Why the Arab Spring was worse than the Iraq War

The Arab Spring destroyed more countries than the Iraq War did.

To be sure, George W. Bush's invasion in 2003 totally and completely destroyed Iraq. It increased persecution of Iraqi minority groups, especially Sunni Arabs and Christians, and gave birth to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (2004), the organisation which became the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006.

However, when Obama inherited that big mess, he could have very easily left Iraq without sending money to Islamic State of Iraq. Yes, you heard that right: Obama sent money to the Islamic State of Iraq to get them to be allies in overthrowing the secular Syrian Government.

Did you know that the same year the Iraq War ended, Obama endorsed the Arab Spring and funded terrorists, including ISIS, to overthrow dictators?

In Syria the results have been obvious, because most of the "moderate rebels" defected to then Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS), the organisation which expanded from the Islamic State of Iraq. ISIS would never have existed in Syria had Obama not supported the Syrian Opposition.

In Libya, much less is seen in the Media, but it is nonetheless horrific. The violence escalated about the same time as ISIS invaded Iraq and declared their Caliphate. In 2014, the remnants of the Libyan Government moved to Tobruk to wage war against mainly Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda militants based in Tripoli. This war, while not as intense as the current Syrian-Iraqi conflict, has still caused untold suffering for the people of Libya.

Yemen is also a very sad story. Obama gave the kingdom of Saudi Arabia the green light to wage a war against the Houthis, a Iranian-friendly (but not Iranian-backed) group hell-bent on destroying Al-Qaeda in Yemen and giving the country much-needed stability. However, Saudi bombing has ended that possibility, with now 7 million Yemenis in famine as we speak,

All three of these conflicts could have never existed had Obama not endorsed in then "Arab Spring." Had Gidaffi crushed the rebellion in 2011; had Assad been able to crush the "moderate rebels" in Syria, the Arab Spring would have undoubtedly dried up.

Syria, Libya and Yemen together affect more people than Iraq does. Iraq has a population of 30 million; the combined population of Syria, Libya and Yemen is 60 million, double that amount.

The difference is that less American ground troops were sent into Syria, Libya and Yemen. This is the reason why Obama's intervention (or compliance over actions of American allies) in Syria, Libya and Yemen has been (until recently) more popular than George Bush's Iraq War. Americans saw Iraq as if it was outside their window - Syria, Libya and Yemen they do not.

But it seems likely that the Obama legacy - and the legacy of the Arab Spring - will be in Russian takeover of each of these 3 conflicts. Russia plans to stabilize Syria by fully allying and cooperating with the government there; in Libya, Russia is currently working with Egypt to stabilize the country by working on a solution through Haftar Al-Khalifa and the remnants of the Libyan Government in Tobruk; in Yemen, Russia is patiently eyeing for the right moment to intervene, likely to occur after significant levels of stability are reached in Syria and Libya.

Thus will it be that Trump's own legacy will be more aligned with that of America: end the Iraq and Afghan Wars properly and proceed to focus on America First. Should Trump remain President for 8 years, I expect he will accomplish these, and these without worrying about Russia cleaning up Obama's mess.

Brexit and Trump, and why millennials need to wake up

Overwhelmingly, millennials are shaken and upset that Brexit and Trump happened.

But I wonder how many millennials have full-time jobs? Or have families to provide for? Or whether they live at home, single, partying like there's no tomorrow with only a mind on themselves.

Selfishness is a trait inherent to millennials. They need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Brexit and Trump happened because many people in Britain and America are able to compare between how these countries were, and how these countries are. Before, Britain and America had independence in trade, foreign policy and immigration. Now the world dictates unfair and unjust trade deals, foreign policy and obscene types of immigration, which has meant the older generations voted for Brexit and Trump.

Obama's foreign policy decisions rival those of George W. Bush. Though not responsible for the Iraq War, Obama's foreign policy decisions in Libya and Syria were abysmal, causing untold suffering for the Middle-East and resulting in the genocide of minorities. That was Barrack Obama - not George Bush.

George Bush, to his credit, didn't invade another country after learning the lesson of Iraq. Barrack Obama's foreign policy saw the destabilization of Syria, Libya, Yemen and even Ukraine. These are Barrack Obama's fault, and nobody knows about it or cares from the millennial generation.

