To the Middle East during the XIX-XX centuries showed interest leading powers of the world, due to economic, political, military-strategic, demographic factors.
From the political point of view, the middle East occupies an important geostrategic position. Control over the region allows you to tie together Western Europe — Mediterranean — Indian ocean — East Asia. This significantly reduces the length of the sea communications. In addition, in the last century has increased the value of some of the Straits, located in the middle East. It is connected with the exercise of economic functions, especially the functions of the "oil transit": in the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz red sea to the Mediterranean through the Suez canal are the main ways of transportation of oil.
The geopolitical significance of the region due to the strategic position of the Middle East at the crossroads of sea and air communications, and the presence of huge reserves of natural resources. This region is an oil rich larder of the world. This is especially clearly seen in the example of water and oil resources. In the middle East and North Africa is 76% of the world's proven oil reserves. This region accounts for 42% of oil for the world and about three quarters for Europe.
USA have in the middle East long-term vital interests of an economic nature. When the United States faced difficult balance of payments problems, the net income from trade and investment in the middle East and North African countries, even net of the amount of economic assistance to the region amounted to 1.7 billion dollars annually [5, p. 279]. The middle East provides the main airports and has the necessary agreements on the facilitation of crossing the airspace to allow for international flights. Thousands of Americans work in the oil, transport and aviation companies as well as banks and other enterprises; millions of shareholders to invest their capital in the development of these companies.
On the other hand the increase of escalation of wars and conflicts in the region, military conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya, the activities of international terrorist organizations, the trend towards the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and socio-political instability caused by the events of the so-called "Arab spring" in the countries of the region in 2011, and objectively put the problems of the countries of the Middle East in the epicenter of the threat of global contradictions that caused serious destabilization of the military-political situation in the region.
However, historical events that occurred during past decades in the Middle East, testify to the growing significance of the region in world politics.
First, the Islamic factor, as the new phenomenon of geopolitics, has a decisive influence on the formation of state policies and official ideology of a significant number of countries in the world and plays an increasingly prominent and influential role in international Affairs. .
Second, traditionally in the middle East, the religious factor is decisive. The religious factor, in turn, has an impact on demographic processes. In Islamic countries there is still a Patriarchal type of family with high fertility rates. According to the forecasts of international organizations by 2020, Asia will house more than half the world's population. The Muslim population of the world in the last 100 years has increased dramatically. In 1990 the number of Muslims in the world was 4.2 %. In 1995 -15,9%. In 2025, the plan is 19.2%. For the leading Western countries one of the main challenges in this region is to stimulate economic development, increase employment in production, in services women are destroying the traditional family model is expected to reduce fertility .
Due to these geopolitical factors, the rise of religious extremism and terrorism, fierce military action in the region can not attract the attention of politicians and political analysts, military experts, economists, and regional experts. How to find ways of cessation of hostilities as to return peace and lawful order in the affected areas, how to balance the interests involved in the conflicts of States, these issues require urgent consideration and decision. For the understanding of contemporary threats to peace and security, it seems necessary to turn to the scientific legacy of the classic of Russian geopolitics Andrei Evgenievich Snesarev.
The works of A. Snesarev in the field of geopolitics, military history, military Affairs, written in the first third of the XX century are characterized by a breadth of production problems and a flexible approach to their solution. The ideas of the theorist on the nature of future war, the role of the totality of political, economic and military-technical capabilities of the warring parties in achieving the goals of the military-political confrontation, to a large extent, confirmed during the Second world war and great Patriotic war, and also of great importance for the analysis of contemporary military-political situation in the world, particularly in the middle East. Of course, the nature of the preparation and the conduct of hostilities, means, forms and methods of solving military tasks in the beginning of the XXI century differ significantly from the opportunities in the 20-30-ies of XX century. Using the term of A. A. Svechin [Approx.: Alexander Andreyevich Svechin (1878 - 1938) is one of several Russian military strategists recognized in the world. Unfortunately, in Russia, his work was not reprinted since before the war (unlike the U.S., where his book "Strategy" is taught today). In the late 1920's-early 1930-ies A. A. Svechin in a series of his printed works reasonably predicted the entire course of the great Patriotic war. Was arrested because his work differed sharply from the numerous and popular at that time ideas about the "war little blood on foreign soil"], we can say that the "strategic landscape"  today has changed radically, but the General feature of the methodology of political and military knowledge, put forward by A. E. Snesarev, remains crucial today.
