The current developments in the Greater Middle East provoke many experts and analysts to reflect their genuine nature, since this the most important subregion reaches a point of bifurcation after which it would hardly be affordable to turn the flow back. 
Generally, the explanation of the developments can be reduced to several major versions. First version is incidental and uncoordinated events stream The first version looks quite attractive through its simplicity and convenience. Indeed, what could be simpler? Washington, London, Brussels, Moscow, and Beijing are so confused and got absorbed in playing, that the situation spun out of control and went with the flow. Extremist groups are playing for own particularistic interests, regional powers are trying to stop them, and the USA with NATO allies are seemingly helping in this matter. At a glance, the picture is clear, but there are many questions left behind. For instance, supposing to possess tremendous resources, why Western nations cannot stop advancement of radical groups like ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra? Moreover, sometimes militants obtain support – either “by mistake” (as in a case of ISIL), or even specifically targeted (involvement of al-Nusra within the Jaish al-Fath alliance in confrontation with Damascus). Or else, why NATO is not able to put the heat on its Turkish member or help to shut down the borders with Syria in order to cut off continuous flow of ISIL newcomers at least? The more is the incomprehensible, how Turkey can easy sell as much volume of natural sources even to smugglers? It is hard to believe that no one can cease this illegal business – this is a manifesting absurdity for the modern high-tech epoch. In addition, we cannot fail to ask, why Washington suddenly changed its approach to Iran – the first and central enemy for American interests in the Middle East. At the same time, relations with old and close allies represented by the Gulf monarchies has changed skin. For instance, the White House set ultimatum to Bahrain, where the United States Fifth Fleet is situated, threatening to relocate naval vessels to another place. There are quite a lot questions of this kind to be asked. And unfortunately the version of accidental and uncontrolled chaos doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, if one looks at it with objective even naked eye. It is hard to doubt that a part of ongoing processes in the least is controlled by certain powers. The second version is reformatting of the region for the sake of Obama’s ruling team No doubt, the second version seems to be more concrete and logical. Indeed, the American President is not a lone wolf. There are certain powers and families or, if you wish, “a crew” that stand for him, and whom he presents. This is as much obvious as the fact that lone person in this position and in this kind of state is doomed to failure. Such individual would not even reach the ladder of powers. In this way, if not to miss this axiom, the following conclusion comes to mind – taking reins of yet the leading world power, “Obama’s crew” starts to promote not only all-American interests, but personal concerns as well. And if one takes into account that the crew came to power after two presidential terms of George W. Bush, who represented radically different constituencies, then it is necessary to assume that interests of these powers are quite different. One of these contradictory interests is the oil industry. It is well known that the Bush clan and neoconservatives, which, de facto, ran the White House before Obama, are strongly tied up with all oil related. So, is it a surprise that this power stood up for the Iraq invasion? After gaining such a large petroliferous territory, neocons-republicans established there a controlled regime. If one get a sight of the full picture of that times, he/she might see that many of Arab (and not only) states are republicans-oriented: Ben Ali’s Tunis, Mubarak’s Egypt, Saleh’s Yemen, and, of course, such Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. So, what has been changed since Obama came to power? The listed facts speak for themselves: - Regimes in Tunis, Yemen and Egypt were displaced (though, in Egypt it is likely to be a military coup d’etat)
- Muammar Gaddafi (who was not directly controlled neither of the two parties) was murdered in Libya
- Violent fightings continue in Syria (Official Damascus is not controlled either, and moreover, Syrian authorities are ally of Iran)
- Al-Maliki, who came to powered at the point of the Washington’s bayonet in the time of Bush, resigned in Iraq.
