America and Israel are now trapped by the absolutely crucial backing of the Gazans by Israel’s two top bordering nations of Jordan and Egypt. In order to understand how this happened and how decisive it is:

The plan by Israel and America to conquer the residents in the open-air prison called the Gaza strip is to either invade it, which would produce the immediate deaths of the Israeli and American hostages that Hamas captured and brought there; or else Israel and America will extend their blockade of food, water, medicine, and electricity to Gaza, long enough to conquer or kill everyone in that prison.

Their first expectation was that the residents in Gaza’s northern part, which Israel had ordered to evacuate southward, would leave only Hamas fighters in that northern part, so that Israel would simply destroy the entire northern part, and then march southward into the area that would be holding the evacuees, who — being without Hamas to fight for them — would either commit suicide, or else surrender to Israel.

Those were the Israeli-American policy-options, in order to win this war: invasion, and/or siege.

However, as things have turned out, many in the northern part of Gaza followed Hamas’s order to refuse to evacuate. Consequently, the hostages that are being held there will be doomed unless Israel will stop its attack and siege against Gaza.

But the situation for America and Israel is actually even worse than that — much worse.

On October 16th, Jordan Times headlined “Gov’t asserts citizens’ right to express solidarity with Gazans”, and Jordan’s King Abdullah went even farther than that by responding to the millions of Jordanians who were marching in the streets to support the Gazans against Israel: he endorsed their demonstrations. Then, the next day, was even worse news for both Israel and America: that newspaper headlined “King: ‘No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt; that is a red line’”. He was refusing the requests from both the Israeli and the American regimes for both Jordan and Egypt to take in Gazans so that Israel could take their land. Israel doesn’t want the Gazans; Israel wants only their land. It’s like with the Crimeans and the Donbassers after America’s coup in February 2014 in Ukraine, which installed there a rabidly anti-Russian regime in Ukraine: those very Russian regions of Ukraine rejected the U.S.-imposed Russia-hating regime, which still (to this day) hates the residents in those regions but wants ONLY their land. In that sense, Israel is like Ukraine.

Already on October 16th, the Daily News of Egypt headlined “Egypt opposes collective punishment of civilians in Gaza: Al-Sisi”, and made clear that Al-Sisi was “rejecting collective punishment policies such as siege, starvation, or displacement of civilians.” He was rejecting the policies of Israel and of America, because both siege and invasion would either be survived and the residents of Gaza would then win, or else America and Israel would instead win and would be hated almost universally throughout the Middle East, which then would turn to both China and Russia as being the new leading co-Powers of the world.

The longer that the neoconservative (i.e., U.S. imperial, or “Rhodesist” or “neoconservative”) power will dominate the world, the more blood will be spilt in order to continue it — and, now, lots more of it will be spilt in the Middle East.

The leaders of Egypt and Jordan are not willing to be reviled by their countrymen and perhaps become assassinated in ignominy, so as to continue the U.S. empire over them. They’ve now made clear they won’t.

Ultimately, U.S. President Donald Trump’s arranged deal between the Sauds’ regime and Israel’s regime will either terminate now or else the Saud family will become terminated as the rulers of that regime. The present war in the Middle East will end the decades-long alliance between the Saud family and the U.S. Government.

The statements on October 16th and 17th, by Al-Sisi and King Abdullah, leave no way that the U.S. and Israeli regimes can leave this new Middle Eastern war as being anything but pariah-nations. Even if all of the Gazans end up being slaughtered, the U.S. and Israel will be pariah-nations. If, instead, the U.S. and Israel will lose this war, then the U.S. and Israel will also be pariah-nations. Either way, The American Century, which started on 25 July 1945, will be ended, in ignominy, by this war.

On October 16th M.K. Badrakumar, who is perhaps the world’s leading former diplomat now reporting publicly on, and analyzing, geostrategic events, was the first person publicly to announce the immense earthquake in history that’s now occurring: he headlined “US faces defeat in geopolitical war in Gaza”, and he analogized these events to the termination of the Ottoman Empire (1300-1922), which, being allied with Germany in World War I, ended its empire (the Turkish empire) in 1922, at the same time that it perpetrated genocides while trying to hold onto its empire. Here is how Wikipedia refers to that:

During this time, the Ottoman government engaged in genocide against the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.^[42] The Empire’s defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in its partitioning and the loss of its southern territories, which were divided between the United Kingdom and France. The successful Turkish War of Independence, led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk against the occupying Allies, led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy.^[43]

(An interesting detail of Badrakumar’s analysis is his contradiction of Andrew Korybko’s prediction that India is heading to become part of a triumvirate, along with Russia and China, as leaders of the coming international order. And Badrakumar, whose analysis I agree with, writes as a seasoned former Indian diplomat. Additionally, Badrakumar’s article documents the important role that Iran has been playing in helping to organize this termination of America’s global dominance.) Another astute analyst of geostrategy, the anonymous German author of the “Moon of Alabama” blog, headlined that the “West’s Pro-Israel Position Accelerates Its Loss Of Power”, and he quoted there from (and linked to) the Financial Times:

“We have definitely lost the battle in the Global South,” said one senior G7 diplomat. “All the work we have done with the Global South [over Ukraine] has been lost . . . Forget about rules, forget about world order. They won’t ever listen to us again.”

and, from the Rhodesist Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

The unipolar era is at its end, major countries are more concerned with their cultural sovereignty and strategic autonomy than they have been in decades, and it seems inevitable that the once-dominant Western hegemony must gradually yield to a more diverse and multipolar system.

However, no mention was made by any of these keen observers of geostrategy, that, as I had headlined on 16 March 2023, “The Transformative Present Moment in History” raises the question: “Will it finally be FDR’s path? Or, instead, continuing on Truman’s path? That’s for us to decide — and to act accordingly. Because what’s at stake is our world. And our future.” Instead, the U.S.-and-allied position, that’s advocated by the Financial Times, the Carnegie Endowment, and other Rhodesist organizations, is for a continuation of the U.S.-Government-imposed “rules-based international order” — as-if that hasn’t been, in fact, the U.S. regime’s demanded replacement of international law under the United Nations as FDR had planned it, but as Truman and his Rhodesist followers had destroyed it.

Basically, the United Nations now will have to be rebuilt upon FDR’s design for it (as I documented that in my “The Transformative Present Moment in History”).

What’s needed isn’t yet other empires replacing ones that currently exist, but, instead, the replacement of all empires by the U.N. as being what FDR designed it to be: an international and all-encompassing democratic federal republic of independent nations, responsible ONLY for international laws, and not for ANY national laws. Both China and Russia have been advocating essentially the same thing (FDR’s design), but will they now follow through on it and lead the world to what had been FDR’s design for the U.N.? That is now the big question. And the moment for this to happen is finally arriving.

ChinUssia (or RussChina) is coming to bat, but how will it swing? Like yet more of Truman, or instead the way that FDR had planned?