I am not going to repeat the murky and pessimist predictions of my favorite Stratfor alumni, i.e., George Friedman and Peter Zeihan, but kindly ask you to lend your ears to... Alex Garland, an English novelist, screenwriter, film producer and director. He is best known for the films "Ex Machina" (2015) and "Annihilation" (2018). But this time he made a movie depicting America at war with itself: "Civil War."

Garland doesn’t say why or which political reasons America is divided for, and Texas and California are at the throats of other parts of the U.S., now called the Loyalist States; but Garland simply narrates how this war is being fought. Some movie critics praised its exploration of war themes and its thoughtfulness and epic storytelling. Yet, for people like me who think everything is political and every human endeavor must have a political motive behind (or in front of) it, there remains the question if (or under what circumstances) real politicians and political groups may openly call for secession. If it is not received nicely and gently by others, could it result in open conflict? In a visual artwork, as in a cinema film, sometimes, the visual artistry leaves no space as to why the events so artfully depicted in it take place; and Garland might be right in avoiding opening a discussion about the reasons for a possible (if not probable) secession and armed conflict in the U.S., which could put into the shades the artistry of the movie. Does Sergei Eisenstein tell us why the members of the crew of the Potemkin, a battleship of the Imperial Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet, are given such poor quality meat so that they cry "Comrades, the time has come when we too must speak out." No, he doesn’t. We assume the reasons ourselves drawing upon our own knowledge of history and politics.

Garland shows us enough arresting visuals of modern America that we fill in the blanks, coming to our own conclusion about a country under siege.

"Under siege," I said. Instead of presenting proof of it, let me marshal a few headlines from ordinary political news sites right now and you will see it, too:

How and Why Biden Destroyed the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

How Biden Lost the War on Inflation and the Broader Economy

Biden’s Student-Loan Power Grab

Anxiety and depression are spiking among young people. No one knows why

As trial nears, Trump can't keep hush

Trump's MAGA rallies have morphed

Solar eclipses breed conspiracy theories

You might think these can’t be proof of a siege. There is no military operation in which enemy forces surround the country; destroying strategic petroleum reserves doesn’t mean cutting off essential supplies, and Trump’s probable and possible (that is, his election victory sure as death) is not compelling anyone to surrender or flee from the country. But this is the military definition of a siege; there are other kinds of it and thanks to the capital growing on trees in the U.S. for the last century and the recent discovery of shale oil in the continental U.S. propelling economic growth in an unfamiliar way, the U.S. will no longer provide global military support for the world order that has fostered safe transit and global investments. While other developed nations have had their gross domestic product (GDP) shrink, the U.S. has remained an economic powerhouse; the U.S. military is unrivaled, the world's top universities are American and the nation remains a leader in technological innovation.

However, the political gridlock in Washington is at unprecedented levels and contributing to America's failure to lead. Income inequality has clogged opportunities for the middle class. Especially after the U.S. ends its global Pax Americana, internal peace and coherence will also end. So far, the unified banking and finance system helped the rich, industrial North pay the bill for the South. When the U.S. retreats globally, with its hyper-involvement in global affairs ending, the new order created by several smaller or larger, but competing, powers and the emerging economic systems throughout Europe and Asia will not only try to impose their impact on global energy and agricultural markets, finance and technology, but will look for new export markets all over the world, including the good old United States.

A Washington without the power emanating from being the global hegemon would surely have its authority on intra-state affairs questioned and probably rejected because the founding fathers had not sought it have a say on internal affairs, in the first place. So, "The Second Republic of Texas" and "The Republic of California" (as Alex Garland calls them) might like to import from China instead of Iowa, and you could do nothing about it. If you dare to do something, you’ll find out the political reasons Garland doesn’t utter in his movie, however, we can deduce from what political and geopolitical analysts said so far. (Well, that much Peter Zeihan could seep into any discussion if you are talking about the coming end of the Bretton Woods Free Trade and Money Management System.)

That said, we conclude that Garland’s new film, which rightly generated controversy and hysteria, should make us all anxious about the future, as Garland, himself, says. It is fictional but it is not totally fictitious; it is a fabrication, but it is not deliberate falsification or deception. It may happen, God forbid, because there could be enough political disagreements that can’t be resolved by any other means besides open conflict.

Now back to the "Scared New World" (Zeihan’s subtitle in his book "The Accidental Superpower"), that is the life after America stops acting as a superpower!

Zeihan and Friedman are not the only ones who argue that America acted as a superpower imposing the Bretton Woods Free Trade and Money Management System not for the sake of the economy but to impose security arrangements; however, almost all geopolitical analysts agree that with the American-induced security blanket removed, perfect economic and political storms would take root in no time. Germany, Mr. Moneybags of Europe, the rescuer of those countries with systemic financial crises (Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy), will stop doing the donkey work for the fictional European Union. Poland, Central Europe’s largest industrial power and with the largest population, will see itself as the natural team-leader against Russia. France, on the other end of Europe, declares itself as the natural boss of Europe (after all, it organized first the European Economic Community and later the European Union!) In short, Europe will be a mass. We even did not mention Türkiye, "carving its own sphere of influence out of EU’s and NATO’s remains" (Zeihan!) and Sweden "backing justifiably paranoid Poland" against Russia (Zeihan, again!).

Zeihan concludes this chapter (in his book) as follows:

"Will all of these evolutions result in a war? Probably not. But it truly would be stunning if none of them did."