Britain, NATO and the EU wholeheartedly supported Barrack Obama's moves in these countries, which has left the world far less safe than it was 8 years ago. That's Obama, not Bush.

In addition to all this destabilization, the EU and Obama's America have been taking in more refugees, caused by intervention in these countries. Do you see the pattern? Obama destabilizes the Middle-East by forcefully supporting the Arab Spring, then, look at that! Immigration goes up!

Nothing was done by the EU and Obama to respond appropriately to these crises - all the decisions merely inflamed the crises. That's why Brexit and Trump happened, and that's why millennials need to wake up.

The older generations have seen far more of life than millennials have. Can millennials really claim to be well educated when they cry out for Socialism that led to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union? Or that Socialism is causing the bankruptcy of the European Union? That Greece failed because of the Euro?

Or that Barrack Obama has done more in aid of terrorism in his foreign policy blunders than even George W. Bush?! That Obama is the reason the economy in America is failing? His unwillingness to tackle big banks, wall street and job loss, while everyone says, 'he's a good President' because he's an Afro-American democrat who says nice things?!

The older generations have done you, the millennials, a huge favour. The whining and whinging over their votes for your future is sickening. Read up on the issues, the actual issues, and you will see that Trump and Brexit are the best change we've seen in a quarter of a century of politics.

why an ISIS-Saudi war is not only probable but inevitable

The forces that were unleashed in the Iraq War have not yet been fully realised. This is especially true regarding ISIS and the threat it brings to Saudi Arabia.

Whether the conflicts in Iraq and Syria end or not is irrelevant - either way, the international community will still be faced with an ISIS-Saudi war within the kingdom.

The two options of an ISIS spillover into Saudi Arabia are a 'defeat-spillover' or a 'success-spillover.' A 'success spillover' would mean that ISIS maintain a permanent base in Syria and Iraq and from there are able to launch attacks on Saudi Arabia and destabilize it. In the case of a 'defeat-spillover,' Saudi Arabia would lose the large Syrian-Iraqi proxy war to Iran. This would cause Saudi Arabia to destabilize in favour of ISIS.

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would have resulted in a 'success spillover,' while Donald Trump's policies are likely to result in a 'defeat spillover'.

Donald Trump is planning on reversing ISIS' gains permanently in Syria and Iraq to such an extent that he is prepared to work with Russia and the Syrian Government, an Iranian ally, to do this. He is also prepared to work towards military, political and economic solutions in Iraq, which might succeed in giving the country stability for the first time since 2003.

Should Trump be successful, the ISIS 'defeat-spillover' would cause Saudis to blame their government, pledge allegiance to ISIS in overwhelming numbers to rid Saudi Arabia of its twin threat: Iran and America.

This war is only inevitable because the forces of the Middle-East have not yet adjusted to the seismic shift caused by the Iraq War. By removing Saddam Hussein, a secular Sunni, and replacing him with a Shi'ite dominated government, Sunni dominance under secular Saddam Hussein was replaced by a struggling Salafi Islam as Saudi Arabia tried to fill a Sunni void in Iraq, a void left by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. This 'filling of the void' in Sunni Iraq gave us ISIS.

Should Iraq and Syria stabilize under regimes friendly to Iran, Saudi Arabia would need to have an internal transformation in order to resist the threat of an Iran-dominated Middle-East. ISIS is of course a natural benefactor, as Saudis will choose ISIS to force their government to act more forcefully against the threat of Iran within their country.

ISIS also gives Saudi Arabia the excuse to rid the Arabian Peninsula of all Shi'ites, likely causing large Gulf Shi'ite emigration to Iraq. This would mean that Iran would have no chance of using the Shi'ite minority in Saudi Arabia for their own gain.

Regarding America, both ISIS and Al-Qaeda provide avenues for Saudis to resist American influence within the kingdom. This would send a clear message to America: Saudis no longer trust Americans because of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War has had implications far beyond the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein. Even should Iraq stabilize, we will still see the consequences of this disastrous foreign policy played out elsewhere.

Positioning NATO towards radical Islam

Trump has gotten many things right about the war on terror - one of these is his vision to have NATO direct its policies away from antagonising Russia and towards dealing with radical Islam.

Russia represents no threat to the USA - actually she represents a great asset for America. This is especially true in Syria. In Syria, Trump now has the option of withdrawing from the conflict altogether to let Russia and the Syrian government deal with ISIS and radical Islam there.

