliance (hereto referred to as Cerberus), the War on Syria becomes what may aptly be described as the most pivotal Eurasian resistance struggle today. Other than the fact that all three heads of Cerberus are bitterly engaged in mauling this Mideast nation and its people to pieces, Syria represents the last vestige of secular pan-Arab governance due to the ideological foundations of the Baath Party. This qualifies it as the most Resistant & Defiant state in Israel’s nearest vicinity and by itself is reason enough for Cerberus’ enemies (thenceforth referred to as the Herculean Coalition [the anchors of which are Russia, China, and Iran] after the Greek hero that defeated Cerberus) to support its democratically elected government. If Cerberus is successful in slaughtering Syria, then this would herald in a Dark Age for the Mideast that would turn the entire region into a launching pad for further destabilization into the Eurasian interior, and thus, expressly target the geographic vulnerabilities of the Herculean Coalition.
There’s a reason that all of Cerberus’ three-headed interests coincide in the Mideast, and it’s not simply because two of the three ideologies emerged in this region. Rather, there are greater geopolitical underpinnings as to why Cerberus focuses so intently on the area, since just as the mythical beast itself guards the gates of hell in Greek folklore, in Eurasian geostrategy, it’s at the forefront of the gate to the supercontinent, being specifically positioned to exert influence on Europe, Asia, and even Africa if need be. It’s not to say that Eurasia is hell, but instead to emphasize that in both cases, Cerberus occupies a position of access, the mythological of which was defensive while the geopolitical equivalent is offensive. Modern-day Cerberus is intent on using its location as a springboard for further attacks into Eurasia in an effort to destroy the Herculean Coalition, and its strategy closely follows the dictates of British strategist Halford Mackinder.
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island:
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”
He was absolutely correct in ascertaining that command of the Heartland, largely identified with contemporaneous Central Asia, was pivotal in exerting influence all throughout Eurasia, but he neglected to consider additional approaches for controlling this crucial piece of geopolitical real estate. At the time it seemed as though Eastern Europe was the only gateway to achieving this, but increasingly, it appears as though the Mideast can serve just as much, if not more, of a facilitating role given its Eurasian Balkans credentials of demographic chain-reaction fragmentation.
Brzezinski’s theoretical innovation to Mackinder’s axiom is that command and control do not have to be direct or even require a physical presence, but that given the innate ability of the center to influence the periphery, that massive destabilization in the Heartland (be it through Islamic terrorist insurgency, state collapse, humanitarian crises, and/or a combination thereof plus additional factors) can automatically radiate outwards. In today’s world, this means that asymmetrical threats indirectly instigated by out-of-regional actors such as Cerberus can lead to simultaneous challenges for the three main members of the Herculean Coalition, not only putting them on the severe strategic defensive, but actually endangering their existence if allowed to grow out of control (as purposefully envisioned by Cerberus). In the early 20th century, Mackinder may have thought of state armies rolling through Eastern Europe en route to taking control of the Heartland, but in the early 21st century, it’s more likely that this will take the form of terrorist brigades originating in or having acquired their battle experience in the Mideast that happen to ‘pop up’ in the Heartland without any direct links to state sponsors.
The Mideast is therefore the fulcrum of Eurasian-African (in)stability, and thus, any entity that controls it can export asymmetrical and conventional force in near-equidistant direction to penetrate the heart of Africa, the heart of Europe (or even Eastern Europe, for that matter), and the Eurasian Heartland (the key continental gateway to East Asia). Such a geopolitical understanding of power and force projection adds an updated component to Mackinder and Brzezinski’s theoretical contributions and explains the reasoning behind the Mideast-centric application of Cerberus’ wrath.
Cerberus isn’t limited to only the Mideast, although that’s where the majority of its activities and strategic focus are concentrated. One can actually identify its involvement in Europe and Asia as well, which will be explored in this section.
