By Mark Wachtler
December 8, 2011. Mecca. (ONN) Five years ago at the peak of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Armed Forces Journal published a map and article written by author Ralph Peters. The map gained international attention, as it detailed what a future map of the Middle East would look like, with or without mankind’s assistance.
Future map of the Middle East as designed by author Ralph Peters in 2006. Images courtesy of Armed Forces Journal.
Based on thousands of years of tribal and linguistic ties, Peters designed a map that aroused not condemnation and cries of nation-building, but instead a realistic discussion on the future of Middle East peace. With the US having realigned the playing field in the region, take another look at the future Middle East map, whether we like it or not.
Keep in mind, the entire synopsis published five years ago in Armed Forces Journal, as well as this article, are simply hypothetical. But as the old saying goes, ‘history repeats itself’. And in the case of thousands of years of ever-changing national borders, nothing is more certain than the fact that peoples who share one region, one religious faith, one culture, one language and one history – will fight and die to insure they share one future together as well. As history has proven time and again, self-serving British, French, Russian and American elites have repeatedly redrawn the Middle East’s national borders with an eye on their own power and enrichment rather than the common sense of a first-year sociology student.
Current map of the Middle East
Throughout most of history, national boundaries in the Middle East have been redrawn by conquering armies. Over the last century however, Europeans have had that privilege. The results of their arbitrary boundaries have been one hundred years of war and regional war. Worse yet, today we see the national boundaries being redrawn on their own – with numerous silent campaigns of ethnic cleansing and a handful of national conflicts and civil wars.
While we at Whiteout Press are proud to stand against groups like the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission – groups largely responsible for the war-torn national dividing lines that exist today, one can’t help but wonder what the world would be like if the Illuminati used their power to assist the natural shift in boundaries that is already taking place rather than use western armies and war to fight it. For more in formation on the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission, read the following Whiteout Press Special Reports, ‘The Illuminati’ and ‘The Trilateral Commission and their Secret History’.
When one looks at the future-world map drawn by author Ralph Peters and published in Armed Forces Journal five years ago, it’s curious to ponder the arguments made by Peters within his article. Let’s re-examine some of his thoughts.
Future map of the Middle East, as designed by author Ralph Peters in 2006.
The introductory sentences of Mr. Peters’ essay five years ago sum up the cost of ignoring history in lieu of one’s own arrogance, “International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.”
The author begins by citing some of the most obvious examples of peoples without a country. They include the Kurds, Baluch and swaths of Arab Shia. But the “one haunting wrong that can never be redressed with a reward of territory” Peters writes, “the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dieing Ottoman Empire.” Peters uses this opportunity to remind us of one unacknowledged fact, “one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.”
The major changes, some of which are already happening before our eyes
Always the world’s headline, Middle East conflict has centered around Israel and Palestine in recent decades. According to the article, Israel would be one of the countries to lose some of its territory. The following quote from the 2006 article is hauntingly reminiscent of two global headlines this year, “For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders.” Those are the borders supported by both US President Barack Obama, as well as the new Palestinian Authority in their application for nationhood to the United Nations this year. Peters does make exceptions however for Isreal to retain strategic border locations, drawn with precision specifically for their defense and safety.
For years, individuals throughout the world sincerely interested in Middle East peace have pleaded with the world’s three most powerful religions to address the boiling tensions surrounding the city of Jerusalem. With Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claiming the city’s holy sites as their own, many have suggested Jerusalem be converted into a global city, open to all. Sovereign like Vatican City in Italy and ruled by a UN-modeled multinational force, Jerusalem would be a city of Earth, not of any one country.
Peters humorously points out in his article, “Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon…”, he surmises that oil money and ethnic arguments are nothing compared to religious holy wars.
While Jerusalem would be the only city co-ruled by multiple nations and religions, Mecca would pattern itself along the lines of the Vatican. The difference – Mecca would be a city open to the whole of the Muslim world. Concerning the Saudi family rule of the great city, the author writes:
“A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family’s treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam’s holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world’s most bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders.”
The author suggests, “Imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world’s major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican.”
Echoed by us here at Whiteout Press, the article’s author rightly claims, “The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state.” There are roughly 30 million Kurds living in the mountainous region shared by Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. In fact, Kurdish freedom fighters have been fighting a never-ending war for independence against the militaries of all four nations. Read the Whiteout Press articles for more information, ‘Iran Invades Iraq to Attack Kurds’ and ‘Israel Joins Iran and Turkey at War in Iraq’.
Labeled as “terrorists” in western media, the Kurds continue to fight. In fact, the population of a future Kurdistan would actually be larger than modern day Iraq. The Kurds can trace their ancestors back a millennia and have historically been linked with whatever empire controls Turkey at the time. But isolated in the harsh mountains, they’ve always managed to retain their culture. The article published in Armed Forces Journal claims, “A Free Kurdistan would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.”
On the proposed map, Iraq wouldn’t only lose Kurdistan, but also Shia-dominated areas as well. What’s left of Iraq would be a Sunni state. Made up of the three Sunni provinces in Iraq, the author speculates the residents may some day merge with their Syrian neighbors – “Phoenecia reborn”. While the Iraqi Kurds would form their own nation and the Sunni regions of Iraq stood alone, the southern Shia areas of Iraq would be joined into the Arab Shia State.
Arab Shia State and Iran
Rimming much of the Persian Gulf, the Arab Shia State would be drawn from Shia territories in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran would lose much of its territory to Kurdistan, Baluchistan and the Arab Shia State. But it would gain a region of Afghanistan. What’s left of Iran would become a truly Persian nation again like the Persia of old.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
Afghanistan would lose some territory to Persia, but gain some from Pakistan. The regions of western Pakistan are another example cited by the author as poorly drawn borders. Peters suggests that the tribes currently locked within Pakistan would gladly rejoin their ancient brethren in Afghanistan. Pakistan would not only lose territory in the northwest to the Afghans, but also in the southwest to a newly created Baluchistan.
In summary, author Ralph Peters wrote in his 2006 article, “Studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today’s boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century. Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.”
Peters offers a warning at the conclusion of his 2006 essay:
“Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself…Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies. From the world’s oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation…the US, its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end…the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.”