But radical Islam represents a sizeable and paramount threat to the USA. Since 9-11, the United States has not achieved even one notable victory in the war on terror. Even the capture of Osama Bin Laden was not a notable victory, because in Bin Laden's place is now Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, who is more extreme than Osama Bin Laden.

Capturing Bin Laden has only resulted in a further radicalisation caused by - you guessed it - Obama's policies in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Instead of Bin Laden's execution resulting in a breaking up of Al-Qaeda to decrease radicalisation, the capture of Bin Laden gave Obama the excuse to overthrow Libyan president Gidaffi, greatly increasing Al-Qaeda and ISIS networks there. Obama also funded Iraq's worst enemy in Syria while withdrawing from Iraq, which is tantamount to betrayal by the Obama Administration.

Trump's policies are likely to materialize into some of the greatest victories in the war on terror that we have yet seen - this is especially true if he repositions NATO in that direction.

To reposition NATO towards fighting radical Islam is likely to start in Libya, where NATO was last used. Under Obama and Hillary Clinton, NATO was used wrongly in support of radical Islamic terrorists seeking to overthrow Libyan President Gidaffi. Rather than land in Libya and have America bear all the costs, Trump is likely to use NATO to install Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya as the dictator there. This will result in a victory on the war on terror.

A greater victory on the war on terror than a Libya War is currently being accomplished in Syria under Russia. When Russia succeeds in stabilizing Syria - when, not if - Trump will need larger victories to compete. One such victory could be accomplished in Iraq.

In Iraq, whether America will attack ISIS on its own or whether Trump will use NATO is difficult to know for sure. Yet the only way to create a lasting victory in Iraq would be to up oil exports there over and above oil exports in Iran and Saudi Arabia, two known funders of radical Islamic terrorism.

In this second Iraq War (2014 - present), it would make sense for Trump to utilize NATO to protect oil fields in Iraq from lone wolf attacks. Increasing exports between NATO countries and Iraq would only be accomplished should the Iraqi oil fields remain protected. Trump has vowed complete energy independence from the world - an increase in oil exports between NATO countries and Iraq would be hugely beneficial to both parties without compromising Trump's promise for American energy independence.

In Afghanistan, it is harder to know for sure what Trump will do. Should he sit tight? Or should he withdraw? The only way to create a sizable victory in the Afghan War would be for temporary withdrawal from Afghanistan, a focus on Libya and Iraq, then a return to Afghanistan - from the air - once the situation has more seriously deteriorated. This would give the Afghanis an opportunity to form for themselves a government devoid of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban - but only after they see the Taliban firsthand without an American presence on the ground.

In short, Trump's victories on the war on terror are likely to be substantial. At the very least, I anticipate Trump policy to stabilize Syria, Iraq and Libya, which will decrease radical Islam's vice grip over the region.

Islamic State after ISIS

Trump's policies are set to destroy ISIS for good in Syria and Iraq. But the Islamic State is set to remain in the Middle-East.

ISIS and the Islamic State are one and the same organisation - the difference is in the wording. ISIS is the 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria', which Trump has vowed to completely destroy. Because Assad will remain; because Trump will push up Iraq's oil exports to stabilize the country, the only place in which the Islamic State will be able to expand in the immediate future is Saudi Arabia.

The northern tribes of Saudi Arabia are, unfortunately, the same as those in eastern Syria and western Iraq, the base of support for the Islamic State. This is where the Islamic State is likely to begin its expansion.

But it will not end there. As well as northern Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State will be able to expand into the east, Al-Ahsa, where the Saudi Shi'ites are. The Islamic State would likely unleash an anger - a collective anger of the Sunni Muslims at the Shi'ites who defeated them in Syria and Iraq - unleash an anger directed at the Saudi Shi'ites and resulting in a tearing of the fabric in the eastern province.

Such violence would, eventually, spill into Kuwait and Bahrain as well. The results are likely genocide and mass emigration by the Shi'ites from the Gulf.

As well as the northern and eastern provinces, the Islamic State is likely to make its way into the region of Najd, the central region of the Islamic State's ideology. Here the battle will be most bitterly fought between two sides who believe they better reflect the doctrines of Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Qaseem would likely fall to the Islamic State; Riyadh might fall, but that is harder to know for sure.

