Therefore, it is not surprising that the US presidential election season is carefully reviewed in all corners of the Middle East.
Here, the debate about possible winners is not so much about economic, political and social projects as about which candidate is most unlikely to wage war against us.
Interestingly, there seems to be a consensus that Hillary Clinton will be the worst in the region. Of course, as in the United States, this perception can change dramatically when talking to regional elites and \"liberals.
Like their American counterparts, Middle Eastern people are caught in the debate between Donald Trump\'s \"racism\", Bernie Sanders\'s \"viability\" and Clinton\'s \"hawks.
After all, the media has never been as unified in its statement as it is now-we all share the same view.
But 2016 of US presidential elections are much larger than in the past few decades.
From Levant to the Persian Gulf to North Africa, the Borders have never been so tense, terrorism is so prevalent, and security and resources are so threatened.
The Middle East is a bad place.
At every core of these issues, the United States stands there and imposes itself, and its military \"experience\" and humanitarian \"do-
Ready for our pain
Ironically, there is little problem in the Middle East that is not caused or exacerbated by the destructive hand of American foreign policy.
The Middle East is the last global playground for the United States to act with impunity.
Part of the reason is that most of the more than 20 countries that make up the region are still under our leadership --
The pro-dictator and Monarch, the US agent, put Washington\'s interests above those of citizens.
It is difficult for the United States to play a role in this region because it wants to maintain this very favorable status quo, which has been lost almost anywhere else.
Even at the end of the Cold War
Defeated the acting leader of the former Soviet bloc in the Middle East, replaced by the United Statesfriendly ones -
The 1979 Iranian revolution once again subverted the region and opened up a new framework for independence from \"British imperialism.
After the war between Iraq and Iran, Iran\'s desire was put on hold for eight years and destructive. Tehran has begun to establish regional relations that form the basis of a new axis of resistance to American and Western hegemony ambitions.
The United States has expanded its military role in the Middle East, mainly to remove this \"Shi\'ite\" eye-nail-but not only has it not done so to successive US governments, it has deliberately released the well-
In order to achieve this goal, the demons of sectarianism have been curbed.
Hello, Sunni Wahabi fundamentalism.
Hello, al Qaeda. Hello, ISIS.
Why enter the recent history? This is important, one of the main reasons.
Even if the United States is now shooting at the Frankenstein monster created by the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now intervention in Syria . . . . . . Washington also has guns against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and other entities fighting terrorism.
When Trump first presented his foreign policy vision earlier this week, he noted that the current US policy was \"reckless, rude and aimless\"-\"a policy that later opened up
\"This is what we have heard in recent years-certainly since the beginning of the Arab\" uprising \"-experts and commentators are all confused about the United States goals in the region.
S. policy is not chaotic, it is well thought out.
Get your head around this: Washington is trying to stop Iran-
By releasing the sect, Wahabi-
To influence extremists in parts of the region that are seen as a strategic depth of Iran, and to try to curb the proliferation of these extremists by reaching Iran, so, a nuclear agreement was suddenly reached in all these conflicts.
This is what I call America\'s \"strategic discord\"-playing the role of both sides, planning protracted conflicts to gradually push the two sides towards extinction.
The only problem is the unpredictable nature of all this-and the chaos, destruction and terrorism that comes with it, which has now flooded into Europe and beyond.
It is clear that this strategic inconsistency has once again led to \"unexpected consequences\" for the United States \".
It is also clear that only a sledgehammer is needed to change the destructive tendency of American foreign policy.
What is interesting about this year\'s general election is that voters support unlikely candidates Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who appear to be mainly in opposition to the agency. The two long-
The shooting candidates made stern comments on Huancheng Road politics and the \"interest groups\" that supported them-both foreign and domestic.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton is a \"defector\" power candidate.
Until a few months ago-in her competition with Democratic newcomer Sanders, she had to fight for every vote.
The easiest blow to Clinton is in the field of foreign policy, where road hawks around the city have long supported the wrong plan-in Iraq, Libya, Syria.
In the Middle East, Clinton\'s militaristic tendencies undermine any goodwill toward the Democratic candidate.
The Egyptians threw tomatoes, shoes and water bottle
s at her convoy.
The secretary of state appeared after long-time US ally President Hosni Mubarak stepped down.
It was under her leadership of the State Department that the \"foreign hand\" began to make a mark in the Arab uprising-which was not good for the Arab people.
Her support for the patient
The US invasion of Iraq has led to the establishment of al Qaeda in the country, which is a constant restraint in the Middle East-as in the United States.
Her refusal to acknowledge the disastrous consequences of the US military intervention in Libya still proves that she has never learned a lesson from Iraq.
