From a broader point of view, the modern Arab states owe their existence to the secret Sykes-Picot agreement negotiated between Great Britain and France, with the consent of the Russian Empire, and the Kingdom of Italy. , to redraw the borders of the Middle East after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. Empire.
The agreement, reached in 1916, in the midst of World War I, effectively divided the Ottoman provinces outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence.
A separate treaty – the Sazanov – Paleoloquia Agreement, granted Russia the region of Western Armenia, Constantinople and the Dardanelle Strait.
Read more: US aid to Pakistan and its repercussions
The Anatolian parts of the agreement were covered by the August 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. However, these ambitions were thwarted by the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-1923 under Kemal Atatürk.
Allied forces were defeated by Turkish Nationalists led by Kemal Atatürk in the Gallipoli Campaign (February 17, 1915 – January 9, 1916), ending Allied ambitions to capture Constantinople and control the Dardanelles. It is said that in the event of a Turkish defeat, a train was ready to evacuate the last Ottoman caliph, his family members and royal vassals – lock, stock and barrel, from Constantinople to the Anatolian hinterland.
In 1923, the Treaty of Lausanne was signed by the allied powers which modified the previous treaty. Forming present-day Turkey, Lausanne clarified the northern borders of Syria and Iraq, ignoring minority ethnic groups and frustrating the Kurdish dream of forming a sovereign state of Kurdistan.
The New Middle East
The term “New Middle East” was coined in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It aimed to sweep away the “line in the sand” drawn by Sykes and Picot during World War I and replace it with the newly drawn borders of the Middle East.
The “New Middle East” project was presented publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv in the hope that Lebanon would be the pressure point to realign the entire Middle East and thus free the forces of “constructive chaos” . This “constructive chaos” – which generates conditions of violence and war throughout the region – would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain and Israel can redraw the map of the Middle East for the second time. after the First World War according to their needs and geostrategic objectives.
Read more: Organized chaos in Balochistan
This British-American-Israeli military roadmap is the plan to use the Middle East as a staging area to enter Central Asia. The Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan are springboards for expanding American influence in the former Soviet Union and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia.
To test the waters, a relatively unknown map of a redesigned and restructured Middle East, identified as the “New Middle East”, has been circulating in global media, government/private think tanks and political circles since mid- 2006.
This redrawn map has, by design, been allowed to surface in public from time to time, in an attempt to build consensus and slowly prepare the general public for possible, perhaps even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. . The map is presented and touted as the brainchild of retired Lt. Col. (US Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redrawn borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.
The Ralph Peters Map – A Fantasy or the Extended Middle East Map?
The proposed map is consistent with the proxy wars waged by the United States and its allies in the Eurasian landmass for nearly half a century. He envisions a Kurdish state carved out of the Kurdish-dominated regions of Turkey, Iraq and Syria. The Kurds were promised a state of their own by the Sykes-Picot agreement. While the agreement succeeded in delineating the borders of modern Arab states and fulfilled Britain’s promise, through the Belfour Declaration, to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the promise of a Kurdish state remained unheld.
It is also in the interests of the United States, its European allies and India that a great state of Balochistan be established incorporating Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan. The current disagreement between the United States and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program and the slow-moving proxy war in Pakistan’s Balochistan should be seen in this context.
Read more: America’s constant interference in Pakistan
How will these regional insurgencies turn into real wars?
In the event of a major US military operation combining the kinetic and non-kinetic dimensions of warfare, Iran and Pakistan’s critical nodes within their electrical, communications, transportation, military and industrial systems will be subject to cyber/electromagnetic conducted energy weapon attacks. Such attacks will destroy these critical national networks, shutting them down. Simultaneously, the United States will arm and actively support already active ethnic guerrillas to turn sections of Iranian and Pakistani Balochistan into self-governing zones until regimes change.
As for the Arab monarchies, they exist because they fulfill the current world order determined by the United States. One day these monarchies will outlive their usefulness in the United States. As expatriate populations grow and locals demand greater human rights and freedom, the United States could stage mass uprisings in the Gulf similar to the Sri Lankan civil war choreographed by India in the 1980s.
Read more: On the edge of the precipice: the fallout from Imran Khan
The blood border map shows AJK, GB and KPK as part of a greater Afghanistan. However, there may be a variation. Until a docile regime is installed, the plan for a greater Afghanistan will be put on hold. It is likely that Britain is part of Indian Held Kashmir because India is projected as a strategic ally of the United States. These are the covert plans implemented through proxy insurgencies as target states remain embroiled in regional conflicts.
Saleem Akhtar Malik is a Pakistani military veteran who writes on national and international affairs, defence, military history, and military technology. He tweets at @saleemakhtar53. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.