It is much more than that yet. During the Obama’s presidency, pro-republicans regimes were replaced in Georgia (Saakashvili), Kosovo (Taci), Afghanistan (Karzai) and etc. Almost everywhere the “post-Bush” Washington not only made no sign about regimes’ change, but indeed, quite often greeted and even supported these changes. It is hard to explain these facts only referring that the regimes were obsolete and for this reason disagreeable. Consistency is obvious. Everything becomes clear when geopolitical actors are sorted out. And even ultimatum to Bahrain is kept within this quite clear picture. Third version is intentional creating of new conflicts to bind hands of geopolitical rivals Yet, it is hard to explain fully the modern developments only with a geopolitical competition, and there are several reasons for that. Particularly, it should be recalled that there are another powers besides the both inter-American actors. For instance, European Union. Of course, the USA play a significant role in European structures. However, the White House is no longer capable to keep a tight rein on EU. For this reason, there are voices that heard and even efforts carried out in order to get out of American control. There are a considerable number of Europeans who are displeased with American hegemony, all the more reason this is true for population of Russia, China, Latin American countries, India, Iran, RSA and others. Each of these countries is a regional power, and their alliance within a subnational structure constitutes a big menace to American interests thus. Therefore, instituting control or even weakening each of these countries (it is better – all at once) is one of the main foreign-policy objectives of the White House. This might be archived in many ways – from political and economic to trite military. Developments in Macedonia, where government had taken unsuitable position for Washington on pipelines, might be considered as an example of political methods. Notably, representatives of the American diplomatic mission in the country almost openly support the local opposition. Economic instruments are experienced by the Russian population since antecedent year. Sanctions against Russia not only phased down, but even more intensified. At that, the sanctions hit Europe along with Russia, killing two birds with one stone. Lobbying favorable energy supply projects should not go unmentioned as kind of economic pressure of Washington. On the other hand, there are forcings of recession from pipelines that threat the USA hegemony in the world. Many experts consider this factor as one of the basic for most of armed conflicts and confrontations. And it is very likely that these opinions are quite true, despite economic circumstances in the USA are so, that pipelines routes alterations could hardly save the national economy. It is not a secret that the White House does not mask its face in political and economic spheres. But military actions are different. This is one of the main specificities that differs Obama’s crew from neoconservatives. The later often force their way, roughly crushing everything crossing their path, ignoring international response and trendy waste as well. But current American administration acts in different way. There is the Libyan conflict as an example, where neocons would most likely climb with hands and feet, but Obama’s crew only pushed right buttons. Hence, we can conclude that the White House, on one side, uses indirect military impacts to support or change regimes, and, on the other side, creates long-run flashpoints in order to restrain and weaken geopolitical rivals. The last assertion insensibly acquires visible traits. For instance, military operations in Ukraine tie hands of both Russia and Europe. Moreover, this conflict repels Russia and the EU, causing economic pressure and retards the Eurasian Union development. Creating chaos in Libya, Iraq and Syria leads to increased flow of refugees to Europe. As a result, Europeans has begun a military campaign against smugglers, what indicates more than serious problems that faced the EU. War in Yemen involved Saudi Arabia and, partly, some other states. At the same time, Yemen conflict is uncommon and ambiguous in many respects. However, the most important is that for some countries, first of all for Saudi Kingdom, this conflict may lead to serious consequences. Forth version is chaos and/or collapse Developments concerning Saudi Arabia are so much balled up that it seems members of the ruling dynasty do not comprehend how to manage them. Hence, their tossing from Turkey and Egypt to Pakistan and Senegal. As of today, Riyadh is threatened by three menaces which it hardly able alone to cope with. The first menace might be insignificant, but it may become a serious under certain conditions. This is a question of the ISIL influence diffusion. At that, on the one hand, this is an external threat (militants had shelled the Saudi frontier from the Iraqi side few times). On the other hand, the ideology of extremists seizes a strong hold on minds of more and more Saudi nationals. There are already acting ISIL cells in the kingdom (though, it is much more likely that previously existed radical groups pledged allegiance to Islamic State). The things had come to such a pitch that these cells organized two big terrorist attacks, which had not happened in this country for a long time. At that, it is indeterminate where the explosion to take place in the next time and how to fight with it, taking into account that the Saudi youth is getting more and more disappointed with the government and is attracted by the ISIL’s black hole. The second and the major menace for Riyadh is, undoubtedly, the situation in Yemen. And here, the Saudi authorities should blame themselves. Making a poor fist of controlling the south neighbor, Saudi Arabia did not find anything better but to start bombing Yemeni towns. By this, Saudis turned against themselves those people who, at first, opposed the Ansar Allah movement. Riyadh was wrong, supposing it could win the war only by using airpower. And even the ground operation would hardly yield desirable results; Yemeni history shows the future of ground wars in this country. As a result, Saudi authorities got into hot water – leaving Yemen means to lose possessed, while staying there supposes the war to continue with even more intension and an unpredictable final. Lastly, the third menace is unexpected hit from inside of the country – province Najran. The place of the hit was even more unexpected than the action itself. The case is that it was expected that the Shiite minority will excite riots in eastern provinces of the country. However, it turned out that Riyadh faced with a power capable not only to inflict one or two defeats but also to go further. It is even more serious – the Ahrar al-Najran movement, which has already declared independence of its land, is more likely to coordinate military activities with Yemeni rebels. This means that the combat shifts to the territory of Saudi Arabia with all it implies. All this arises a rational question – where are Americans? Where is, seemingly, the nearest ally of Riyadh? Why they practically do nothing to save the regime? One of the explanations can be previously announced the second version – “Obama’s crew” pulls the rug from under the feet of pro-republicans regime in Saudi Arabia. To some extent, this quadrates to facts. On the other hand, the regime in Saudi Arabia is not as it was at the times of King Abdullah. The new sovereign, King Salman, showed his readiness for compromises and even started getting closer with Turkey and Qatar, the countries that followed the course of Washington, since the beginning of Middle East “reset”. Hence one more version comes to fore – “Obama’s crew” is trying not only to reorient regimes and to create flashpoints around the globe but also to redraw the Greater Middle East boarders. These plans are well known, and maps of the divided region are available for every Internet user. Libya, Syria, and Iraq are already divided. Is Saudi Arabia the next? Will Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran be divided after Saudi Arabia? Fifth version – the most dangerous As a result, the world risks ending up in dejected and explosive situation, and redrawing borders will not stop military clashes. Meanwhile, big and small, active and lukewarm armed conflicts will spread around the globe. But the most dangerous situation may arise through “gathering” all the conflicts into big regional wars, which, in turn, may become a forerunner of a world-wide confrontation. It is obvious that those who stand behind these plans will not participate directly. For this reason, they shall do their best to solve two major issues: - Unleashing a fire of wars as much as it is possible in the most important and key regions.
Realization of this issue is proceeding apace in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan. These countries, de facto, present battle fields so far, and in some of them, there are several parties participate simultaneously. At that, Afghanistan is should be mentioned separately as the situation in the country changes from day to day. From here, the war threatens at least two Central Asian countries – Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. The domino effect might take place in Arabian Peninsula, while diffusion of war operations on its way to Saudi Arabia. Exacerbation of the developments around Turkey is cropped up through the Kurdish problem. Specter of a new Balkan war might affect Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro, what threatens the EU. China also has potential vulnerable spots both internal (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region) and external (territorial disputes with Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, as well as civil war in Myanmar). One cannot slough off Taiwan. West-African countries anyhow involved in local armed conflict. - Supporting of creation of military alliances to knock them together in the nearest future.
One might find it surprising, but some activities have are already launched in this direction. In March 2015, for instance, Europeans narrated plans for creation of the united military forces. Yet these plans did not officially come into fruition, but at this time, the European Union maintains its first military operation against Mediterranean smugglers. It should not be underestimated as the united forces of the EU seemingly intend to enter territorial waters of Libya. But the authorities of this North-African republic declared thus inadmissibility of the sea bounds violation and warned of airstrike against frontier crossers. Finally, one should not ignore the “Arab coalition”. This alliance has shown the possibility of the united Arab military block formation. Against this background, passages about the united Arab army do not seem to be a mere bravado. United military forces of Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, Jordan, and Gulf monarchies with potential membership of Pakistan and even remote Senegal may become a serious power, considering the increase of advanced arms procurement in some regional countries. Conclusion How does the US react? Appearance of military alliances should discourage Washington. But nothing of the sort – the White House openly supported formation of the “Arab army”. Here, the reasoned question arise – why? The answer is more than just obvious. And it is not really matters how this military confrontation is going to take a shape – the East against the West or vise versa. As usual, there is no winner in such clashes, except those who stand aside, joining the battle at the final stage. Agency for geopolitical research “Manara” Muslim Politic | 