Whether he likes it or not, Clinton gave a crazy laugh at the violent death of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who optimistically declared, \"We\'re here, we see, he\'s dead, our collective memory has always left its mark.
Since then, we have learned that the decision of US President Barack Obama to intervene militarily in Libya was decided by her vote.
Blood in Libya cannot be washed from these hands.
Now, Clinton wants to upgrade in Syria by designating a \"safe zone\"-that\'s the beginning of her Libyan adventure.
If Clinton had a flattering problem in the United States, she had been thoroughly attacked in the Middle East-in addition to ordinary suspects including dictators, monarchs and other superpowers --
Rich elites, who either donate money to the Linton Foundation or keep their easy position in the United States despite everything --
The controversial billionaire businessman Donald Trump has been slammed in the region for his biased remarks against Muslims, but in the Middle East, from Arab nationalists to progressives to intellectuals, there was a group of idealists marching quietly. they had been looking at him with a shy look.
\"Trump can turn the system upside down,\" said a Lebanese leader --
\"He is his own person and he will not be dragged into the trap of deep state,\" said an influential writer . \".
\"Who else is willing to stop NATO, get out of bad alliances, fight terrorism in the right way with Putin and others, prioritize diplomacy over military options, not Clinton, A college student roared, \"there is no way. There is that.
Unlike Clinton, we don\'t know much about Trump.
He has no record of foreign policy, except, of course, his
He opposed the US invasion of Iraq and warned that it would be a \"disaster \".
\"But if you\'re going to risk a candidate-if you want to try to read between the lines of campaign promises-I suggest you take an unconventional approach, dangerous statements are more serious than predictable voters
A friendly cliché like \"I support the state of Israel without conditions.
Trump also has some small moves.
Saudi Arabia, America\'s main ally, can be said to be the zero base for rampant radical extremism in the region-former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, the country is ready to \"fight the Iranians to the last American\"-Trump warned to stop buying Saudi oil unless Riyadh sends ground troops to fight ISIS.
His comments reflect Gates\'s comments-as revealed by a telegram from WikiLeaks 2010-that he says Saudi Arabia \"is the time for them to enter the game.
\"If Saudi Arabia does not have a coat of American protection, I don\'t think it will exist,\" Trump suggested very rightly . \".
On the support of the rebels in Russia, Syria and the United States: \"Putin does not want ISIS.
We don\'t know who these people are.
We\'re training people. we don\'t know who they are . . . . . . We gave them billions of dollars to fight Assad . . . . . . It\'s a mess if you look at Libya and see what we did there.
If you look at Saddam Hussein and Iraq and see what we did there, it\'s a mess . . . . . . \"In Syria and elsewhere, it seems to be a swipe at Trump for US support for suspected militants:\" We need to see clearly that these groups will never be anything but enemies.
Believe me, we have groups no matter what you do, they will be enemies.
We must be smart enough to recognize who these groups are and who these people are, not to help them.
When asked if the Middle East would be safer if Saddam and Gaddafi were still there and Assad was stronger, Trump boldly declared: \"It\'s not even a game . . . . . . Of course.
\"I like the hell where Putin is bombing ISIS . \"
Because Putin does not want ISIS to enter Russia, Putin must get rid of ISIS.
In short . . . . . . Trump is an unknown, but he has delivered some family truths to unstable voters during an unconventional election year.
Clinton is a typical power candidate.
Voters want things they can like, who run for president at the wrong time for people inside the ring road.
So far, Trump has been desperate and there is no reason why he can\'t continue to do so until the White House.
It was speculated whether he could remain surprised once he was there.
Will he be a partner?
If he chooses the system, he will use his signature arrogance to crack down on the entrenched Washington dogma.
If Trump is against Clinton, his campaign slogan must be \"Clinton: Experienced and without judgment.
\"This is almost the only way he can compete with an experienced politician who will certainly throw his inexperienced back in front of every opportunity.
For the Middle East, now is not the time to pick \"The Devil We Know.
We know how this story ends every time: instability, chaos, terrorism.
No matter from which point of view, Trump is definitely a lesser evil.
He can\'t be worse than her.
But there is a separate benefit for President Clinton.
If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the United States . . . . . . We will see the world turn decisively into a new one. polar order.
The war in Syria has become a red line for Russia, China and Iran, where they have deployed protective weapons around key countries and, in turn, built closer ties with each other-some of them, the military level-and some other \"middle powers\" that threaten to escalate \"--
Once and for all, end America\'s hegemonic ambitions.
Imagine the reaction of Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, South Africa and other countries being angered by US --
If hawks like Clinton are placed in the White House, they will support a campaign that is destabilizing.
We will enter a new world order faster than Goldman Sachs.