Bark, Bite, Beg:
Prior to commencing the overview, Cerberus’ pattern in Europe and Asia needs to be conceptually outlined so as to draw more of the reader’s attention to it. Basically, each of its three heads fulfills the interchanging role of barking (threatening, fear mongering), biting (attacking), and begging (lobbying) in order to push its collective interest. Let’s look at how they work in practice.
The US uses NATO to control the continent, and it bitterly barks at its puppies any time they’re reluctant to follow its lead in whatever the issue of the day may be. The US also barks loudly about the so-called “Russian threat” without providing any evidence of what there is to be scared of in the first place. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi zombies are being deployed to the Balkans and select Western European countries to carry out strategic terrorist attacks designed to take a bite out of continental security and stabilization, as well as to prod the US’ NATO puppies into taking Washington’s ‘suggested’ courses of action on various topics. Finally, Israel rounds up the trio by lobbying the continent and its key political and social figures in order to gather as much financial, political, and normative support for Cerberus as possible. The implicit threat is that a rejection of support for Cerberus will translate into more barking by the US and biting by the Saudis, meaning that it’s best to feed the begging mouth in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences from the other two heads.
Cerberus has only lately turned its three heads to the East, but it’s been relatively successful in such a short timeframe. The US has been barking incessantly about China ever since Hillary Clinton announced the Pivot to Asia in 2011, and its doing this with the intent of scaring the ‘little dogs’ surrounding it into a NATO-modeled alliance of anti-Chinese containment. As a means of deepening the US’ security engagement with each of these members, especially in the case of Thailand and the Philippines, Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi proxies occasionally carry out terrorist attacks to ‘justify’ an increased and intensified US presence and/or strategic oversight, and this pattern is only expected to increase with the creation of the globally oriented un-“Islamic State”. Israel’s role, while largely muted, is disproportionately significant to its size, in that its begging efforts appear to be on the verge of successfully lobbying India over to the side of Cerberus. Israel has had breakthrough relations with India since the rise of the Modi government, as the new ‘multipolar’ Prime Minister is reluctant to become too overtly close with the US and of course hates the Saudis and their Wahhabi terrorism (and political support of Pakistan). Thus, Israel represents the perfect solution for Cerberus to penetrate the subcontinental hegemon and pursue its partners’ shared interests.
Cerberus’ home theater is characterized by a dynamic interplay of ever-changing and less clearly defined roles dependent on the specific circumstances at hand. Each of its three heads vigorously cycles through the available roles as is necessary in order to advance the allied entity’s shared goals. One example might see the US barking about the un-“Islamic State” while Saudi-supported agents provide the on-the-ground bite to justify the fear America was mongering, whereas another one could see Israel and the Saudis barking about the ‘threat’ of Saddam Hussein while the US begs for an international coalition prior to its devastating bite. A future scenario that’s not too unlikely might see Israel barking about alleged Iranian non-compliance with the forthcoming nuclear deal, while the US begs the world to support the Arab NATO’s Lead-From-Behind punitive bite against Tehran.
As mentioned near the beginning of the article, Cerberus is centered on an unstable geo-ideological foundation that might unexpectedly crack along its two major Zionist and Wahhabist fault lines. Both sides suspect that the other may turn on them one day, hence why they’re both eager to cultivate as privileged relations as possible with their American Exceptionalist sibling, which only works out to Washington’s prime strategic benefit. The Zionists are afraid of two scenarios: that the Wahhabi terrorists become strong enough on their own to disobey Riyadh and wage jihad against Israel outside of the US or Saudi Arabia’s control; or that Saudi Arabia will one day betray Israel and directly order its terrorist proxies to attack it in order to fully complete the un-“Islamic State”. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is apprehensive of the Zionist Yinon Plan and fully aware of Ralph Peters’ “Blood Borders” map and the New York Times’ “How 5 Countries Could Become 14” suggestions, all of which deal with the eventual dismemberment of the kingdom. Pure Zionism and pure Wahhabism cannot coexist due to these existential contradictions, hence why a falling out is inevitable if Cerberus eliminates the Herculean Coalition (the main force that glues it together).
