The historical lessons from Syria's Assad fall.

The root causes of unrest in Syria and the Middle East.

On December 8, an event occurred in Syria that shocked the world. The Assad government, which had ruled Syria for decades, suddenly collapsed almost overnight, shocking the entire world.

It is reported that Assad has already flown to Russia, and one of the branches of the Syrian opposition, the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, has entered the Syrian capital Damascus.

Subsequently, Israel took advantage of Syria's defenselessness and launched a fierce attack on the Syrian Air Force, Navy and missile facilities. The Israeli military said: "(Israel's action) is a key step in establishing regional dominance. From now on, Israeli military aircraft will fly over Syrian airspace without hindrance."

We can imagine that after the fall of Syria, Israel's next target will undoubtedly be Iran. Israel has always been very wary of Iran's development of nuclear weapons, so it wants to get rid of Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as possible. Therefore, the fall of Syria is not the "beginning of peace in the Middle East" as some people say. On the contrary, the changes in Syria are the beginning of a new round of chaos in the Middle East.

So, why did Syria become turbulent, and why can't the Middle East achieve peace? This requires us to come up with a new theory to conduct a thorough logical review of what happened in the Middle East.

This new theory is called the "core area and periphery" theory, which means that there is a core area and a periphery in the Middle East. The reason for this distinction is that we now need to look at the Middle East issue from the perspective of American hegemony and American global strategy.

The "core area" and "periphery area" of the Middle East

We all know that oil in the Middle East is the lifeblood of US hegemony and the hegemony of the US dollar. Especially after the dollar was decoupled from gold in 1971, the value of the dollar became more dependent on oil in the Middle East. Most of the oil in the Middle East is in the hands of the Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it is a logical choice for the United States to win over Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries to support the hegemony of the US dollar.

However, as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries earn a lot of dollars from oil transactions and achieve huge wealth growth, they are likely to break away from the control of the United States. Therefore, if the United States wants to firmly control Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, it needs to create a strong external enemy to force Saudi Arabia and other countries to submit, so that the princes of Saudi Arabia and other countries will willingly return the dollars they earn from oil transactions to the United States.

This external enemy is obviously Israel. A powerful Israel that crushes the entire Middle East will undoubtedly become the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of Saudi princes and other countries. Only in this way can the princes of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries willingly accept the "protection" of the US military.

This is the "petrodollar plan" orchestrated by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Looking back now, it is not an exaggeration to say that this plan is a "masterstroke". Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries used US dollars in oil transactions, creating a large amount of US dollar wealth. Afterward, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries almost perfectly realized the closed loop of petrodollars by purchasing US weapons and paying for the US troops stationed in these countries.

This plan has two purposes:

1. It can support the value anchor of the US dollar. With oil as the cornerstone of the dollar, the Fed can play the money printing game almost indefinitely.

2. It can make Saudi Arabia and other countries consume their own US dollar wealth, thereby curbing the industrial base of Saudi Arabia and other countries and making them always dependent on the protection of US troops stationed there.

Then there is no doubt that these Gulf countries that provide support for the dollar hegemony are the "core area" countries in the Middle East. Since these core area countries are important supports for the dollar hegemony, the United States will not allow unrest in these countries. On the contrary, the United States will make every effort to ensure the stability of these regimes to ensure their absolute support for the United States.

In addition to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries and Israel, the Middle East, and even North African countries are naturally "marginal" countries, and these countries have become the target countries for the United States to create unrest. For example, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc. are all countries where the United States has created unrest.

“Core Area” countries: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain

"Periphery Area" Countries: Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Türkiye

The countries in the “core area” are those that the United States focuses on supporting, while the countries in the “peripheral area” are those where the United States creates unrest and regime change.

There are two reasons why the United States creates unrest in these marginal countries:

1. It is to protect Israel's absolute security, because Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and other countries have vast territories, long histories, and relatively strong military strength. Therefore, they pose a major threat to Israel, an important strategic asset of the United States in the Middle East. Naturally, the United States and Israel have sufficient motivation to create color revolutions in these countries, incite civil wars, and guide regime changes.

2. It is that the United States also needs unrest in peripheral countries to force core countries to rely more on the U.S. "military protection." Only when unrest continues in peripheral countries, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries will naturally be terrified and have to pay more to the United States for stationing troops and rely on the U.S. "protection." This is also an important reason why peace in the Middle East has always been difficult.

If the Middle East is in lasting peace, then what reason does the United States have to station troops in Saudi Arabia and other countries? Does the United States still have a reason to deploy a large number of troops in the Middle East? There is no reason. Only if the Middle East continues to be in chaos, the United States can deploy troops indefinitely in the Middle East. There is a saying in China that this behavior is called "nurturing the enemy to protect oneself."

In ancient China, some generals with rebellious hearts, to make the court rely on themselves, deliberately left some remnants of bandits in the process of suppressing bandits to allow them to continue to cause chaos. What's worse, some generals secretly colluded with these bandits, supplied them with money and food, and strengthened their strength. The purpose of doing this was to allow the so-called "bandit suppression cause" to continue indefinitely so that the court could not take any action against the generals.