Should Mohammed Bin Salman remain the dominant figure of Saudi Arabia, Islamic State will be able to win over many of the tribes in Saudi Arabia and cause the Saud royal family to be living in existential crisis.

Should Mohammed Bin Nayef become more dominant than his cousin, there is a chance the Saudi kingdom would survive. While there are those who hate the Saudi government, Islamic State controlling Mecca and Medina is a very bad idea for the world.

The only feasible way someone like Mohammed Bin Nayef could save the kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be to ally with the lesser of two evils - namely, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen. One almost wonders if that was the reason for King Salman waging the Yemen War in the first place: to train up the Saudi military and to stretch out a hand in alliance with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the face of the Islamic State.

While Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula gaining dominance in Saudi Arabia is a threat to the kingdom, it is nowhere near as potent a threat as that of the Islamic State. Al-Qaeda, while condemning the Saud royal family, has on more than one occasion opened its hand in alliance with the kingdom, most notably during the Iraq-Kuwait War on 1990, in which Saudi Arabia rejected an alliance with Al-Qaeda in favour of the Americans.

Such alliance is Saudi Arabia's hope. After victory over the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would return Saudi Arabia to a sort of Islamic legitimacy, forcing the kingdom to cleanse itself of several policies which undermine it as bearer of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. Those policies include breaking their previous alliance with America and Israel, as well as a focus on defeating America and Israel over and above the current focus on defeating Iran, something the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia currently share in common.

In the mean time, before a Saudi-Al-Qaeda victory over Islamic State could be achieved, it is to be expected that many of the smaller Gulf kingdoms would be destroyed by the Islamic State. These include Kuwait and Bahrain, previously mentioned; these also include Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, where Dubai is located.

The Islamic State re-declaring itself as a Caliphate from its capital in Dubai is a frightening and distinct possibility.

The best thing President-elect Donald Trump could do in the face of such a conflict is minimize its impact on the rest of the Middle-East. Making Iraq one of America's top Arab allies is a step in the right direction - should the Trump Administration stabilize and wholeheartedly ally with Iraq, the Islamic State would be unable to expand back into its previous support network.

The other way Trump could minimize its impact on the rest of the Middle-East would be to minimize ties with Saudi Arabia, as he seems keen to do. The other way would be to withdraw support for Saudi's war on Yemen and even withdraw from bombing Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Saudi Arabia is going to need Al-Qaeda's help to defeat the Islamic State.

Staying neutral in the Saudi war is essential for Trump's withdrawal policies from the Middle-East to succeed. Should he get sucked into that conflict, it would only be exacerbated and increase the likelihood of the Saudi government falling.

Obama bombing more countries than Bush?!

Obama and Bush were both Establishment Presidents.

Of course Obama did some things that many Establishment Presidents would not do - namely, withdraw from Iraq (2011); the Iran Nuclear Deal (2015); not overthrow the Syrian Government (2011 - 2016) - in spite of this, Obama has, like Bush, agreed with the ideology of regime change.

Herein lies Obama's problem in foreign policy. Regime change is the biggest cause for increase in terrorism - we saw this after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. The lessons from Bush's Iraq War have not been learnt by Obama in Yemen, Libya and Syria. And this is unacceptable.

For Yemen, Libya and Syria are the 3 additional conflicts Obama is bombing, added to Bush's bombing of 4 countries - namely, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia. These 3 additional conflicts are, in essence, being bombed because the dominant powers in those countries run counter or ran counter to United States' interest.

In Yemen, the Houthis threaten to rip Yemen from Saudi Arabia's vice grip. The Houthis threaten the Al-Qaeda stronghold in Yemen. For Saudi Arabia, this is unacceptable, and America is assisting Saudi's war on Yemen, while also continuing drone strikes in the country against Al-Qaeda - which, I might add, help more than hinder Al-Qaeda's recruitment there.

In Libya, Moammar Al-Gidaffi had been on America's list of regime change for decades. The Arab Spring provided the Obama Administration with an opportunity for regime change there, overthrowing Gidaffi and replacing him with squabbling militias.

From these squabbling militias ISIS made its footprint in Derna and more recently in Sirte. The Obama Administration decided that bombing ISIS in Libya was a great idea, though had Gidaffi never been removed in the first place, ISIS would not exist in Libya. Again, Obama's campaign against ISIS in Libya helps more than hinders the spread of terrorism in Libya.

