Global geopolitics

(Ken O’Keefe)

Listening to Ken O’Keefe referencing a policy document written in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses. It laid out a plan for American global dominance following the fall of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the USSR left a vacuum, and the authors of the paper saw this as a moment for the United States to impose itself as the unchallenged global enforcer. Their strategy required military aggression to seize control of the world’s major resource hubs. This was openly stated and is beyond mere theory. Control the oil, control the minerals, and use that control to maintain military and economic supremacy.

The document was cognizant of public resistance. It anticipated that Americans would not support endless foreign wars to achieve abstract strategic goals. It plainly said the population lacked the will to go along with this plan unless there was a catalysing event, what it called “a new Pearl Harbor.” In other words, a large-scale attack would be needed to shock the public into supporting a permanent war footing. This was a full year before 9/11. After that event, the authors of the doctrine saw their opening. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in quick succession, both resource-rich regions. The justification was terrorism, but the policy had already been outlined before the towers fell.

There was nothing remotely about national defense in the act. The whole pretext was about resource control. The concept of “full spectrum dominance” spelled out in the document meant control over land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. In practice, it meant building a world order in which the United States could intervene anywhere, at any time, with impunity. That order required not only military bases, but also political influence operations, economic leverage, and information warfare. It meant reordering regions, toppling regimes, and installing governments that would play along.

The pattern repeated itself. In Libya, the West armed and supported rebels to oust Gaddafi, collapsing a functioning state. In Syria, the U.S. backed militant groups that destabilised the country under the banner of regime change. All of these were justified through carefully shaped narratives about freedom, democracy, or humanitarian concerns. But each of them traced back to the strategy of creating a compliant global system, backed by force when necessary.

What the document did not fully anticipate was that the rest of the world would eventually catch on. Russia, China, Iran, and others saw the pattern and started building parallel systems. Military coalitions, financial alternatives like BRICS, and regional power blocs emerged in response. They saw what happened to Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya. They understood that resisting Western domination meant being prepared for economic warfare, political sabotage, and open conflict.

Ken O’Keefe is talking conspiracy in that video. He is describing an open policy plan that was implemented and is still being followed. The wars were never meant to end. hence the monicker, forever wars. The system depends on them entirely. What began as strategy on paper became a doctrine that has guided U.S. foreign policy for more than two decades. The cost has been millions of lives, ruined states, and endless instability, all serving a long-term goal of control, not peace, but total domination. So here we are, the last piece on the not so puzzle, is nolonger speculation. That’s the record, Israel has just attacked Iran, and Iran is retaliating.

---

Posted by:

global geopolitics

Decoding power and defying narratives, an independent geopolitical analysis exposing hidden agendas and challenging mainstream views. Think critically, freely, and beyond the headlines.

---