Yemen First

The geopolitical flashlight was appropriately present in the article but with no attempt to turn it on, it was off unfortunately all along. As manifested in the article the majority of the small-sized countries were formed within 70 years: the international world order 70 years ago is easily recalled ""Back then the sun of England empire was setting, and France was behind it trying to hang on. The colonial era and its masters faded to the past; however the dawn of American empire was looming on the horizon, and the Soviet were behind trying to catch up, freedom age was rising and new masters were going up the ladder but to be frozen in the cold war shortly later"" The most important indication of such shift from one age to an other is Eisenhour warning and disapproval of England-France-Israel tripartite attack on Egypt mainly to regain control over Suez canal. With the withdrawal of European super powers the new independence was embraced enthusiastically in every continents in the world; however the geopolitical strategies remained behind and so did the small countries "some of them were associated formerly with the European empires directly or indirectly" some of these small countries could be removed and others can't and actually should not be removed essentially because of their fundamental role in wider strategies to maintain peace, security, and order in the regions.



For example consider Napoleon geopolitical strategies to achieve his empirical aims, solve European problems, end the suffering of people who have been so crushed by men and history and their horrors from the Holocaust to the Pogrom, fulfill the prophecy in scripts, blockade and cut off the maritime transport of British, and finally start the process of inheritance of the sick man" ottoman empire".

What a hell of strategist, he is one of the most important figures in the last centuries of all time .Napoleon achieved all the above by one action. He recalled Jews to come back to Palestine their legitimate land. Small-sized but by nature should be the most powerful and preempts in all fields of national security. Israel is powerful not because it is small evidently because this the geopolitical settings and necessities.

"" I don't want to deliberately explain Napoleon strategy but shortly Israel was planted by religious, myths, practical, etstrategic , and even cultural to bring the West progressiveness into the East ...etc Israel play its roles in very sensitive strategic location in the angle that disconnects or connects Syria and Egypt.. With Israel Syria and Egypt can't be militarily united, Egypt will be isolated behind Sina desert, and Syria without Egypt maybe sometime not peaceful but it can never be aggressive. That is how the Southern shores of Mediterranean is controlled. However Iraq behind Syria could act like bridge that connects Syria to Yemen going thru the Arab gulf. Some families who were unpopular like Shref Hussain couldn't find country to rule in the gulf so they left that area and his son Abdullah stopped at Jordan which was simply one small village, but he planned to use the Jewish agency to share with them Palestine specifically West Bank. Later on his newly invented country would be an axis to complete an overall strategy in the region. Israel must ensure the Mediterranean and secure ways to Tiran straits to the Atlantic ocean, and militarily separates between Egypt and Syria,, while Jordan must guarantee the Red Sea and secure way to Bab El Mandab to the Aden gulf and to the Pacific ocean, and separates politically between Syria and Iraq. Finslly act as surveillance in the Red Sea... that is why you find goals means roles laws rules etc in small countries are running smoothly because usually thery are part of larger arrangements, greater strategies, and different interests so accordingly they accumulate extra sources, work with multiple parties, and share experiences with others.

This is one way to study small-sized countries by turning the geopolitical flashlight on and using the middle east as simulation model for other regions in the world.

The world superpowers, the regional ambitious actors play very significant role in the survival and continuity of these small countries as external dimensions. The internal dimensions is characterised by the fact that large number of the population in small countries ""in addition to the small numbers of natives who were originally there"" have spilled over from neighbouring countries during wars or from poverty. When they left their main society and resided in small countries between larger countries they got rid of all social values norms, local culture, memories, historic consciousness, , political ambition, everything in their former societies, they focus merely on making living, and they have no zeal for politics, instability... etc. Thst is why they seem like wonderful island of peace and progress... but is that resl on the long term?



Small countries after being stripped off their main societies sought better geographic location like commercial outpost between the large countries or natural resources like access to water or port. Like " Kuwait" for example whose name actually was Kut which means port in Arabic

Let's just to understand difference between small-sized countries and large-sized ones.

Kuwait was very wealthy country who thought it can buy anything even western progress. Kuwait whose population centered to do fishing and do some commerce, population that spilled over fron Mecca and Mediana and who ran away from Iraq. This Kuwait topped UN numbers in various measures for wellbeing and civilian welfare was within few hours out of history... it took Suddsm Hussain few hours in one night to oust the rulers and control Kuwait was ut not for Bush the first snd the operation of desert storm...



In the other hand you can examine Iraq large-sized country Iraq has been in violent wars from 1978 till the ends of 1980s: Iraq Iran war" followed by 1990 gulf war followed by sanctions, to 2003 and it is still going on with criminals of ISIS. unlike Kuwait Iraq can emerge again as powerful important countries..



Kuwait might be happier but it is less independent practically, more vulnerable, with very high rate of elasticity to global and regional changes. For example if the USA decides suddenly to withdraw from the world the next day Kuwait will be removed from the map...

There are different fate for small countries 1- countries which were formed based on empirical grand master strategy. Such countries can't and should not be removed, Israel is an example

2-small countries could not be removed easily and they are important for regional arrangements and equations. Jordan who has some military power, rely strategically on Israel, and finally positioning itself between contradictions of Iraq and Syria

3-small-countries which can be easily removed from the map which was formed on basics like natural opportunities and commercial posts and economics.