First, A. E. Snesarev proved that human history is peace by military means, war is inevitable. Illusions about the exclusively peaceful development of society, according to his theory, is not only justified, but also dangerous. War is always an urgent case absorbs cash of public power, intellect and resources. We are witnessing the entry of humanity in the twenty-first century has not solved many of the global problems of civilization, moreover, has exacerbated and complicated the problems of war and peace. Military power remains a tool of solving political problems. In this context, it is impossible not to recall the well-known Clausewitz's axiom that "war is the continuation of politics by other means" .
The research of A. Snesarev relationships of political and military phenomena, help us today to affirm the understanding that the system of political views and interests not only defines the goals and the nature of war, but lays down the fundamental principles of military strategy [19, p. 95-98]. What politicians make decisions about war and peace, about the possibility, necessity and expediency of solving social problems with the use of armed violence. They are aiming at the destruction or only to suppress the enemy, eventually forming a strategic face of wars and military conflicts, their character.
The middle East is the center of a vast political, military, ideological and economic imperialist interests of the United States. In their plans the United States attaches high strategic importance of the Middle East. After the Second world war, they began to pursue policies and develop strategies to establish control over the region. Theorists of the national military strategy calls for the effective use of all material and spiritual possibilities to implement "the national strategic goals of the United States, both in terms of fight or war, and in peacetime". As stated by the American General in resignation B. Palmer, "national strategy includes the threat of force and its application" [20, p. 78]. Military and strategic concepts of the USA are the major elements in the national security strategy, which seeks to implement serious and effective opposition to any probable developments in the event of war with the aim of achieving the political objectives of the US and preserve their interests in the world.
Based on the results of policy analysis and forecast future wars, A. E. Snesarev proposed to introduce the concept of "science-based military doctrine." This term scholar meant "a document in which the agreed unity of action that is already distributed to the entire state in its entirety, thoughtful and experienced before the war and held while the breadth and depth of its content" [11, page 24]. Moreover, the genius-General strategist allowed A. E. Snesarev to predict that "future wars will be fought not only with the sword, and by other means, even if someone else — campaigning, devastate the enemy economy, overtaking in the reconstruction of their forces, etc." [9, p. 25]. In the end, we see today, wars that are called "information", "psychological", "network", "sanctions", etc.
The law of the continuity of the war is manifested in the expansion of its context, its distribution vertically and horizontally, which gives grounds to speak of its totality. On the one hand, this is reflected in the fact that, the war covers all the spheres of society, taking Severny character. In this regard, appear to the naked means to achieve traditional goals of war in unconventional ways. On the other hand, the traditional armed means are used to achieve non-traditional goals of war.
At the beginning of the XXI century the role and importance of military policy in the internal political life of the United States, and their policies in the international arena has increased significantly. This is primarily due to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, conducting military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Internal security has become one of the main tasks of the Armed forces of the United States that has turned almost the entire US foreign policy in the military, held under the slogan: "Whoever is not with us is against us". The President of the United States, declaring a global war on international terrorism, has called the American people a "nation at war", thereby recognizing the policy of the state military. Becoming a national idea, the military policy is almost directly linked to the internal politics of the state, especially in the social sector ("plus a dollar for the war, minus a dollar on social needs") [25, p. 34]. So, in many printed and electronic media, appeared the following statement by President Bush, which he did on 14 September 2001: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." Thus, as the target of a global war waged by the United States, declared "ridding the world of evil." This unconventional war, the objective should be understood as an unattainable goal, making the war continuous. After all, the war against evil is not and cannot be the end, and no exit strategy from this war, besides opening a new field of battle. In this case war becomes a way of life. She is perceived as the world, as the norm. And this is, perhaps, the most dramatic forecast of the evolution wars. In this perception war inherent danger of the lack of awareness of the fact of aggression, misunderstanding of who the enemy is and what his plans are. This again confirms the validity of the statements of A. Snesarev, about how war can be a sad and eternal companion of mankind.
In the United States has established the system of the governing documents setting forth the goals, objectives, methods and main directions of implementation of the military policy of the United States to ensure the protection of the state in peace and war. The main ones in this area are the national security Strategy, national defense strategy, national military strategy, national strategy for homeland security, Quadrennial defense review, the concept and doctrine of the armed forces and inter-service groups, as well as a number of other documents. They regulate the conduct of military policy and the middle East in particular.