If they turn on each other prematurely before the Coalition can be conquered, then both Zionism and Wahhabism open themselves up to being separately defeated in a devastating counter-attack, which would then lead to the disintegration of American Exceptionalist influence in Eurasia. Therefore, the nature of the gambit is that they can prolong their falling out until afterwards, or that the US is able to somehow balance relations between them to the point of precluding such a scenario, which is the policy that it currently practices. Washington regularly intimates that it could throw additional weight towards one or the other and subsequently disrupt the delicate balance keeping the peace between its three heads. It’s not serious enough to do so at this point, of course, and all Exceptionalist sides understand that they need the other in order to continue surviving until the reactionary Herculean Coalition can be dealt with, but the prospect of such a suicidal security dilemma succeeds in scaring Israel and Saudi Arabia to the point of unquestionable cooperation within the Cerberus framework (for now, at least).
The only alternative to Cerberus is the eventual removal of the Exceptionalist Ideological minority from each captive entity, which would see the American Exceptionalists ousted from the US, the Zionists from Palestine, and the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia, thus leading to a change in their foreign policies and internal organization. None of this means that these entities are facing geopolitical elimination, as only the minority Exceptionalist Ideologies and their practitioners are under existential threat of losing anything at all (namely their power and ‘legitimacy’), but it is this fear of those currently in power that desperately motivates them to aggressively summon Cerberus in indefinitely prolonging their unipolar hegemony. Ironically, only through their theoretical ‘success’ in destroying the Herculean Coalition do the odds dramatically increase that they may be geopolitically eliminated, as the aforementioned ideological contradictions between Zionist and Wahhbist Exceptionalists inevitably means that they’ll militarily clash in a duel to the death someday. Even in the ‘best case’ scenario of a victory over the Herculean Coalition and a fragile cold peace between these two incompatible camps, there’s no guaranteeing that the American Exceptionalists won’t purposely tip the strategic balance towards one side or the other in order to recreate its characteristic cauldron of chaos in the Mideast perfectly suited for its grand geopolitical goals.
The unipolar Cerberus mutant of American, Zionist, and Wahhabist Exceptionalism is the true reason for Eurasia’s destabilization, and only the Resistant & Defiant Herculean Coalition of Russia, China, and Iran is capable of pacifying it. Right now the fate of Eurasia appears to be foreshadowed by the fate of Syria in resisting Cerberus, in that its success or failure would have game-changing reverberations all throughout the supercontinent. If Syria and her people are successful in repelling the onslaught, then it would safeguard the Eurasian interior to a much stronger degree than if it failed, and it would also begin to turn the tide against Cerberus. However, if Syria happens to fall, then Cerberus will waste no time in launching a rapid and aggressive asymmetrical blitzkrieg into the Eurasian Heartland, one which is intended to divide the Herculean Coalition and defeat the champions of multipolarity.
One must always remember, though, that it’s not Westerners, Jews, or Muslims who are in any way to blame for what Cerberus does, but instead the most radical ideological components of these societies (unrepresentative of the vast majority, thus making them extreme outliers) which have seized control of key states and are now using their host entities to engage in a global proxy war against the multipolar forces of inclusion and integration. Cerberus’ unipolar victory wouldn’t mean peace, however, since it’s guaranteed that two of its three heads will eventually cannibalize one another, after which the American Exceptionalist one, unscathed by the fraternal infighting, can finish off its weakened surviving sibling and lay full claim to what were thought to have been shared global spoils (but which are really impossible to divide among two Exceptionalists as mutual incompatible as the Zionists and Wahhabists). That being the case, the only way to preclude such a gloomy global forecast is for the Herculean Coalition to succeed in saving Syria from Cerberus before the latter’s aggressive pan-continental campaign and post-‘victory’ self-destruction engulf the entire landmass.