The United States is now adopting the same strategy in dealing with the Middle East. The United States secretly supports some terrorist forces, such as ISIS, to allow them to grow stronger, and then takes military action against them in the name of "fighting terrorism".

In addition, the United States also creates unrest in marginal countries, such as Syria, so that the United States can use these terrorist forces and unrest in marginal countries to threaten Saudi Arabia and other countries, making them more obedient to the United States and dare not offend the United States.

Under the US's two-way harvest, the Middle East will naturally never be at peace, because the US will not allow peace in the Middle East. If there is no enemy, the US will create one. If there is no turmoil, the US will create one. Under the US's manipulation, how can the Middle East be at peace? !

Many people have a misunderstanding about the "core area" and the "periphery area", that is, to understand it in terms of pro-Americanism, which is wrong. Whether a country should exist for the United States is not what the United States considers, but whether it is necessary for the United States' strategy. If the US strategy requires a country to be in turmoil, then even if it is pro-American, it will be in turmoil. Therefore, it is a very naive idea to simply stay "pro-American" to avoid national turmoil.

The Enlightenment of the “Core Area” and “Periphery Area” Theory on China’s Overseas Investment

In addition to perfectly explaining the United States' manipulation of the Middle East, the theory of core areas and peripheral areas also has an important revelation for China's overseas investment.

That is, it is obvious that under the manipulation of the United States, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and other countries are all tools for the United States to create unrest and threaten Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Therefore, it is certainly unsafe for China to invest in these countries. If China wants to invest, it is best to choose countries in the core areas, that is, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and other countries, and try not to choose countries in the peripheral areas.

The Enlightenment of the Theory of "Core Area" and "Periphery Area" to the Arab Renaissance Movement

The theory of core and periphery areas also has certain implications for the Arab Renaissance movement.

The core goal of the Arab Renaissance Movement is to drive out foreign forces in the Middle East and then achieve unity and autonomy in the Middle East and the Arab world. In marginal countries, the Arab Renaissance Movement is relatively easy to achieve. This is because the essence of the Arab Renaissance Movement is revolution, and revolution has its own laws. For example, the socialist revolution is also a kind of revolution, and Lenin profoundly pointed out in "Imperialism": "Socialist revolution can be achieved in the weak links of imperialism."

This is true for the socialist revolution and the Arab Renaissance movement. Historically, the success of the Arab Renaissance movement was basically achieved in marginal countries. For example, the Iraqi Ba'ath Party seized power, the Syrian Ba'ath Party seized power, and the Egyptian Ba'ath Party seized power. These examples of the Ba'ath Party seizing power all occurred in marginal countries such as Syria, Egypt, and Iraq.

However, history has also proven that such revolutions that rely on marginal areas and weak links can succeed, but they are easily suppressed and eventually fail. For example, the Soviet socialist revolution made a breakthrough in the weak link of imperialism, Russia, but under the suppression of European and American powers, the Soviet Union disintegrated.

The Arab Renaissance movement also suffered the same fate. In 2003, the Iraqi Baath Party regime was overthrown by the United States. During the Arab Spring in 2011, Mubarak, as the main successor of the Egyptian Arab Renaissance movement, was overthrown by the Color Revolution. Recently, the Syrian Baath Party regime collapsed under the multiple pressures of the United States, Israel, and Turkey. This shows that the Arab Renaissance movement won in marginal countries, but also failed quickly.

Obviously, Lenin's assertion in "Imperialism" that "socialist revolution triumphs in the weak links of imperialism" is correct, but Lenin died very early and did not discover the problem. In other words, if the revolution does not triumph in the core areas, the victory of the revolution in the peripheral areas alone will not be able to shake the overall situation.

Or we can say that if the revolutionary victory in the marginal areas is not transformed into the revolutionary victory in the core areas, the marginal areas will be besieged by the core areas. If the revolution is to achieve a comprehensive victory, it needs the successful experience of the Chinese revolution. The reason why the Chinese revolution was victorious was that it adopted the idea of ​​"surrounding the cities from the countryside", that is, gradually advancing from the marginal areas to the core areas, thus leading to the comprehensive victory of the entire revolution.

On the specific issue of the Middle East, the lesson that the Arab Renaissance Movement should learn is that the Arab Renaissance Movement should not be satisfied with the revival movement in the marginal countries, but must push the revival movement to the core countries, that is, to promote the Arab Renaissance Movement in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, etc., and then establish corresponding Baath Party regimes. Only in this way can the Arab Renaissance Movement in the Middle East open up the situation.

As for the socialist revolution, the core area is of course European and American countries. If the socialist revolution wants to achieve complete victory, it must naturally first realize the socialist revolution in European and American countries. That is, it is necessary to promote the socialist revolution to the core countries, and then reversely influence the peripheral areas from the core areas. Only in this way can the socialist revolution achieve final victory.

In short, the changes in Syria have taught us many lessons, which are very worthy of our serious study and profound summary, so as to serve as important reference for the future.