However, in recent years American policy in the middle East are faced with serious problems. Attempts in the region to impose democracy on the American model, taken under George W. Bush. Bush, ended in failure. In this context, US President Barack Obama was forced to revise as General political attitudes, and American military strategy for the region. The bet was made not on the Pro-Western liberals, and the traditional holders of power and influence in the face of tribal elders and "warlords". Occurs, however, the question of the stability of the middle East Pro-American autocrats in terms of the so-called "Arab spring" and, more importantly, on their degree of loyalty toward official Washington [2, p. 27]. Each operation against the geopolitical competitors of the USA requires a search for allies, in which American military and political leaders could give "dirty work". It should be noted that the most capable allies are those who not only do not share American values, but, on the contrary, directly hostile to them. The interaction with these allies requires US compromise, which hardly would have approved of American public opinion. Consequently, a large portion of this policy is carried out in secret and the agreements are mostly of a secret nature. While weakening some of the opponents of the United States is due to the gain of other, often much more fierce. According to experts all this is the sense of the geopolitics of the new world disorder, transforming the Old world a zone of continuous turbulence, from which the capital should be run, as from fire, and from which the United States hope to sit for the oceans .
A key ally of America in the implementation of this geostrategy is Islamic fundamentalism. Despite its apparent commitment to the protection of Islam, this ideology is essentially anti-Islamic, because the whole history of Islam it is as a story of degradation. Degradation in the interpretation of fundamentalists began immediately after the end of the era of the righteous caliphs. Fundamentalists don't consider Muslims a large part of the Islamic world's population, calling them apostates. In his struggle for the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate Islamic fundamentalists willing to fight, kill and die, to use the most brutal methods of waging war.
Long time Islamic fundamentalism was considered by America as the enemy, but in the new circumstances he becomes an ideal candidate for the role of an agent of global disorder and, accordingly, an important ally of the United States. High morale, fanaticism, and global ambitions allow us to solve with it many tasks to destabilize different regions. Although the words United States continue to struggle with Islamic fundamentalism, words for the most part remain but words. According to experts, "the War against Libya confirms and reinforces a U.S. strategy, according to which the fight against terrorism is used as a pretext for global expansion. A major military vehicle for this expansion is the North Atlantic Alliance, have long gone beyond the geographical scope of its responsibility and is now endowed with "global mission" .
The efforts of the US and its allies for regime change in Syria, being pragmatically justified from the point of view of US interests, politically completely immoral, given their humanitarian consequences. The Alliance of the most powerful economies in the world, supplying foreign policy that ignores international law, with the most aggressive and uncompromising force of our time — Islamic extremism represents the greatest real danger to the countries of Eurasia. This does not mean that Islamic extremism does not threaten the United States itself, on another continent. But the scale of this disaster on these continents comparable.
A number of experts believes that everything that happens in the middle East is a continuation of the American policy of "color revolutions" aimed at the creation of national States: it is "natural for US geopolitics, the desire to implement the reorganization and prestructural the Middle East. The goal is still the same: to adopt an even more controlled and efficient in given them the framework of the regimes in need of new certified the loyalty of regional leaders to control pipelines and unimpeded pumping of oil and gas in the right directions" .
Geopolitics also note the spread of the American establishment "chaos theory". The following is applied the conclusions of this "theory" applied to the Middle East, namely:
- Stability is illusory and can never be the purpose of its maintenance too costly for the country;
- National interests can be effectively and less costly methods to provide a flexible, "floating between the Islands of order in the global world of political chaos";
- The US should aim for significant changes in societies in crisis, instead of trying to keep pseudostipules;
- You must be open to the prospect to enhance and maintain critical, if it is in the interest of America.
- Long-term forecasts — a myth.
All this is not idle speculation theorists, quotations are taken from articles high-ranking diplomat, one of the people responsible for US policy in the former Soviet Union . This theory proves that in the political-diplomatic and military leadership of the United States there are certain forces who believe that the destabilization of the aggravation game — the best way to ensure the interests of their country. It eliminates the seeming contradiction between America triggered the explosion in the middle East and its national interests.
But how the US cemented its power in the middle East? After the end of the cold war, the American ruling circles sought to consolidate its hegemony in the middle East, expanding U.S. presence in Central Asia. According to the Director of the Council on the Middle East of the American Institute of foreign policy studies A. Garfinkle, that the United States is doing in this part of the world, especially in the Persian Gulf, can best be defined as "Imperial policy" . Washington intends to gain control over the region, even if they have to use force (as has already happened in the past). We are witnessing the fact that after the end of the cold war US military power in the region grows, as seen in the example of education CENTCOM (US Central Command, Centcom) and the creation of the 5th fleet patrolling the Persian Gulf, the US armed forces. CENTCOM is responsible for planning operations and in the event of hostilities, the control of American troops in the region, covering the area of the Middle East, Arabian Peninsula, Persian Gulf, southwest Asia and Central Asia.