Syria is worst of the 3. To Obama's credit, he did not remove Bashar Al-Assad, but he still funded rebels, the majority of whom have more in common with ISIS than America. Now he is involved in an ISIS campaign that would not have existed in Syria had he but stayed out of Syria and not supported the rebels there.

Thankfully, Obama's ISIS campaign in Syria has not been helping recruitment there - it has been genuinely helpful in eradicating terrorism from Syria.


In the Trump Administration, expect a lot more productive intervention in the majority of the 7 countries the United States is currently bombing. Expect Trump to end the conflict in Syria by ending Obama's policy of 'Assad must go' and of funding Syrian rebels. Expect Trump to end much of the conflict in Iraq by 'taking their oil' (namely, increasing oil relations with Iraq over and above Saudi Arabia and Iran, to economically benefit Iraq). Expect Trump to install dictator Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya, ending militias squabbling and restoring stability there.

Expect also Trump to withdraw from Afghanistan. It is true that America would likely return to Afghanistan 3 - 5 years after withdrawal, but Trump understands that spending much longer in Afghanistan is wasted effort. There are more immediate battles in the war on terror that require US' attention than Afghanistan.

Sadly, it is unlikely Trump would stop American bombings in Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen. Yet the ending of 3 - 4 conflicts in the Middle-East would greatly improve America's standing in the region.

Are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia about to ally with China?

Trump's plans for the Middle-East represent significant problems for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.


For Saudi Arabia, the shrinking of Sunni-dominance in Iraq and Syria by the Trump Administration represents an existential threat to the Saudi kingdom.

Trump willing to work with Bashar Al-Assad against ISIS in Syria is one thing, but Trump's plan to increase relations with Iraq is another, a policy which threatens to unhinge Saudi Arabia from the American sphere of influence.

There are two options for Saudi Arabia. One is increased relations with China - the other is increased relations with the European Union. And Saudi Arabia is likely to make the most of both opportunities.

The European Union is from a political sphere of influence that runs counter to the 'New Nationalism' of Putin, Trump and Brexit. To ally more closely with the European Union makes logical sense for Saudi Arabia, as the European Union's views of immigration, Assad and Iran are not dissimilar with the conservative kingdom's own views.

China, though not a fan of Islamism, would share benefit from allying more closely with Saudi Arabia regarding oil. With Trump set to 'take their [Iraqi] oil,' (namely increase American oil relations with Iraq) previous oil deals between China and Iraq would be decreased substantially. Previous oil deals between America and Saudi Arabia would also be decreased substantially.

While Iran would provide some oil, it would not be enough for the gigantic Asian power. China would perhaps be able to move into America's shoes in Saudi Arabia, dominating much of the Arabian Gulf and being the largest importer of Saudi oil.

China, like Russia and Trump's America, benefits from a stable Middle-East. With Russia set to stabilize Syria and Trump to stabilize Iraq, China would perhaps be able to show its force in stabilizing what is likely to be an unstable Saudi Arabia.

This likelihood is increased by a further strengthening of Pakistani-Chinese relations under a Trump Administration.


Pakistan has similar threats from Trump as Saudi Arabia, though not as immediate. Trump, likely to withdraw from Afghanistan after solidly smashing the Taliban in 2017, would after 3 - 5 years return to fix an even more unstable Afghanistan. The reason for Trump's likely withdrawal is two-fold: first, the war on terror has other priority battlegrounds which need dealing with first, namely in Syria, Iraq and Libya; second, American public opinion no longer supports the Afghan war as it once did.

If Trump can show he wishes to rebuild American infrastructure and deal successfully with the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Libya, American public is unlikely to hold him as accountable for a worse Afghanistan. Namely, if Afghanistan explodes before the 2020 elections, it would unlikely affect Trump's popularity should America, Syria, Iraq and Libya recover.

Trump has said that his problem with the Afghan War is mainly Pakistan over Afghanistan. Trumps sees that Pakistan deliberately destabilizes Afghanistan through an increase in terrorism there. Trump would likely have an unfavourable policy towards Pakistan in order to stabilize Afghanistan. This would likely drive Pakistan more fully into China's embrace.

Pakistani-Chinese relations are currently good, and are only set to improve under a Trump Administration. With Trump able to stabilize Afghanistan at the cost of Pakistan as an ally, it couldn't be a better deal for the American people, and couldn't be a better example of Trump foreign policy.