So this is a solid argument.
I’ll diverge a bit from your thinking in some areas.
First I don’t see a steady stream of terrorism. I see the flaws of human reasoning on full display. We are wired to see the big threat and never the little ones that are killing us inch by inch. That’s why we spent 1 trillion on fighting terrorism that kills something like 0.000001% of the population and we spend a 10 billion on heart disease and cancer which kills 1 in 4 people. We have a debt problem and yet we continue to spend and spend on a military like we are made of money. We are absolute shit at seeing real threats. That’s why people believe that getting in a car is safer than getting in the plane. You have more of a chance of dying by a lighting strike than by plane crash and yet people think nothing of getting in a car which kills millions and millions. In short, we suck at seeing real threats. We continue to piss away money on an endless problem, like something right out of 1984’s perpetual state of war, and there is no end in site other than bankruptcy. There is literally no way to “solve” terrorism. It can’t be done. All we’re doing is bankrupting ourselves and betraying our values as we continue to toss them off in the name of security. I also see “terrorism” as an excuse to trample civil liberties, gobble up power and in short justify every stupid power grab around the world, such as we saw here in Venezuela, where the president expanded his power through classic dictator playbook bullshit like “emergency decrees” and “terrorism laws.” Venezuela just tried to protestors in military courts. That is an insane overreach of power and it is the nature of violence. It spirals out of control quickly.
I am very much in agreement with interventionism as a total disaster. The founding fathers saw distant wars as an endless quagmire and they were right. We are reaping the rewards for that now. But we can’t “solve” terrorism and be non-interventionist at the same time.
We generally see eye to eye on globalism’s stark failures , I think. The hope of globalism is that it generally brings goods and services from afar and this is a good thing but not if we can’t find a way to bring workers into the fold who simply can’t adjust to the rapid changes of an economy. When a Walmart disappears or a coal mine goes down in a small town, there is generally nothing else coming and the people can’t simply retrain and many folks don’t even have the capacity to change that way. The mistake entrepreneurs and business folks make sometimes is that everyone wants to be an entrepreneur or an info economy worker. Not everyone can do that or wants to.
I don’t see this is a “deliberate run up.” I see it happening just as you noted, with a trigger event that causes the dominoes to fall.
I point out the problem of strongmen and civil strife because that is almost always a precursor to looking for enemies outside as well. It’s a local fire that leads to a larger one. We saw that in both of the world wars. Local problems lead to international ones. When the people in power see violence and viciousness as an answer to everything, it won’t be long before they start looking outside their borders for people to fight as well. Their default stance is belligerence, so that when that trigger event comes they will do what is in their nature and escalate hostility which leads to more hostility. I see nobody like JFK in power with the willingness to negotiate and back down from a massive standoff like he did with Russia. I see a lot of people who are belligerent by default and if you put two angry people in a bar they will generally come to blows. A snake sees a mouse moving and strikes. It’s their nature. A violent person in power sees violence as the answer to everything and when other violent people come knocking their will be a fight.