While official Washington and the Central command have in recent years increasingly rely in its regional policy is not Pro-Western liberals, and the traditional holders of power and influence in the face of tribal elders and "warlords".
Many States in the region are effectively American protectorates. The heads of the departments of the CIA in some of the most friendly countries in the region sometimes act as real proconsul and are a much more significant figure than the American ambassadors in these countries: "it is not stretching the truth is that over seven thousand miles from its own shores a few people in Washington arrogated to itself the right to control this turbulent and important region, to determine the progress of cases and to carry out police functions" .
On the other hand, the aggressive US policy in the region is largely not in the interest of the Turkish leadership. It is primarily for the "flirting" of Americans with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds. Questions in Northern Syria, Turkey decides to align with Russia. The interaction between the two countries on the Syrian settlement proceeds. However, Ankara is aware that without Washington's support, she will have to face serious political and economic problems and leave their hopes for regional leadership .
Speaking at a meeting of the UN General Assembly September 28, 2019 the Minister of foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S. Lavrov said: "American leadership is responsible for the destruction developed the UN resolutions on settlement of the situation in the middle East" . He reminded about such actions of Washington as a unilateral decision on the recognition of the Israeli Golan heights and Jerusalem.
After the drone attacks on oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, the United States promptly announced the entering of a new package of sanctions against the National Bank of Iran. It is already called the oil century attack. Ten drones, bombs flown from Yemen, attacked two oil refineries in Eastern Saudi Arabia on September 21, 2019. The whole world shuddered, and the middle East "is once again sparked". The parties are now trying to figure out who was behind the provocation. Because this attack is not only billions of dollars in economic losses to the Saudis, it is also a dangerous political crisis, which successfully stimulated from overseas. USA is being manipulated by Riyadh in the hope of another victorious blitzkrieg in Iran. What adverse consequences may result from provocation or baseless statement about the perpetrator of the attack, you know the scientists in the world and remember past precedents, for example in Iraq: "Now we just have to find final and decisive reason, as a vial of anthrax 16 years ago" . Despite the fact that experts say the decline of US influence in the region, the acuteness of the conflicts in the middle East, the cause of which is the threat of U.S. action in the region, unabated: "Despite the efforts of Donald trump to strengthen the superpower position in the world, these positions are slowly but steadily weakening. America remains in the foreseeable future will remain a superpower, but the trajectory of decline. Perhaps nowhere is this decline and the decline of influence is not as evident as in the middle East. The American invasion of Iraq has resulted in the destabilization and growth of Iran's influence. In response, the United States failed to take these processes under control and even worsened the situation. Intervention in Libya and Syria, the withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, no serious attempts to stop the war in Yemen is an important parts of American politics. Earlier, inspiring a disturbing confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia have reached a new threshold of danger. A successful attack sponsored by Iran, the Houthis against Saudi Aramco could lead to a new escalation in the region" .
Today's rapidly changing forces and means of warfare, methods of warfare; the appearance and character of the war. Political goals of the war, is increasingly achieved not by armed struggle and other forms of violence: information, psychological, moral, diplomatic, economic and otherwise, and allegedly in the framework of democratic norms, principles and rules. A similar effect is achieved in the framework in advance and carefully prepared by the special operations of different scale. Information - psychological component of achieving the goals of war are no less meaningful and effective armed force. Special psychological operations of the US and NATO against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, demonstrate the scope and power of information-psychological influence used for the treatment of world and regional public opinion. How thoroughly according to the experts, the strategists of the CIA, NSA and the Pentagon managed to turn the Arab-Israeli conflict, which was regarded as the chief in the area, first in the Palestinian-Israeli, and now in sectarian — Sunni-Shiite .
Islam, like any major social institution and a process — a complex and controversial phenomenon, including the many influences and contradictions. However, among Muslims there is a deep conviction about belonging, regardless of ethnic, national identity, orientation, Sunni or Shia, the various religious legal schools (mazhabs), to a single community of people professing a common faith, United by common traditions, shared historical roots and common interests in the modern world. Islam is not only faith, but a way of life, household rules and customs and mentality. Islam to a greater extent than other world religions included in the system of social regulation. Virtually all aspects of the life of a Muslim religious are declared significant. Thus, the preconditions for a comprehensive politicization of Islam, resulting in the recorded calls for political consolidation of the Muslims, to the transformation of the religious community of all Muslims in the political unity of a particular level of institutionalization.
