Is a global crisis nearing? Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc. Oil, the Petrodollar, terrorism, international economics, the UN. It does not take much imagination to glimpse the possibility of a third global war. With the nations provided, a simple mistake and you have a World War scenario based on alliances alone, similar to the First World War but on a much larger scale.

It seems as though the United States is desperately trying to go to war with Iran or Syria. Of course, due to the strategic alliance between Iran and Syria, if you go to war with one, you go to war with the other, so which one comes first is irrelevant. These nations have quite a few powerful friends as well. Should we be concerned?

Gen. Wesley Clark, retired 4-star US Army general and Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War, went on record on March 5, 2007, saying that the Secretary of Defense released a memo back in 2001 that described how the United States was going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran (Clark, 2007). You probably do not remember this being run on your nightly news. Why not?

If you run a tally on his words, you will notice only two nations left on the list provided, and those two are listed in the previous paragraph. So why? A term you need to become familiar with is “Petrodollar.” A petrodollar is a United States dollar earned by a country through the sale of its petroleum (oil) to another country (Petrodollar, 2013). When we look at the nations that General Clark referred to, we see an interesting correlation . . . that, of course, is the Petrodollar. Or better said . . . the defense of the Petrodollar.

In other words, if an oil-producing nation sells its oil to another country, they use a United States dollar through that sale per agreements made in the early 1970s. This created stabilization for the dollar as well as demand. It would, therefore, become a threat to the United States economy for these oil-producing nations to sell their oil in currencies other than the United States Petrodollar. You might remember that the United States does not have a “gold standard.” Perhaps instead, we should call it a “Petro Standard“?

Undoubtedly, some would like to refute what General Clark was saying. Sure, his timeline was a little off as far as the resolution goes, but the result is the same. In November of 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in only Euros (Reuters, 2000). The next thing you know, Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, and we were on our way to war. In 2003, the United States invaded and immediately switched oil sales back to dollars (Hoyas & Morrison, 2003). So there is Iraq.

Libya—For several years leading up to 2011, Gaddafi created a new currency backed by gold that was supposed to replace the dollar for their oil sales. This was going to be called the Gold Dinar (Emmit, 2011). Of course, that never happened because the US and NATO forces destabilized the nation, Gaddafi was murdered, and the Libyan Central Bank was created. A gold dinar would have given oil-rich African and Middle Eastern countries the power to raise prices and demand payment in gold (RT, 2011). Do you think the US and its NATO allies could afford to let that happen?

Somalia— There has been a secret war there for quite some time now (Hosenball, 2013). In early 2013, the Obama administration expanded this secret war in violation of the terms of an international arms embargo by stepping up assistance for federal and regional Somali intelligence agencies that are allied against the country’s Islamist insurgency. The US presence there is more significant than most realize, hosting at least eight Predator drones, eight F-15E fighter jets, and nearly 2,000 US troops and military civilians at a base in neighboring Djibouti (Lynch, 2013).

Lebanon—The 2006 Lebanon War, also called the 2006 Israel- Hezbollah War. We could also look into the assassination of Rafic Hariri and the Cedar Revolution. This one has the US written all over it. However, it was not until 2012 that the information started to surface. Reports from Lebanon said that the Qatari government had provided substantial financial backup in Petro Dollars for Salafi leaders and Syrian dissidents to help recruit and train terrorists in Lebanon for the war on President Bashar al-Assad’s government (Valiente, 2012). The very same government that the United States has been attempting to oust. Why? Perhaps because there is not a central bank in Syria or because Syria might be a gateway to Iran?

Sudan—Southern Sudan became a sovereign state on July 9, 2011. However, on July 29, 2013, Mark Landler of the New York Times wrote an article describing how the Obama administration was aggressively trying to get the word out about “a violent, murky conflict in a distant land.” Still, he also asked, “why single out this crisis” (Landler, 2013)? That is a great question. Yet, in the same article, we see the connection clearly as day. “The United States and other Western nations have poured billions of dollars into South Sudan, before and after the referendum, to try to turn a destitute land, with oil reserves but a long history of violence and little in the way of institutions, into a viable country” (Landler, 2013). Note the oil.

The only nations left on the list are Iran and Syria, which are aggressively being pursued via sanctions or destabilization operations within the region. Regardless, be it a Central Bank, the Petrodollar, or the oil itself, Americans are slowly but surely waking up to the idea the continual or perpetual war scenario has little to do with democracy or freedom. It seems it has more to do with dominance and power. Once again, you can only push someone so far before they decide to fight back. Pretending for a second that it is all about the longevity of our freedoms, we would still have to fight for our resources.

If we consider the endless battles over resources, we must again concede to the idea of global war. The United States Department of Defense is one of the world’s largest single energy consumers, responsible for 93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007 (Lengyel, 2007). In fact, according to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use, coming in just behind Iraq and just ahead of Sweden. This is important to note because it spells out “motivation.” If someone were to try and cut off this supply, or if there were some “shortage,” there might be an issue.

The people have been told that there is not a shortage of oil, but this sure has not stopped the increase in the price of oil or energy, and the repercussions concerning the economy and inflation have followed suit. This does lend credibility to the idea of the Petrodollar being the culprit, as well as provide insight into the inevitable demise of our great nation.

Meanwhile,  OPEC producers like Saudi Arabia have said they “have the capacity to fill the gap” in oil supply if dips occur (Heritage, 2013). However, this only demonstrates a continued reliance on a foreign nation to sustain our well-being. It also implies that we can both afford and transport the resource to the United States. Think about the many ways this could be stopped.

For example, how many people have thought about the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz (which has been threatened numerous times)? What would that do to the United States, considering its massive hunger for oil? Would the US do what the Japanese did in 1941 and go to war over it? What if the Russians backed the Iranians? (Which they are)

What about during a dollar collapse or a hyperinflationary event when these other nations stop using the Petrodollar? Would that stop the desire or need for oil from a government standpoint? Of course not! So ask yourself how the government would acquire such resources with no money or physical asset to trade. War? What if Iran decided to go ahead and nuke Israel? What would the United States’ response be? How would other nations like Russia respond? War?

There are many assumptions about such a war, most of which should be considered ignorant. These assumptions are that we would undoubtedly win such a war and that such a war would never reach the mainland of the United States. These ideas are beyond naïve, and you are setting yourself up for disappointment by believing such things.

Between Russia’s Air Force and China’s Navy alone, the United States would have its hands full. Think about this for a second. You have one nation responsible for literature such as “Art of War “and the other known for their abilities in Chess. What is the United States known for, baseball? It is safe to assume that the bigger nations around the world have a few plans up their sleeves.

My intent here is not to discredit the United States. Instead, it is to help you understand that the United States is neither invisible nor immune to invasion. While the governments of the world feud over resources and money, would this not affect the average citizen? Furthermore, we cannot win every war we start or get involved in. I understand that it is rarely taught in schools, but that does not make it any less accurate.

Think about this, we almost lost in Korea (which ended in a stalemate—not a win), we lost in Vietnam, and some could argue that we lost (at least in part) during the Somali Civil War. So then let us look at Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya: we were told we won, but is that true? Insurgent groups have kept the “strongest military might in the world” busy for many years now, and for what? Freedom? Freedom against what exactly and for who? Petrodollar Collapse?

What about an invasion? Indeed the United States is far enough away from any potential enemy that the only thing any enemy could hope to do would be to fire a missile at us . . . in which case, the US military would shoot it down with our Star Wars programs or utilize the power of the USS Enterprise! The bad news, fantasy does not tend to play well with reality.

On the morning of March 9, 1916, Pancho Villa crossed the border of the United States with his horsemen, set fire to the city of Columbus, killed several soldiers, nabbed a few horses and guns, and the following day was back in Mexico to tell the tale (History.com, 1916). You probably do not find this to be a big deal.

Of course, everyone already knows about the Japanese invading the United States and attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Sure, many are quick to point out that this was not the mainland and that it does not count because they did not advance to the West Coast. Well, it does count.

June 13, 1942, four German operatives landed at Amagansett, New York, toward the eastern tip of Long Island. Or, we could discuss how another four Nazis came ashore three days later at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, just south of Jacksonville. Their purpose was to wreak havoc on America’s infrastructure (Lewis, 2011).

The argument at this point usually turns to technology, how superior the United States is, and how these incidents were not full-blown armies. True, but then again, according to the official story, it only took 19 people to fundamentally change our country in September of 2001 with one of the most significant attacks on American soil in US history. We have one of the most porous borders on the planet. So that debate is more or less irrelevant, and the point still stands.

Let us not split hairs on this topic. Sometimes it simply does not take a standing army to attack an enemy. If the attack is on your soil, it is on your soil. Of course, perhaps the examples given are not good enough. We need recent examples with big-time players, right?

Then let us wrap our minds around early 2006 when the Russian air force flew Tu-160 bombers undetected through US airspace during military exercises (RIANovosti, 2006). Or how back in 2007, a Chinese submarine was able to surprise American military leaders when a Chinese submarine popped up close to the massive supercarrier USS Kitty Hawk off the coast of California (Hoft, 2010). For your information, “Surprise” also means undetected.

According to senior NATO officials, the incident caused consternation in the US Navy. The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication or that it posed such a threat (Hoft, 2010).

During that same time frame, it was speculated that a mysterious contrail originating roughly 30 miles off the coast of California was the exhaust emanating from a missile, probably made in China. Missile experts said the plume was possibly launched from a submarine (Farah, 2010).

Essentially, the Chinese snuck a submarine close to one of our carriers just a few miles off our coastline, then fired a missile, and it surprised everyone. Theoretically, they could have nuked our West Coast, and there would have been little our military could have done about it.

It was also reported in July of 2012 that two Russian Bear bombers were intercepted while flying near the west coast of the United States on the 4th of July and that it was the second incident in the two weeks where Russian nuclear-capable bombers had entered, or come near US air space (Jackson G. P., 2012).

Let me reiterate that the point merely demonstrates that we are not invisible or immune from attack. We can be reached; we can be surprised. It can happen because there is no such thing as “invincible.” Our nation’s biggest weakness is the arrogance of the American people thinking that such things could only happen in the movies and the ignorance of why any country would be motivated to commit such an attack.

Try to remember what happened during the government shutdown in 2013. Now imagine that on a larger scale, for instance, during a dollar collapse or hyperinflation. Better yet, how about during a default on our debt? Would our military or government be at its peak performance? Could they even respond? Evidently, the United States could not even keep our national parks open, and the last anyone checked, parks do not need anyone in government to be there in the first place.

When we are told that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat, and we discover that Russia is putting that nuclear program together, what do we get? What do we get when we are told that Syria is a problem but that Russia, Iran, and China have Syria’s back? What do we get when North Korea is running at the mouth again, and we find out that China will defend them? What do we get when we consider strategic alliances between any of them? Many have already forgotten or were never told that World War 1 became a world war due to basic alliances between nations.

This is probably a good time to mention that I am not condoning military action against any of these nations. With the understanding of the reasons why these nations are an “issue” to begin with, I only see a big issue on the backend. I am also not telling you this to sell you on the idea of supporting one side or another. My intent here is to point out that things are much worse than what we have been told and that you may have to face the repercussions of what your government is doing at some point. The fight may be brought to your backyard for any number of reasons. It should be stressed that nations such as Russia and China are not only considering it but are planning on it.

On  November  1,  2013, Chinese state-run media revealed for the first time that Beijing’s nuclear submarines could attack American cities as a means to counterbalance US nuclear deterrence in the Pacific. Media outlets, including China Central TV, the People’s Daily, the Global Times, the PLA Daily, the China Youth Daily, and the Guangming Daily, ran identical, top-headlined reports about the “awesomeness” of the People’s Liberation Army navy’s strategic submarine force (Yu, 2013).

Former KGB analyst and dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats Igor Panarin has been predicting the fall of the United States for over a decade. He has based this on the economic and moral collapse that will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the US. Maps of how the land would be divided up after such a collapse have even been created (Osborn, 2008).

Even Mikhail Degtyarev, a lawmaker in Russia, believing that the collapse of the US dollar is imminent, proposed a bill to his country’s parliament on November 13, 2013, that would ban the use or possession of American currency (Bennetts, 2013). Whether it becomes law is irrelevant to the point. That is the point; the world is beginning to turn its backs on the United States.

Of course, we have not even covered Cuba or Venezuela yet, because as soon as we bring these two nations up, the arrogance of most Americans kicks in, and the statement that follows is, “we would kick their butts!” Once again, perhaps (and only) if we were in a one-on-one fight, but if you are in that frame of mind, you are not thinking long-term or strategically.

Imagine that Venezuela and Cuba are nothing more than staging points. Now soak in the fact that both nations are allies with Russia, Iran, and China. Does that change some of your ideas? It should. The distance from Cuba to Florida is about 228 miles. The distance between Cuba and Venezuela is roughly 1300 miles. To put this distance into perspective, the distance from Iran to Israel is only about 860 miles.

Russia and the United States have had a sketchy relationship for years. Russia only “recently” became a “democratic” nation, and its current leader is President Putin, a former KGB operative. KGB agents are just about the most communist outlaws to grace this planet. In light of their extreme opposition to a European shield and their gracious help in building nuclear facilities in Iran, the line is pretty clear where they fall concerning US interests.

We could look at the promises made by the United States as well. We have promised support to nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Taiwan and Japan are in long-time disputes with China that will more than likely see physical war sooner rather than later, and South Korea is technically still at war with the North. Look at our situation with Syria. Bashar al-Assad appears to be a great friend to Vladimir Putin.

True, we could speculate the scenarios for days—petrodollar, economic collapse, angry rivals, etc. The point here is not to provide you with some play-by-play of what is about to occur; that would be impossible anyway. The point is merely to point out that tensions are rising due to horrible policy and an ignorant citizenry that allowed the policy in the first place. There are a ridiculous number of reasons, but the point is moot when we consider where this is all heading.

If you can figure out the result, you can begin to see the pecking order of the players and perhaps how this may all pan out. More importantly, you will be able to plan accordingly as far as attempting to protect yourself. The bigger question SHOULD be whether or not the next big conflict will begin as civil or global. Note that I say “begin as” because, based on what we can put together here, it appears it will be both at some point.

There will always be a nation on top, we are vulnerable, as clearly demonstrated, and nothing lasts forever. We are not self-sufficient, our economy is based on a currency few want, and we are vulnerable. There will undoubtedly be a country that can challenge the US. Perhaps, even fill the void if something devastating were to occur. There appears to be one nation preparing to take on the role. Oddly enough, we all should have seen it coming.

RESOURCES