Two news reports from the U.K. this week revealed the U.S.'s new plan for the Middle East and the Gulf. The first, a BBC piece, laid bare the People's Protection Units (YPG)-Daesh alliance in Raqqa under U.S. surveillance, saying that "coalition forces" from the YPG transferred Daesh, along with its arms, to a safer area than Raqqa. The BBC confirmed that the U.S. wants to establish microstates directly linked to itself in the Middle East by using and even organizing terrorist organizations under its control, including Daesh. Rebuilding groups with different religious and ethnic identities first as terrorist organizations and then as micro terrorist states linked to itself and making the state of war in the Middle East permanent in this way will let the U.S. achieve several goals at the same time. The country supposes that it will surround axis and powerful states outside its own control with these micro terrorist states. Moreover, it is making the region one of the strategic markets for the global arms industry and is trying to sustain the petro-dollar system, which can only run through regional instability and the state of war from now on.
At this very point, we need to look at what is happening in Saudi Arabia to which the second news report points. The Times revealed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pressured Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to accept the U.S.'s new Middle East peace plan, telling him either to accept the Trump administration's plan or resign. I think you have no doubt that this "peace" plan was prepared by Israel, approved by the U.S. and named the "U.S.'s Middle East Peace Plan." The Lebanese issue, on the other hand, is directly related to Iran, and it is known that Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was brought into line and forced to resign during his visit to Riyadh, just like Abbas who was also pressured to resign during his visit to the Saudi capital. Saudi Arabia has come to do what Israel has done all along under its "2030 vision," which cannot be attributed only to Israel's security concerns and Saudi Arabia's claim to sustain the petro-dollar system. This is also related to what happened in Turkey, from the Gezi Park protests that were supported by the UAE, to the July 15 coup attempt, to the military coup in Egypt and even to the disintegration of Eastern Europe via civil war, leading to the establishment of "controllable" microstates. All of these are steps being taken toward a new global partition and concomitant fortification of dominance and will last further.
The U.S. does not want powerful welfare states and unions not only in Eurasia, but also anywhere in the world. Instead, it thinks it is an "ideal solution" to build micro warfare states that "serve the empire." To this end, even the EU may be disintegrated. They are already making Germany do this. The Yugoslavian civil war and the dissolution of Eastern Europe into microstates had been achieved under Germany's leadership.
On the other hand, the U.S. has the Pacific issue. Trump was only advised in China, and the Chinese actually showed him what they would do. The U.S. thinks it has lost the Pacific, but does not want to make the same mistake in Eurasia. So, it does not want powerful economies in Eurasia, just like South Korea in the Pacific.
For this reason, they have come to write crisis scenarios for the Turkish economy again. Standard & Poor's (S&P), one of the three major credit rating agencies, has again ranked Turkey as one of the five fragile countries by creating "fragility" criteria. S&P's "fragile five" also includes Argentina, Pakistan, Egypt and Qatar. Let us note that the inclusion of Qatar on the list is a result of the abovementioned endeavor to reshape the Middle East and the Gulf. I would like to say that the "favorite" EU countries, where government debts are far above national income, are never included among these fragile economies.
How did South Africa, India and Indonesia, which were previously declared "fragile" by rating agencies, cease to be fragile? Or what economic problems did they suffer when they were declared fragile? These questions do not have economic, but political answers.
Rating agencies declare countries that push dominant political lines and that are potential and conjuncture-related threats to the dominant hegemony to be fragile in an attempt to create an artificial economic crisis by accelerating capital outflows from these countries and provide economic isolation by preventing foreign direct investments in them. They think this will pave the way for inflicting all kinds of impositions on political powers, which are undermined as a result of crisis and economic isolation.
However, moves to declare countries fragile or even downgrades by such rating agencies are now a futile effort for Turkey. We will soon respond to those who are trying to create a perception of "crisis" with exchange rate excuses. We will see how they will be in the wrong.
It is too little too late to carry out economic and political operations against powerful axis states in Eurasia such as Turkey, just like in the Pacific. Let us once again call not to support terrorism, but peace and economic stability.