Events in the middle East at the beginning of the XXI century proves the sagacity of A. Snesarev, who a century ago formulated the law changes, war losses, along with such aspects as changing the source application of military losses, the tightening of loss, stands still and their "diversification". It is because the war came from its traditional strictly military (physical) space, and changed space, i.e., has gained another dimension. Consequently, the accounting losses have to occur not only in the physical (land, sea, air, space) space but in other spaces where turned modern war. It, therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the loss of political, economic, social (including demographic), psychological and spiritual. If before the defeat in war is determined mainly by quantitative indicators, physical losses, but now the situation is much more complicated. The primary and crucial be loss on the psychological and spiritual theatre of war.
The commander of US Central command, General Abizaid, in an interview, commenting on the actions of the forces of the Iraqi resistance, in which the Americans bear substantial losses that exceeds the period of hostilities, said: "the Goal of the enemy is not to defeat us by force of arms, to break the will of the United States of America and to get us to leave" . Consequently, this spiritual concept of the will, becomes the object of attack. To break the will of the enemy — to win on a spiritual level. Loss it will inevitably entail armed loss on a physical level, make the enemy vulnerable and helpless.
The main confrontational paradigm of modern warfare is to fight networks (global entities) against hierarchies (the state formations). Network, as imposed on mankind a form of organization of the new world order, comes into the fight with a hierarchical world order, oriented the way the state and international relations. The network is designed not only to destroy any specific political regimes, it is, by design, global technologists, must destroy the government, in principle, as a form of existence of the people [9, p. 86]. In the past several years, it is actively being tested in the practice of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, is tested in exercises and simulations. The developers of this concept believe that in the near future, if not will replace the traditional theory of war, at least qualitatively change it. According to some researchers, the meaning of American military construction in the framework of the "new theory wars" of the information age must be to create a powerful and comprehensive network, which conceptually replaces the previously existing models and concepts of military strategy, integrates them into a single system. The regular army, all kinds of intelligence, technical innovations and high technologies, journalism and diplomacy, economic processes and social transformation, civilians and military personnel, the regular part and a separate poorly decorated, armed groups - all this, according to the developers, integrates into a single network in which information circulates. The creation of such a network, according to some researchers, is the essence of a regular military reforms in the United States.
Modern practice of American military development shows that the trend in the development of the military organization of the state, due to the transformation of views on the nature of the threats in the new century, was the basis of the concept of construction of the us armed forces "joint vision 2020" ("Joint Vision 2020"), adopted in 2002. In this regard, it is significant that in the 2007 financial year, the Pentagon had requested an additional appropriation to increase the number of special forces (SSN), including the newly established special operational command (SOK) marine corps (ILC). These new formations, as well as all other operational components of the U.S. Armed Forces must be ready to deploy to any region of the world in the shortest possible time. Only in 2007, the number of PRS grew by 33%, the same had increased force, designed to conduct psychological operations in the provision of their actions. In accordance with the programs of reforming the armed forces JUICE of the ILC is intended to conduct special intelligence operations and to address several other challenges in terms of asymmetric threats of the XXI century [14, p. 141]. This will pave the way for dictatorship of the global elite that seeks to establish itself through the armed struggle to violent spread of globalization as the new world order network. The state, the core of which is the hierarchy is the main obstacle for this sweeping away everything in its path of expansion. As he wrote V. Krashenninikov about the tragic events in Libya, "fell the next "Domino" on the global Board: the U.S. managed to get rid of another one of the old enemy, and to bring another state into bloody chaos and civil war. Being unable to establish a "world order" in the most explosive region of the world, the United States through NATO claim a global mess — intended, ultimately, for Iran, Russia and China. Call Russia and other "abstention" is today is not how to adapt to the expansion of the United States and NATO, and to formulate national and foreign policy strategy of countering U.S. rate for global dominance" .
Evidence of this US approach towards the goal of world hegemony can serve as the statements of the member of the Republican party of the United States Paul Craig Roberts in an interview with broadcaster Press TV : "We want to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria because we want to clear China and Russia out of the Mediterranean" (eng. “We want to overthrow Gaddafi and Assad in Syria because we want to clear China and Russia out of the Mediterranean”). Further, American politician recognized underpinnings of the US policy: "China has massive energy investments in Eastern Libya and is relying on Libya along with Angola and Nigeria in terms of its energy needs"; "it's an American effort to deny resources to China just as Washington and London denied resources to the Chinese in 30 years". To a journalist's question "is it Possible to say that Washington's support for revolutionaries in Libya?", Paul Craig Roberts: "This is the Libyan uprising is unique. This is not peaceful protest, it's an armed uprising in the Eastern part of the country. And we know that the CIA engaged in their support, so they are already armed." So, in the East of Libya, Gaddafi himself started pushing not "peaceful demonstrations", and an armed rebellion. Next, Mr. Roberts characterizes US strategic interests: "We do not want to overthrow the government of Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, where both governments used violence against the protesters, because they are our puppets "they're our puppets, "and in Bahrain we have a major naval base." "What's our interest in the protests in Syria?" — asks Paul Craig Roberts and he himself answers it thus: "the protests are Americans. We are interested in this, because there are Russian naval base, which gives them a presence in the Mediterranean sea. So you see, Washington has intervened in Libya and is putting more and more pressure to intervene in Syria because we want to get rid of Russian and Chinese" ("Washington is all for invading against Libya and is putting more and more pressure to intervene in Syria because we want to get rid of the Russians and the Chinese"). Paul Craig Roberts clearly explains the reason for such behavior of the U.S.: "it's not just oil. Maybe you know that the international monetary Fund released a report which stated that the "age of America" is over, that within five years the Chinese economy will overtake the us, then USA will become the second largest economy in the world, not the first. So Washington is trying to apply the block to apply their superior military and strategic capabilities in order to prevent China getting resources and slow down the development of the Chinese economy." Thus, the politician concludes that the United States fears for its leadership and as a reaction opens the hostilities. "Protests in Libya and Syria, was orchestrated ("they've engineered these protests"), — says Paul Craig Roberts. — We know that the CIA fomented the conflict in Eastern Libya for some time." The Americans are involved in fomenting unrest in Syria and Libya, organized demonstrations; “The Syrian and Libya affairs have American hands in them, organizing the demonstrations, providing money and so forth”. "I think the Russians are beginning to understand that events in Syria are aimed against them and their base, says Paul Craig Roberts. We, in fact, begin to clash with two major countries: China, whose economy is probably better than the American because the Chinese have jobs; and Russia, which has unlimited nuclear Arsenal. We're starting to press very strong countries, and very reckless way. We behave recklessly and dangerously" ("So what we're really doing is antagonizing two large countries: China, which has an economy that is probably better than the US because their people have jobs; and the Russians have unlimited nuclear arsenal — and so we're starting to press very strong countries in a very reckless way. We're behaving in a very reckless and dangerous way”). Only in the last minute of this amazing in the sense of an interview with Paul Craig Roberts gives what he has agreed to disclose this information: a veteran of the us establishment admits that he is aware of what price to pay, America and the whole world for the "Mediterranean resentment of" Washington: "as soon As Russia and China will come to the conclusion that the Americans simply cannot be treated rationally, that Americans are tuned in some way to enslave them and cause them damage, the result may be any kind of escalation. This is the real danger and we're risking a major war" ("Once you start this and Russian and China come to the conclusion that the Americans simply cannot be dealt with in any rational way and are determined to somehow subdue them and do them damage, all kinds of escalations can result. This is the real danger and we're risking a major war”) .
Modern American politicians admit that the United States has made progress in establishing control in the middle East "thanks to effective multilateral cooperation and other Nasirovym methods, among them military aid, security guarantees, sanctions, and cyberspace operations. If Saudi Arabia, Egypt or another Arab country threatened by nuclear weapons, the United States already have robust tools, allowing to react and stop such a scenario. In addition to the international sanctions and diplomatic isolation, you can use a stronger export controls and the cessation of military-technical assistance to Arab partners. Washington can offer positive incentives, including expansion of the American "nuclear umbrella" military assistance and intelligence cooperation" .
From the point of view of the modern theory of geopolitics, international terrorism is a special subject of geopolitical confrontation or, in other words, a new type of geopolitical entity. Thus, Y. V. Volkov believes that the main reason for the transformation of previous forms of political terrorism, turning it into an international and a special geopolitical entity are the geopolitical processes of globalization [6, p. 64-78].
Modern war, therefore, is extremely complex and multidimensional. It can trigger reckless actions of politicians. This may be the war many of the planes, coupled with relevant targets and losses that need to be foreseen and prevented to avoid defeat. But, to achieve this, it is necessary to understand the contemporary nature and dynamics of the action of the laws of war formulated by A. E. Snesarev.
As you know, the main conflict of globalization is the conflict between the global (network) and national (hierarchical). Hierarchical consciousness — the consciousness of the national, which brings together the past (the memory of ancestors who served the Fatherland), current (duty to the Fatherland of the current generation) and the future (responsibility for future generations and the fate of the Fatherland). Network consciousness is the consciousness of a cosmopolitan, not national feelings and patriotism. This consciousness of pure, the behavior of which is determined by the underlying program. This relegation of man to a biological state where he is content with only the satisfaction of their instincts and is willing to obey anyone who will give him that opportunity, regardless of the terms of the transaction. Thus, he becomes a puppet, and his mind, soul, and will be the subject of ownership and manipulation.
The ultimate goal of the struggle of the networks against hierarchies is the occupation of the spiritual space of peoples through occupation of all spaces of national life: political (state power), economic (financial), social (including demography, education and health) and psychological (mental, informational). The main means to combat this is war.
Among the indisputable merits of the distinguished geopolitics and a major military scientist A. Snesarev not to mention his significant contribution to the development of such important scientific problems as the study of the nature of a future war. Recognizing the role and importance of material, economic factors in the nature and character of future wars, he, however, on the first plan put forward the socio-psychological nature of future wars [21, p. 29]. The struggle in the future, in his opinion, will be for the minds and souls and then for life and territory — that is, in the opinion of A. Snesarev, will determine the nature of future wars. In this regard, the nature of armed struggle and war in General, as did A. E. Snesarev, depends not only from the logic of development of military Affairs, the nature and extent of military and political objectives, and military power of States, but also the spiritual factor, which should be understood as social and political consciousness of citizens, and moral well-being and readiness of the people and members of the armed forces to endure the hardships without losing the will to win. This factor plays a key role in the continuously changing nature of war, [23, p. 98-110].
Analysis of modern scientific developments on the problem of formation of the spiritual factor suggests that the role of this factor and the demands on it are increasing, especially for wars of the future. First, they are in scope, content, and saturation will surpass all wars that have been in the past. Therefore, increasing the load on the intellect, the psyche, the moral and physical health. Second, the war is becoming more and more synthetic character, where traditional methods and forms of struggle give way to new and non-traditional. Radically changing the psychology of combat and the perception of the war population. This requires significant adjustment of the entire system of preparing citizens for war and moral-psychological training of personnel. Third, the wars of the future will give rise to fundamentally new phenomena, to which intellect, psyche and morality just are not ready. This novelty will make a decision if not all, the many approaches to military organization and war.
In modern conditions, it is important to choose the right course in ensuring the national and military security, military construction, considering that the revolution, including in the military is not limited to technical innovations or structural changes in the army. She naturally accompanied by a revision of views on the ways and forms of using the armed forces. In the works of A. Snesarev much attention is paid to consideration of how new weapons transformerait military art and tactics of warfare, how does the ratio of military force and policy the place of military force in international relations.
One of the most important recommendations arising from the political-military heritage A. Snesarev, is the requirement realistically assess what is happening around phenomena and processes, drawing on centuries of historical experience by checking the validity of ideas and insights practice of political life. This principle he consistently followed in his writings, where, analyzing the rich historical heritage of military theorists, using their empirical knowledge, and forms of military-political views, not lost its relevance in our days.
Reflections and judgments of the theorist, is particularly valuable in methodological terms, can and should contribute to a sober analysis of the military-political problems, which appear at the present time.
- American military strategy in the middle East. Electronic resource: http://csef.ru/ru/oborona-i-bezopasnost/340/amerikanskaya-voennaya-strategiya-na-blizhnem-vostoke-5918. Date of access: 15.09.2019.
- Batiuk V. I. "American military strategy in the greater middle East," the magazine "Russia and America in XXI century", 2009.
- The middle East in international relations. Electronic resource: http://www.webkursovik.ru/kartgotrab.asp?id=-61502. Date of treatment: date of treatment: 26.08.2019.
- What is the true goal of the United States in the middle East. Electronic resource: https://eurasianinfoleague.com/politika/item/26554-v-chem-istinnye-celi-ssha-na-blizhnem-vostoke.html. Date of access: 2.09.2019.
- The foreign policy of the countries of the Middle East/ Ed. edited by A. A. Kuzenkov, A. I. Chicherov. – M.: Mezhdunar. relations, 1984.
- Volkov Y. V. subjective attitude of international terrorism in the modern geopolitical confrontation. Contemporary terrorism: theory and practice. – M.: Military. Univ, 2002. – P. 64-78.
- Ganiev, T. A. Zadonsky, S. M., Karyakin V. V., the Military power of the Islamic Republic of Iran: military policy and the armed forces of the country. Moscow: Institute Of The Middle East, 2019. T-1 – P.20.
- Ganiev, T. A. Zadonsky, S. M., Karyakin V. V., the Military power of the Turkish Republic. Moscow: Institute Of The Middle East, 2018. T-1 – P.12.
- Year "Unlimited freedom" - 1920 days later. Electronic resource: http://artofwar.rU/a/afgan/text. Date of access: 5.09.2019.
- Gracheva T. V. Strategic method A. Snesarev as the basis of analysis of modern wars //the Bulletin "Safety", 2004. - No. 66. - S. 86.
- Danilenko I. S. A. E. Snesarev - a classic of geopolitics, the value of his work for understanding the evolution of war and the world military algorithm of the historical process. According to the materials of the interuniversity scientific-practical conference at the Military Academy of the General staff of the armed forces. M., 2006.
- Karpukhin, V. B. the Concept of network war in the military policy of the modern state //the Applicant. - 2006. - No. 4. - P.141.
- Clausewitz, Carl von. About the war. Electronic resource: http://militera.lib.ru/science/clausewitz/index.html. Date of access: 20.09.2019.
- Key U.S. interests in the middle East protected. John. Shapiro, R. Sokolski. Electronic resource: https://inosmi.ru/politic/20160712/237161225.html. Date of access: 29.09.2019.
- Krasheninnikov V., Ross A. Libya: a template for future military interventions" // national defense. 2011. No. 3 (60) March. Electronic resource: http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/geopolitics/2011/0314/20505705/detail.shtml. Date of access: 30.08.2019.
- Krashenninikov Lessons of Libya: the expansion of a "global" NATO: who will be purged next? – Electronic resource: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/1455736.html. Date of access: 27.09.2019.
- Krupnov Y. media in February the information war against Libya. – Electronic resource: http://www.km.ru/news/smi-v-fevralskoi-informatsionnoi-voine-protiv-livii. Date of access: 12.09.2019.
- Lavrov: US has decided to destroy all of the UN resolutions on the Middle East . Electronic resource: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2732762.html. Date of access: 29.09.2019.
- Makar I. P. Military history and geopolitics. According to the materials of the interuniversity scientific-practical conference at the Military Academy of the General staff of the armed forces. — 2006.-S. 29-39.
- Palmer B. Grand strategy in the 80-ies, Washington. 1987. P. 78.
- Pershin A. A. War, military conflict: is it inevitable appearance? //Herald of the Russian border. - 1999. - No. 7. - S. 95-98.
- Prikhodko O. V., Smirnov P. E. Changing configuration of the world order: major trends and the U.S. role. The electronic scientific journal Russia and America in the XXI century. 2017, No. 3. Electronic resource: http://www.rusus.ru/?act=read&id=584. Date of access: 15.08.2019.
- Savinkin, A. E., I. V. Domnin Russian society and the army //Vestnik of the Military University. - 2006. — No. 1. P. 98-110.
- Svechin A. A. Strategy. – M.: Military Gazette, 1927. 160 p.
- Sidorin, A. N., Prishchepov M. V., Akulenko, V. P., Armed forces of the United States in the twenty-first century: the Military-political work. – Moscow: Kuchkovo pole; Military book, 2013.
- United States in the middle East. Electronic resource: https://mywebs.su/blog/politic/20680/. Date of access: 9.09.2019.
- The trajectory of the decline: USA in the middle East. Military review. Electronic resource: https://expert.ru/expert/2019/40/traektoriya-upadka-ssha-na-blizhnem-vostoke/. Date of access: 29.09.2019.
- What is actually guided by Washington in its desire to punish Iran for alleged drone attack in Saudi Arabia. Electronic resource: https://www.5-tv.ru/news/265269/cem-nasamom-dele-rukovodstvuetsa-vasington-vsvoem-zelanii-nakazat-iran-zaprovokaciu-vsaudovskoj-aravii/. Date of access: 22. 09.2019.
- Shishkin I. Why America blew up the middle East? Electronic resource: http://www.rusprostranstvo.com/massmedia/view/431. Date of access: 15.08.2019.
- Jeremy Shapiro, Richard Sokolsky. Why U.S. should reduce its military presence in the middle East. Electronic resource: https://carnegie.ru/2016/07/11/ru-pub-64050. Date of access: 29.09.2019.
- US risks war with China and Russia. Interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. Press TV. April 26, 2011. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/176776.html Electronic resource: https://regnum.ru/news/polit/1455736.html
- 13-06-2019Bruce Schneier about the digital threats of the future
- 16-01-2019The biggest danger 2019 — this is war
- 01-01-2019Subcommissie race
- 05-11-2018A Navy without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse
- 07-04-2018Diversionary war against Russia
- 29-05-2012Drugs in the service of the Third Reich
- 12-09-2010Many experts believe the best tank Merkava main battle tank in the world
- 12-09-2010The Minister of defence of Germany introduced draft large-scale reform of the armed forces
- 21-04-2001To the question about the war of the fourth sphere