The foreign policies of the U.S. government reveal the presence of a very long-term goal: rule the world. Sometimes the U.S. has strongly supported dictators throughout the world while simultaneously working against others. Sometimes the U.S. has supported movements and rebellions against dictators. Sometimes the U.S. has engineered changes in governments. Sometimes the U.S. has supported large states and existing borders. Sometimes the U.S. has worked to break up states into pieces. There is no consistency in the means being used by the U.S. government. The theme that ties the flexible means together is that they are employed to achieve a greater measure of control by the U.S. over some region, state, economy or people.

The same flexibility is revealed by shifting rhetoric and inconsistent rhetoric. One moment a foreign leader or state may be an ally, the next moment an enemy. One moment some group is a terror group, the next moment they are freedom-fighters.

The U.S. would like to control Iran and bring its policies into conformity with U.S. interests. The U.S. will use various means to accomplish this. If it can get a friendly moderate government installed and undermine the existing conservative government, that will do for now. If that takes a Color Revolution, that will do. These maintain Iran as a state. But if the U.S. thinks that breakaway movements on the part of ethnic groups like the Kurds or Baloch nationalists are needed for the U.S. to gain control, then it will go for breaking Iran up into pieces. If support for rebels means support for terrorism and terrorists, that will do. The goal is always the same, domination; the means vary.

The nature and methods of control over friendly governments vary, adding fog to the picture.

The U.S. would like to control Russia and China, if it could. The U.S. is nothing if not ambitious in its goal to rule the world. Exactly the same kinds of alternatives exist for these two giant countries as for Iran: Install a friendly government that goes along with U.S. policies; undermine the existing government that seeks to conserve the Russian nation and civilization; or foster Color Revolutions; or support moderate groups; or support terrorist groups; or support breakaway movements.

At the same time, the U.S. has an arsenal of weapons falling under the heading of hybrid warfare or asymmetric warfare. It can use sanctions, one-off bombings, computer worms, blackmail, assassinations, undercover agents, and so on.

Explaining what institutions and what groups within America perpetuate the goal and choose the means to achieve it over long time periods is a separate matter. There are established institutions of education, reward, certification, employment and selection that accomplish the necessary maintenance of views, beliefs and incentives conducive to the goal.

Although Trump’s means differ from those of Obama in the Middle East, the goal is the same: control. The main target is Iran at present. The U.S. would like nothing better than to establish regions within Syria that are under U.S. control so as to impede Iran. If it succeeds, that will not end its pressure on Iran. If it fails, that too will not end its pressure on Iran. Similarly, the U.S. will continue to pressure Russia. If circumstances make it optimal, Trump will pressure current allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Allies of the U.S. always have to realize that the U.S. goal is to be top dog and the U.S. is flexible as to the means employed to achieve that goal.

The theory that the U.S. has a long-term goal of world domination implies that the U.S. will not give up or relax its efforts. If one regional conflict seems to tone down or be settled, the U.S. will continue to press forward in some other regions or in some other ways. If one enemy seems to have been vanquished or changed his spots, new enemies will be brought to the fore.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff