');
The Unz Review •ï¿½An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
�
�TeasersAlastair Crooke Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library •ï¿½B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

Syria has been disintegrated and pillaged in the name of ‘liberating’ Syrians from the threat of ISIS, which they – Washington – had installed in the first place.

James Jeffrey, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Turkey, in a March 2021 interview with PBS Frontline, laid out very plainly the template for what has just happened in Syria this month:

“Syria, given its size, its strategic location, its historical importance, is the pivot point for whether [there can be] an American-managed security system in the region … And so you’ve got this general alliance that is locked in with us. But … the stress point is greatest in Syriaâ€.

Jeffrey explained (in the 2021 interview) why the U.S. shifted its to support to Jolani and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS):

“We got Mike Pompeo to issue a waiver to allow us to give aid to HTS – I received and sent messages to HTS†-The messages coming back from HTS were: “We [HTS] want to be your friend. We’re not terrorists. We’re just fighting Assadâ€â€.

The PBS Frontline interviewer asks: The U.S. was “supporting indirectly the armed opposition� To which Jeffrey responds:

“It was important to us that HTS not disintegrate … our policy was … was to leave HTS alone … And the fact that we haven’t targeted [HTS] ever, the fact that we have never raised our voice to the Turks about their cohabitation with them — in fact, I used this example the last time I was talking to very senior Turks – when they started bitching about this relationship we [the U.S.] have with the SDF [in eastern Syria]â€.

“I said to them, “Look, Turkey has always maintained that you want us in northeast Syria, which they do. But you don’t understand. We can’t be in northeast Syria without the platform, because we only have hundreds of troops thereâ€; … I said: “It’s just like you in Idlib …â€.

“We want you to be in Idlib, but you can’t be in Idlib without having a platform, and that platform is largely HTS. Now, unlike the SDF, HTS is a UN-designated official terrorist organisation. Have I ever, or has any American official ever, complained to you about what you’re doing there with HTS? No …â€.

David Miller, a British academic, has noted that in 2015, prominent Syrian Sunni Muslim scholar, Shaykh al-Yaqoubi (who is anti-Assad), was unconvinced by Jolani’s efforts to rebrand Al Qa’ida as Jabhat al-Nusra. Jolani, in his al-2013 Al-Jazeera interview twice confirmed his allegiance to al-Qa’ida, saying that he received orders from its leader, Dr Ayman [al-Zawahiri] … and those were to not target the West. He confirmed his own position as being that of hardline intolerance toward those who practiced a ‘heretical’ Islam.

Miller comments:

“While ISIS put on suits; allowed Syria to be carved up by the U.S.; preach peace with the Zionist state; want free markets; and cut gas deals with their regional patrons – their ‘true-believers’… in the Sunni identitarian diaspora haven’t yet clocked that they’ve been sold out – as was always the planâ€.

“In private, the planners of this war in NATO states laugh about sending young Salafi cannon fodder from around the world into a meat grinder. The $2000 salaries are a mere speck of sand compared to the gas and construction wealth that is expected to be returned to Turkish, Qatari, Israeli and American coffers. They killed Palestine for this, and they’ll spend the next 30 years justifying it, based on whatever line the very expensive PR firms hired by the NATO and Gulf states shill to them…The Syrian regime change operation is the rug pull of the centuryâ€.

Of course, James Jeffrey’s account was nothing new. Between 1979 and 1992, the CIA spent billions of dollars funding, arming, and training Afghan Mujahideen militia (like Osama bin Laden) in an attempt to bleed the USSR dry by pulling it into a quagmire. It was from the ranks of the Mujahideen that al-Qa’eda emerged.

“And yet, by the 2010s, even as the U.S. was ostensibly at war with al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan – it was secretly working with it – in Syria on a plan to overthrow Assad. The CIA spent around $1 billion per year training and arming a wide network of rebel groups to this end. As Jake Sullivan, told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a leaked 2012 email, “AQ [al-Qaeda] is on our side in Syriaâ€, as Alan Macleod observes in Consortium News.

Turkish press accounts largely confirm this Jeffrey scenario was the current gameplan: Ömer Önhon, former senior Ambassador and Deputy Under-Secretary in charge of Middle East and Asia at the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, writes that:

“the operation to overthrow Assad’s regime in Syria was meticulously planned for over a year, with coordinated involvement from Turkey, the United States, and several other nations. Through various statements it has become clear that Assad’s departure resulted from an intricate web of agreements between virtually all stakeholders. Whilst HTS is actively working to rebrand itself – this transformation remains to be proven.â€

This HTS story has a precedent: In the summer following Israel’s 2006 (unsuccessful) war on Hizbullah, Dick Cheney sat in his office loudly bemoaning Hizbullah’s continuing strength; and worse still, that it seemed to him that Iran had been the primary beneficiary from the U.S. 2003 Iraq war.

Cheney’s guest – the then Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar – vigorously concurred (as chronicled by John Hannah, who participated in the meeting) and, to general surprise, Prince Bandar proclaimed that Iran yet could be cut to size: Syria was the ‘weak’ link that could be collapsed via an Islamist insurgency. Cheney’s initial scepticism turned to elation as Bandar said that U.S. involvement might be unnecessary. He – Bandar – would orchestrate and manage the project: ‘Leave it to me’, he said. Bandar separately told John Hannah: “The King knows that other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself, nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syriaâ€.

�

Israelis generally are celebrating their ‘victories’. Will this euphoria weigh with U.S. business élites?

Syria has entered the abyss – the demons of al-Qa’eda, ISIS, and the most intransigent elements of the Muslim Brotherhood are circling the skies. There is chaos, looting, fear, and a terrible passion for revenge scalds the blood. Street executions are rife.

Maybe Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) and its leader, Al-Joulani, (following Turkish instruction), thought to control things. But HTS is an umbrella label like Al-Qa’eda, ISIS and An-Nusra, and its factions have already descended into factional fighting. The Syrian ‘state’ dissolved in the middle of the night; the police and army went home, leaving weapons depots open for the Shebab to loot. The prison doors were flung (or prised) open. Some, no doubt, were political prisoners; but many were not. Some of the most vicious inmates now roam the streets.

The Israelis – within days – totally eviscerated the defence infrastructure of the state in more than 450 air strikes: missile air defences, Syrian air force helicopters and aircraft, the navy and the armouries – all destroyed in the “largest air operation in Israel’s historyâ€.

Syria no longer exists as a geo-political entity. In the east, Kurdish forces (with U.S. military support) are seizing the oil and agricultural resources of the former state. Erdogan’s forces and proxies are engaged in an attempt to crush the Kurdish enclave completely (although the U.S. has now mediated a ceasefire of sorts). And in the south-west, Israeli tanks have seized the Golan and land beyond to within 20 kms of Damascus. In 2015 the Economist magazine wrote: “Black gold under the Golan: Geologists in Israel think they have found oil – in very tricky territoryâ€. Israeli and American oilmen believe they have discovered a bonanza in this most inconvenient of sites.

And a big impediment – Syria – to the West’s energy ambitions has just dissipated.

The strategic political balancer to Israel that was Syria since 1948, has vanished. And the earlier ‘easing of tensions’ between the Sunni sphere and Iran has been disrupted by the rude intervention of ISIS rebrands and by Ottoman revanchism working with Israel, via American (and British) intermediaries. The Turks have never really reconciled themselves to the 1923 Treaty that concluded World War I, by which they ceded what is now northern Syria to the new state of Syria.

Within days, Syria has been dismembered, partitioned and balkanised. So why do Israel and Türkiye still bomb? The bombing started the moment Bashar Al-Assad departed – because Türkiye and Israel worry that today’s conquerors may prove ephemeral, and may soon themselves be displaced. You don’t need to own a thing in order to control it. As powerful states in the region, Israel and Turkey will wish to exercise control not just over resources, but over the vital regional crossroads and passageway that was Syria.

Inevitably however, ‘Greater Israel’ is likely, at some point, to butt heads with Erdogan’s Ottomanesque revanchism. Equally the Saudi-Egyptian-UAE front will not welcome the resurgence of either ISIS re-brands, nor the Turkish-inspired and Ottomanised Muslim Brotherhood. The latter poses an immediate threat to Jordan, now bordering the new revolutionary entity.

Such concerns may push these Gulf States closer to Iran. Qatar, as purveyor of arms and funding to the HTS cartel, may again be ostracised by other Gulf leaders.

The new geo-political map poses many direct questions about Iran, Russia, China and the BRICS. Russia has played a complex hand in the Middle East – on the one hand, prosecuting an escalating defensive war versus NATO powers and managing key energy interests; while, at the same time, trying to moderate Resistance operations toward Israel in order to keep relations with the U.S. from deteriorating utterly. Moscow hopes – without great conviction – that a dialogue with the incoming U.S. President might emerge, at some point in the future.

Moscow likely will draw the conclusion that ceasefire ‘deals’ such as the Astana Agreement on jihadist containment within the boundaries of the Idlib autonomous zone in Syria are not worth the paper on which they were written. Türkiye – an Astana guarantor – stabbed Moscow in the back. Likely, it will make the Russian leadership more hard-nosed over Ukraine, and of any western talk of ceasefires.

Iran’s Supreme Leader spoke on 11 December: “There should be no doubt that what happened in Syria was plotted in the command rooms of the United States and Israel. We have evidence for this. One of the neighbouring countries of Syria also played a role, but the primary planners are the U.S. and the Zionist regimeâ€. In this context, Ayatollah Khamenei quashed speculations about any weakening of the will to resist.

Türkiye’s proxy victory in Syria nonetheless may prove Pyrrhic. Erdogan’s Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, lied to Russia, the Gulf States and Iran about the nature of what was being cooked-up in Syria. But the mess now is Erdogan’s. Those that he doubled-crossed will at some point extract pay-back.

Iran seemingly, will revert to its earlier stance of gathering together the disparate threads of regional resistance to fight the Al-Qa’eda reincarnation. It will not turn its back on China, nor the BRICS project. Iraq – recalling the ISIS atrocities of its civil war – will join with Iran, as will Yemen. Iran will be aware that the remaining nodes of the former Syrian Army might well, at some point, enter into the fight against the HTS cartel. Maher Al-Assad took his entire armoured division with him into exile in Iraq on the night of Bashar Al-Assad’s departure.

China will not be pleased at events in Syria. The Uyghurs played a prominent part in the Syria uprising (there were an estimated 30,000 Uyghurs in Idlib, under training by Türkiye (which sees Uyghurs as the original component of the Turkic nation). China too, will likely see the overthrow of Syria as underlining putative western threats to their own energy security lines that run through Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Finally, western interests have been fighting over Middle Eastern resources for centuries – and ultimately that is what lies behind the war today.

Is he, or isn’t he, pro-war, people ask about Trump, since he has already signalled that energy dominance will be a key strategy for his Administration.

�

To seek a deal on Ukraine is to treat the symptom and to ignore a cure.

‘Doomsters’ is an occasional Russian expression used to categorise commentators that only see the ‘dark side to events’ (a vice quite prevalent during the Soviet era). Marat Khairullin, a highly respected Russian military analyst, says, “Today, a network of mercenary war bloggers has begun another round of moaning – this time about Syria, where apparently everything is lost for Russiaâ€.

“Many see the events in Syria (and some add Georgia to the mix) as attempts to open additional fronts against our country. Perhaps that’s true. But in that case, it’s more appropriate to draw direct parallels with the reckless attack on Kursk, which left the Ukrainian armed forces in an almost hopeless positionâ€.

Khairullin views the activation of this jihadist insurgency in Syria as a similarly ‘desperate’ act. The background is that the Syria-Russia-Iran coalition had – thorough the Astana negotiations – “cornered the remaining Syrian terrorists into a 6,000 sq. km enclave. Without delving into the details, it was a process reminiscent of the [Ukrainian] Minsk Agreements—both sides were utterly exhausted and thus agreed to a ceasefire. Importantly, all sides understood this was only a temporary truce; the contradictions were so profound that no one expected the conflict to endâ€.

Aleppo fell quickly these past days, as “one division of the Syrian National Army outright defected to the Islamists (read: Americans)â€. The defection was a set up. Northern Aleppo was occupied by the Syrian National Army, fully controlled, armed and funded by Turkey, which dominates northern Aleppo.

The key, Khairullin says, is this crucial point: The land is flat criss-crossed by few roads:

“ … whomsoever controls the airspace controls the country. Last year, Russia formed a new aerial unit called the Special Air Corps, reportedly tailored for overseas operations. It consists of four aviation regiments, including a regiment of Su-35s. Currently, just two Su-35s are overseeing the entirety of Syria’s territory. Imagine the impact when 24 such aircraft are deployed. And Russia is fully capable of such a deploymentâ€.

The second crucial point is that “Iran and Russia have drawn closer. At the start of the Syrian war, relations between the two were decidedly ‘neutral-hostile’. By late 2024 however, we now see a very strong alliance. Israel and the U.S., by violating the peace agreements through this Turkish insurrection, have provoked a renewed Iranian presence in Syria: Iran has begun to expand beyond its bases, redeploying additional forces into the country. This gives Assad and his allies a direct pretext to expel the American and Turkish proxies from Aleppo and Idlib. This isn’t speculation — it’s straightforward arithmeticâ€.

Syria, however, is a key component to the Israeli-American plan to remake the Middle East. Syria is both the supply-line for Hizbullah, as well as a hub of resistance to Israel’s “Greater Israel Projectâ€. Now that the permanent ‘Anglo’ Security State unreservedly is backing Israel’s ambition to assert regional hegemony, the West has okayed Erdogan’s jihadist insurrection against President Assad. The aim is to split Iran from its allies, weaken Assad and to prepare for the putative Iran overthrow. Reportedly, the Turkish initiative was hurriedly brought forward, to fit with Israel’s ceasefire plan.

Khairullin’s point is that this Syria ‘ploy’ is akin to Ukraine’s “reckless attack on Kurskâ€, which diverted Ukrainian élite forces from the beleaguered Contact Line, and then marooned these forces in an almost hopeless position in Kursk. Instead of weakening Moscow (as intended), ‘Kursk’ inverted NATO’s original objective – by becoming opportunity to eradicate a major portion of Ukraine’s élite forces.

In Idlib, the Islamists (HTS), writes Khairullin, “had gained dominance – imposing a strict Wahhabi regime and infiltrating the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army. Both groups are patchwork organizations, with various factions fighting over money, border crossings, drugs, and smuggling. Essentially, it’s a cauldron—not very combat-effective but highly greedyâ€.

“Our Aerospace Forces obliterated all command centres (bunkers) of Tahrir al-Sham … and there is a strong likelihood that the entire leadership of the group has been decapitatedâ€, notes Khairullin.

The Syrian Army’s main forces are advancing toward Aleppo; meanwhile, the Russian Air Force is bombing relentlessly; its Navy held a large drill off the Syria cost on 3 December with test launches of hypersonic and Kalibr cruise missiles; and Wagner and the Iraqi Hash’ad forces (Iraqi PM forces that are now part of the Iraqi army) are grouping on the ground in support of the Syrian Army.

Israeli Intelligence Chief’s lately have begun to scent problems with this ‘clever initiative’ that dovetails so exactly with Israel’s pause in the Lebanon fighting; With the supply route from Syria cut, Israel then – in theory – would be in a position to commence ‘Part Two’ of its attempted onslaught on Hizbullah.

But wait … Israeli Channel 12 reports the possibility that events in Syria are creating threats against Israel “where Israel would be required to actâ€.

Shades of ‘Kursk’ – rather than Hizbullah being weakened, Israel adds to its military commitments? Erdogan too, may have wrong-footed himself with this gamble. He has infuriated Moscow and Tehran, and is being flailed at home for siding with the U.S. and America against the Palestinians. Further, he has drawn no Arab support (apart from a Qatari studied ambivalence).

Yes, Erdogan has cards to play in the relationship with Putin (control of naval access to the Black Sea, tourism and energy), but Russia is an ascendant great power and can afford to play some hardball in negotiations with a weakened Erdogan. Iran also has cards to play: ‘You, Erdogan, equipped the jihadists with Ukrainian drones; We can deliver the same to the Kurdish Workers Party’.

In the background is the bellicose language emerging from Team Trump, some of whom take harshly aggressive and hardline positions. These Israel-Firster and hawkish appointees by Trump likely emit their bluster as much to project an image of Trumpist strength to the American public, as to project a substantive project.

Trump is known for waving a big stick – and when he has played that tune for a little while, he slips in from behind, to complete a deal.

�

The Middle East is ‘conservative’ no more. Rather, a very different ‘Awakening’ is gestating.

The long war to reaffirm western and Israeli primacy is undergoing a shape-shift. On one front, the calculus in respect to Russia and the Ukraine war has shifted. And in the Middle East, the locus and shape of the war is shifting in a distinct way.

Georges Kennan’s famed Soviet doctrine has long formed the baseline to U.S. policy, firstly directed toward the Soviet Union, and latterly, towards Russia. Kennan’s thesis from 1946 was that the United States needed to work patiently and resolutely to thwart the Soviet threat, and to enhance and aggravate the internal fissures in the Soviet system, until its contradictions triggered the collapse from within.

More recently, the Atlantic Council has drawn on the Kennan doctrine to suggest that his broad outline should serve as the basis of U.S. policy towards Iran. “The threat that Iran poses to the U.S. resembles the one faced from the Soviet Union after World War II. In this regard, the policy that George Kennan outlined for dealing with the Soviet Union has some applications for Iranâ€, the Atlantic report states.

Over the years, that doctrine has ossified into an entire network of security understandings, based on the archetypal conviction that America is strong, and that Russia was weak. Russia must ‘know that’, and thus, it was argued, there could be no logic for Russian strategists to imagine they had any other option but to submit to the overmatch represented by the combined military strength of NATO versus a ‘weak’ Russia. And should Russian strategists unwisely persevere with challenging the West, it was said, the inherent contrariety simply would cause Russia to fracture.

American neocons and western intelligence have not listened to any other view, because they were (and largely still are) convinced by Kennan’s formulation. The American foreign policy class simply could not accept the possibility that such a core thesis was wrong. The entire approach reflected more a deep-seated culture, rather than any rational analysis – even when visible facts on the ground pointed them to a different reality.

So, America has piled the pressure on Russia through the incremental delivery of additional weapons systems to Ukraine; through stationing intermediate range nuclear-capable missiles ever-closer to Russia’s borders; and most recently, by shooting ATACMS into ‘old Russia’.

The aim has been to pressure Russia into a situation where it would feel obliged to make concessions to Ukraine, such as a to accept a freezing of the conflict, and to be obliged to negotiate against Ukrainian bargaining ‘cards’ devised to yield a solution acceptable to the U.S. Or, alternatively, for Russia to be cornered into the ‘nuclear corner’.

American strategy ultimately rests on the conviction that the U.S. could engage in a nuclear war with Russia – and prevail; that Russia understands that were it to go nuclear, it would ‘lose the world’. Or, pressured by NATO, the anger amongst Russians likely would sweep Putin from office were he to make significant concessions to Ukraine. It was a ‘win-win’ outcome – from the U.S. perspective.

Unexpectedly however, a new weapon appeared on the scene which precisely unshackles President Putin from the ‘all-or-nothing’ choice of having to concede a bargaining ‘hand’ to Ukraine, or resort to nuclear deterrence. Instead, the war can be settled by facts on the ground. Effectively, the George Kennan ‘trap’ imploded.

The Oreshnik missile (that was used to attack the Yuzhmash complex at Dnietropetrovsk) provides Russia with a weapon, such as never before witnessed: An intermediate range missile system that effectively checkmates the western nuclear threat.

Russia can now manage western escalation with a credible threat of retaliation that is both hugely destructive – yet conventional. It inverts the paradigm. It is now the West’s escalation that either has to go nuclear, or be limited to providing Ukraine with weapons such as ATACMS or Storm Shadow that will not alter the course of the war. Were NATO to escalate further, it risks an Oreshnik strike in retaliation, either in Ukraine or on some target in Europe, leaving the West with the dilemma of what to do next.

Putin has warned: ‘If you strike again in Russia, we will respond with an Oreshnik hit on a military facility in another nation. We will provide warning, so that civilians can evacuate. There is nothing that you can do to prevent this; you do not have an anti-missile system that can stop an attack coming in at Mach 10’.

The tables are turned.

Of course, there are other reasons beyond the permanent security cadre’s wish to Gulliverise Trump into continuing the war in Ukraine, in order to taint him with a war that he promised immediately to end.

Particularly the British, and others in Europe, want the war to continue, because they are on the financial hook from their holdings of some $20 billion Ukrainian bonds which are in a ‘default-like status’, or from their guarantees to the IMF for loans to Ukraine. Europe simply cannot afford the costs of a full default. Neither can Europe afford to pick up the burden, were the Trump Administration to walk away from supporting Ukraine financially. So they collude with the U.S. interagency structure to make the continuation of the war proofed against a Trump policy reversal: Europe for financial motives, and the Deep State because it wants to disrupt Trump, and his domestic agenda.

The other wing to the ‘global war’ reflects a mirror paradox: That is, ‘Israel is strong and Iran is weak’. The central point is not only its cultural underpinning, but that the entire Israeli and U.S. apparatus is party to the narrative that Iran is a weak and technically backward country.

The most significant aspect is the multi-year failure as regards factors such as the skill to understand strategies, and recognize changes in the other sides’ capabilities, views and understandings.

Russia seems to have solved some of the general physical problems of objects flying at hypersonic speed. The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite; like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided.

�

More than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy on its head.

“The Deep State whispered to Trump: ‘You cannot withstand the storm’. Trump whispered back: “I am the stormâ€. The war is on. The Deep State has launched a war of disruption to disable Trump’s ‘storm’. This week’s ATACM strike was but one part to an inter-agency counter-insurgency – a political strike directed at Trump; so too are all the inter-agency false narratives attributed to the Trump camp; and so too, the escalating provocations directed at Iran.

Be assured the Five Eyes are full participants in the counter-insurgency. Macron and Starmer openly conspired together in Paris ahead of the U.S. announcement to promote the ATACMS strike. The inter-agency grandees clearly are very fearful. They must worry that Trump may expose the ‘Russia Hoax’ (that Trump in 2016 was a Russian ‘asset’) and put them in jeopardy.

But Trump understands what’s afoot:

“We need peace without delay … The foreign policy establishment keeps trying to pull the world into conflict. The greatest threat to Western civilization today is not Russia. It’s probably more than anything else ourselves… There must be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire Globalist Neo-con establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad while they turn us into a Third World country and a Third World dictatorship right here at home. The State Department, the Defense bureaucracy, the intelligence services and all of the rest need to be completely overhauled and reconstituted. To fire the Deep Staters and put America first – we have to put America Firstâ€.

Whilst the long-range ATACM launch on ‘deep Russian pre-2014 territory’ is no game-changer – it will not change the course of the war (ATACMS regularly are – at 90% – downed by Russian Air Defences); the salience of this act however, is not strategic; rather, it lies with the crossing into the realm of direct NATO attacks on Russia.

Colonel Doug MacGregor reports that two sources are telling him that “Russian nuclear rocket forces are on full alert. They are at the highest level of readiness ever achieved. It suggests that Russia has taken this crossing of the line very seriouslyâ€.

Yes, it was a provocation, and President Putin will respond appropriately. He has to – but not necessarily through nuclear escalation. Why? Because the war in Ukraine is moving rapidly in his direction, with Russian forces closing-in on the Dnieper east bank. Effectively, facts on the ground will be the outcome determinant, leaving little point to external mediation.

But more than just a dangerous provocation aimed at Russia, the ATACM and Storm Shadow attacks represent an attempt to turn foreign policy – literally – on its head. Instead of policy being aimed directly at a rising foreign adversary threatening U.S. hegemony, it is being transformed into a loaded weapon locked onto America’s domestic war. It is aimed specifically at Trump – to ‘hog tie’ him in, and to divert his attention to wars that he does not want.

Logic suggests that Trump would want to keep clear of Netanyahu’s scheming for a war against Iran. But the ‘Israel Firsters’ and the Lobby (as Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues) long have had effective control over Congress and the U.S. military – more than does the President. Explains Sachs:

“Because the Zionist Lobby is so powerful, Netanyahu basically has had control over the Pentagon to fight wars on behalf of Israeli extremism. The war in Iraq in 2003 was a Netanyahu War. The attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the overthrow of Moamar Gaddafi – All were ‘Netanyahu Wars’â€.

The important point is that Netanyahu can ‘do what he does’ because it was always planned this way – a plan that has been 50 years in execution. The ‘Israel First’ strategy was fully embraced by Scoop Jackson (a two-times Presidential candidate). And just so the policy could not be rolled back, Scoop insisted on Zionists staffing the State Department, and that neo-cons and Zionists hold the reins at the NSC. That same pattern continues until today.

At bottom lies the ultimate boondoggle by which the political class of both U.S. parties become wealthy and afford the campaign costs of remaining legislators: “It’s quite a dandy deal that the Israel Lobby or the Zionist Lobby puts in, say, a hundred million dollars into campaigns and it gets trillions out –trillions, not billions, trillions out [in government] expenditures. And so, when Netanyahu speaks, it’s bizarre to me, but it is not Trump who is appointing or naming [those ‘Israel Firsters’ who are part of his Team, but Netanyahu]â€, Sachs says.

When Netanyahu describes Trump’s ‘Israel First’ nominations as his ‘dream U.S. team’, the explanation is not difficult to see. On the one hand, Trump has a ‘Revolution’ to conduct in America and wants his nominations to office approved. And, on the other, Netanyahu has a further war he wants the U.S. to fight for him.

“The ‘Big Ugly’ was always a description of the battle that few understoodâ€,another commentator notes:

“The Senate is factually the core of republican opposition to MAGA and President Trump. The visible battle … consumes the most attention. However, it is the less-visible battle against the entrenched ideological Republicans that proves to be the hardestâ€.

“The Republicans in the upper chamber will not relinquish power easily. They have a multitude of weapons to use against the (Trump) insurgency … We are seeing this play out now in the alignment of Republican Senators who stand in opposition to Trump’s nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General, [as] this recent report [explains]â€.

“The basic outline is that the senate leadership will reluctantly support Matt Gaetz for Main Justice, where ‘support’ means they will not directly oppose; in exchange for the nomination of FBI Director Mike Rogers [a co-founder of the ‘Never Trump’ group] to defend inter-agency interests at FBIâ€.

�

Trump may not appreciate just how isolated the U.S. and Israel are among Israel’s Arab and Sunni neighbours.

Israelis, as a whole, are exhibiting a rosy assurance that they can harness Trump, if not to the full annexation of the Occupied Territories (Trump in his first term did not support such annexation), but rather, to ensnare him into a war on Iran. Many (even most) Israelis are raring for war on Iran and an aggrandisement of their territory (devoid of Arabs). They are believing the puffery that Iran ‘lies naked’, staggeringly vulnerable, before a U.S. and Israeli military strike.

Trump’s Team nominations, so far, reveal a foreign policy squad of fierce supporters of Israel and of passionate hostility to Iran. The Israeli media term it a ‘dream team’ for Netanyahu. It certainly looks that way.

The Israel Lobby could not have asked for more. They have got it. And with the new CIA chief, they get a known ultra China hawk as a bonus.

But in the domestic sphere the tone is precisely the converse: The key nomination for ‘cleaning the stables’ is Matt Gaetz as Attorney General; he is a real “bomb throwerâ€. And for the Intelligence clean-up, Tulsi Gabbard is appointed as Director of National Intelligence. All intelligence agencies will report to her, and she will be responsible for the President’s Daily briefing. The intel assessments may thus begin to reflect something closer to reality.

The deep Inter-Agency structure has reason to be very afraid; they are panicking – especially over Gaetz.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have the near impossible task of cutting out-of-control federal spending and currency printing. The System is deeply dependent on the bloat of government spending to keep the cogs and levers of the mammoth ‘security’ boondoggle whirring. It is not going to be yielded up without a bitter fight.

So, on the one hand, the Lobby gets a dream team (Israel), but on the other side (the domestic sphere), it gets a renegade team.

This must be deliberate. Trump knows that Biden’s legacy of bloating GDP with government jobs and excessive public spending is the real ‘time bomb’ awaiting him. Again the withdrawal symptoms, as the drug of easy money is withdrawn, may prove incendiary. Moving to a structure of tariffs and low taxes will be disruptive.

Whether deliberate or not, Trump is keeping his cards close to his chest. We have only glimpses of intent – and the water is being seriously muddied by the infamous ‘Inter-Agency’ grandees. For example, in respect to the Pentagon sanctioning private-sector contractors to work in Ukraine, this was done in coordination with “inter-agency stakeholdersâ€.

The old nemesis that paralysed his first term again faces Trump. Then, during the Ukraine impeachment process, one witness (Vindman), when asked why he would not defer to the President’s explicit instructions, replied that whilst Trump has his view on Ukraine policy, that stance did NOT align with that of the ‘Inter-Agency’ agreed position. In plain language, Vindman denied that a U.S. president has agency in foreign policy formulation.

In short, the ‘Inter-Agency structure’ was signalling to Trump that military support for Ukraine must continue.

When the Washington Post published their detailed story of a Trump-Putin phone call – that the Kremlin emphatically states never happened – the deep structures of policy were simply telling Trump that it would be they who determine what the shape of the U.S. ‘solution’ for Ukraine would be.

Similarly, when Netanyahu boasts to have spoken to Trump and that Trump “shares†his views regarding Iran, Trump was being indirectly instructed what his policy towards Iran needs to be. All the (false) rumours about appointments to his Team too, were but the interagency signalling their choices for his key posts. No wonder confusion reigns.

So, what can be deduced at this early stage? If there is a common thread, it has been a constant refrain that Trump is against war. And that he demands from his picks personal loyalty and no ties of obligation to the Lobby or the Swamp.

So, is the packing of his Administration with ‘Israel Firsters’ an indication that Trump is edging toward a ‘Realist’s Faustian pact’ to destroy Iran in order to cripple China’s energy supply source (90% from Iran), and thus weaken China? – Two birds with one stone, so to speak?

The collapse of Iran would also weaken Russia and hobble the BRICS’ transport-corridor projects. Central Asia needs both Iranian energy and its key transport corridors linking China, Iran, and Russia as primary nodes of Eurasian commerce.

When the RAND Organisation, the Pentagon think-tank, recently published a landmark appraisal of the 2022 National Defence Strategy (NDS), its findings were stark: An unrelentingly bleak analysis of every aspect of the U.S. war machine. In brief, the U.S. is “not preparedâ€, the appraisal argued, in any meaningful way for serious ‘competition’ with its major adversaries – and is vulnerable or even significantly outmatched in every sphere of warfare.

The U.S., the RAND appraisal continues, could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theatres with peer and near-peer adversaries – and it could lose. It warns that the U.S. public has not internalized the costs of the U.S. losing its position as the world superpower. The U.S. must therefore engage globally with a presence—military, diplomatic, and economic—to preserve influence worldwide.

Indeed, as one respected commentator has noted, the ‘Empire at all Costs’ cult (i.e. the RAND Organisation zeitgeist) is now “more desperate than ever to find a war it can fight to restore its fortunes and prestigeâ€.

And China would be altogether a different proposition for a demonstrative act of destruction in order “to preserve U.S. influence worldwide†– for the U.S. is “not prepared†for serious conflict with its peer adversaries: Russia or China, RAND says.

The straitened situation of the U.S. after decades of fiscal excess and offshoring (the backdrop to its current weakened military industrial base) now makes kinetic war with China or Russia or “across multiple theatres†a prospect to be shunned.

The point that the commentator above makes is that there are no ‘easy wars’ left to fight. And that the reality (brutally outlined by RAND) is that the U.S. can choose one – and only one war to fight. Trump may not want any war, but the Lobby grandees – all supporters of Israel, if not active Zionists supporting the displacement of Palestinians – want war. And they believe they can get one.

�

The West doesn’t have the financial clout to pursue global primacy – if it ever did.

The election has occurred; Trump will take office in January; many of the existing Party Nomenklatura will be replaced; different policies will be announced – but actually taking power (rather than just sitting in the White House) will be more complex. The U.S. has devolved into many disparate fiefdoms – almost princedoms – from the CIA to the Justice Department. And regulatory ‘agencies’ too, have been implanted to preserve Nomenklatura hold on the System’s lifeblood.

Pulling these ideological adversaries into new thinking will not proceed entirely smoothly.

However, the U.S. election also, has been a referendum on the prevalent western intellectual mainstream. And that likely will be more decisive than the U.S. domestic vote – important though that is. The U.S. has shifted strategically away from the managerial techno-oligarchy that took its grip in the 1970s. Today’s shift is reflected across the U.S.

Back in 1970, Zbig Brzezinski (who was to become National Security Adviser to President Carter) wrote a book foreseeing the new era: What he then called ‘The Technetronic Era’,

“involved the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society … dominated by an élite, unrestrained by traditional values … [and practicing] continuous surveillance over every citizen … [together with] manipulation of the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all people … [would become the new norm].â€

Elsewhere, Brzezinski argued that “the nation-state … has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-stateâ€.

Brzezinski was plain wrong about the benefits of tech cosmopolitan governance. And he was decisively, and disastrously, wrong in the policy prescriptions that he adduced from the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991 – that no country or group of countries would ever dare to stand up to U.S. power. Brzezinski argued in The Grand Chessboard that Russia would have no choice but to submit to the expansion of NATO, and to the geopolitical dictates of the U.S.

But Russia did not succumb. And as a result of the élites’ 1991 ‘End of History’ euphoria, the West launched war in Ukraine to prove its point – that no single country could hope to stand against the combined weight of all NATO. They said that because they believed it. They believed in the western Manifest Destiny. They did not understand the other options Russia had.

Today, the Ukraine war is lost. Hundreds of thousands have died unnecessarily – for a conceit. The ‘other war’ in the Middle East fares no differently. The Israeli-U.S. war on Iran will be lost, and tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese will have died pointlessly.

And the ‘forever wars’ too, that were expected by the Supreme Commander of NATO in the wake of 9/11 to topple an array of states (first Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran), not only did they not result in consolidating U.S. hegemony, but they have led instead to Kazan and to BRICS, with its long tail of aspirant members, ready to face down foreign colonialism.

The Kazan summit was cautious. It didn’t project a flush of solutions; some BRICS states were hesitant (the U.S. election was scheduled for the following week). Putin’s comments to these latter states were carefully calibrated: Look at what the U.S. can do to you, should you fall foul of it, at any point. Protect yourselves.

All that the BRICS President (Putin) could say, at this juncture, was: Here are the problems that [we have to solve]. It is premature to set up a full alternative Bretton Woods structure at this time. But we can set up the core to a prudent alternative for working in the dollar sphere: a settlement and clearing system, BRICS Clear; a reference unit of account; a re-insurance structure and the BRICS Card – a retail payment card system similar to AliPay.

Perhaps a Reserve Currency and the full Bretton Woods paraphernalia will prove unnecessary. Financial technology is evolving fast – and providing that the BRICS clearance system is functional, a multitude of fin-tech separate trade channels may ultimately be what results.

But a ‘week is a long time in politics’. And one week later, the western intellectual paradigm was upended. The Shibboleths of the last fifty years were rejected across the board in the U.S. by voters. The ideology of ‘undoing’ the cultural past; the casting aside the lessons of history (for, it is claimed, ‘wrongful’ perspectives) and the rejection of systems of ethics reflected in the myths and stories of a community, have themselves been rejected!

It is ok again to be a ‘civilisational stateâ€. The radical doubting and cynicism of the Anglo-sphere is reduced to one perspective amongst many. And no longer can be the universal narrative.

Well, post the U.S. election, BRICS sentiment must be turbo-charged. Notions that were not thinkable last week, just became possible and thinkable a week later. Historians may look back, and observe that the future architecture of modern global finance, modern global economy may have struggled to be born at Kazan, but is now a healthy infant.

Will it all happen smoothly? Of course not. Differences between BRICS member and ‘partner’ states will remain, but this week a window has opened, fresh air has entered, and many will breathe more easily. If there is one thing that should be clear, a second Trump Administration is unlikely to feel the need to launch a ‘war on the world’ to maintain its global hegemony (as the 2022 National Defence Strategy insist it should).

For the U.S. today faces its own internal structural contradictions to which Trump regularly alluded when he talked about the evaporated American real economy owing to the off-shored manufacturing base. A recent report by the RAND Organisation states starkly however, that the U.S. defence industrial base is unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the U.S. and its allies and partners. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theatres, would require much greater capacity [– and a radically increased defence budget].

Trump’s industrial recuperation plan, however, of painfully high tariffs ringing American manufacturing; an end to Federal profligacy and lower taxes suggests however, a reversal into fiscal rectitude – after decades of fiscal laxity and uncontrolled borrowing. Not big military spending! (Defence spending, by the way, during the Cold War relied on top marginal income tax rates above 70 percent and corporate tax rates averaging 50 percent – which does not seem to accord with what Trump has in mind).

�
•ï¿½Category: Foreign Policy, History •ï¿½Tags: 2024 Election, BRICs, Donald Trump, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin�

Of course, a victory narrative was too valuable to be foregone. Yet nonetheless, unexplained events matter.

On Saturday, an Israeli force of some 100 aircraft attacked Iran from a stand-off position in Iraq, some 70 kilometres outside the Iranian border.

A Wall Street Journal author, Walter Russell Meade, Distinguished Fellow at the Hudson Institute, wrote: “Israeli warplanes didn’t only cripple Iran’s air-defence systems and inflict painful blows on its missile-producing facilities. They also sent a message that Israel knows where Tehran’s strategic vulnerabilities are, and it can destroy them any time it wantsâ€.

Russell Mead adduces from this reading his key point: “Military forces that have access to American military technology and intelligence-gathering capabilities can wipe the floor with militaries that rely on Moscow … American technology is the gold standard in the world of defence – even more so for a country such as Israel that has significant intelligence and technological capabilitiesâ€.

The western ‘war of imagined, created reality’ thus reaches out beyond Ukraine – to arrive in Iran.

The Narrative – U.S. tech and its Intel as ‘invincible – must be maintained. To heck with the facts. There is too much at stake to forsake it for truthfulness.

A more sober and experienced observer however, notes after four days examination, that, succinctly put:

“The IAF strikes seem to have produced minimal results; it appears however that covert operatives within Iran achieved several [inconsequential] drone hits. The Israelis launched a lot of missiles [some 56] – all from maximum stand-off distance. Iran put up a LOT of air defence missiles. There are no firm reports, nor video evidence (so far) of big ballistic missile strikes on any significant Iranian targets. The Iranians say they intercepted most of the attacking missiles, but admit some got throughâ€.

As usual, the ‘imaginary war narrative’ being broadcast is completely detached from that which can be observed from ground imagery. Russell Meade effectively was demanding the pretence that ‘we not notice’ that Israel’s attack failed – that it did not cripple air defences, nor did it devastate any significant target.

Yet, as Professor Brian Klaas writes, “the world doesn’t work as we pretend [or imagine] it does. Too often, we are led to believe it is a structured, ordered system defined by clear rules and patterns. This is the meme at the crux of the Rules Order narrative. The economy, apparently, runs on supply-and-demand curves. Politics is a science. Even human beliefs can be charted, plotted, graphed – and by using the right regression and enough data, understand even the most baffling elements of the human conditionâ€. It is a stripped-down, storybook version of reality

Though some scholars in the 19th century believed there were laws governing human behaviour, social science was swiftly disabused of the notion that a straightforward social ‘physics’ was possible according to physical iron laws.

The most common approach today, reflecting a return to data-led modelling in political ‘science’ in the western sphere, is to use empirical data from the past to tease out ordered patterns that point to stable relationships between causes and effects.

Typically, the philosophy of dialectical materialism is viewed in some capitals as the acme of an objective scientific approach to politics and human sociology – its practitioners esteemed as ‘scientists’. By smoothing over near-infinite complexity, linear syntheses make our non-linear world appear to follow the comforting progression of a single ordered line. This is a conjuring trick. And to complete it successfully, ‘scientists’ need to purge whatever is unexpected or unexplained.

The claimed objectivity to this methodology however, essentially lies with a cultural attribute derived from the linear and teleological understanding found in Judeo-Christian traditions.

It is this belief in a ‘scientific’ and linear understanding of cyclical history which imparts the strong sense of purpose to political analysis. Professor Dingxin Zhao notes how, in contrast to other metaphysical structures, it allows believers to create a more committed zeitgeist, compelling individuals within that community to act in alignment to the anticipated teleological outcome.

It is not hard to see this teleological premise as the underpinning to today’s obsession with creating imaginary ‘victory narratives’. Professor Dingxin Zhao warns that those making linear predictions about the tide of human events according to mechanistic material ‘science’, can easily be convinced that they alone possess the correct beliefs and are aligned with the right path of analysis. And that ‘others’ simply are on the “wrong side†(such as in states that have ‘mistakenly’ come to rely on Russian military technology, rather than on America’s ‘gold standard’).

Within this dominant, hubristic paradigm of social science, our world is treated as one that can be understood, controlled and bent to our whims. It can’t.

In his bestselling book Chaos: Making a New Science (1987), James Gleick “observes that 20th-century science will be remembered for three things: relativity, quantum mechanics (QM), and chaos. These theories are distinctive because they shift our understanding of classical physics toward a more complex, mysterious and unpredictable worldâ€, Erik van Aken writes.

Chaos theory emerged in the 1960s and in the following decades mathematical physicists recognised its insights for our understanding of real-world dynamical systems.

These key shifts have made little impact on the western paradigm of thinking however, which still is viewed by most westerners as a machine where each action, like the fall of a domino, inevitably triggers a predictable effect.

“Yet if we are in a world of unpredictability – in which nearly everything influences everything else, the word ‘cause’ begins to lose its meaning. No matter how seemingly unrelated or remote, each event converges, contributing to a complex web or matrix of causalityâ€.

Bertrand Russell, in his On the Notion of Cause (1912-13), asserted two significant conclusions: First, that our conventional notion of causality is not grounded in physics; and second, if notions like ‘cause’ must be reducible to physics, we should eliminate our use of simplistic use of the word ‘cause’ all together.

So how can we make sense of social change when consequential shifts often arise from chaos? Whilst we search for order and patterns, we perhaps spend less time focused on an obvious but consequential truth:

Unexpected, unexplained events matter. In other words, they have a quality and meaning.

�

Israel teeters at the edge: it will not be able to impose itself over the plurality of resistance that it faces.

Centuries ago a boy was born. His parents understood that he had a remarkable fate before him which reflected the Will of the Great Shaman. His hair was light, his eyes were light green, and his skin was pale. It seemed obvious that he enjoyed divine favour. But then, one day, the boy’s father – a figure of standing – was killed. The family thus became unprotected, and nomads smashed the remains of his home. They made him a slave. They put wooden stocks over his legs so that he could not walk. He lived like a dog, and grew up like a dog, chained outside, eating rotten food, freezing on winter nights, wishing for death.

Death however spared him. When finally he did escape, his psyche was tortured. The voices inside his head; the screams of his father; the scorching fire; his mother being tortured and killed; All whispered, just destroy everything that is in your way, and these memories will be purged.

But they weren’t. His army killed millions. Nonetheless, he founded a nation of more than one million vassals. He expurgated all concepts of tribal loyalty and old identities for obedience to his State.

He did all this with a tiny army; no more than 100,000. His name comes down to us today as Genghis Khan.

What has this to do with today’s war in the Middle East? Well, firstly we have moved – in this American-facilitated Israeli war – to ‘war without limits’. The rules of war have been evicted; human rights have been discarded; international law has been shed; and the UN Charter is no more. And, as it expands, anything goes – children in Gaza decapitated by bombs, Gaza’s hospitals bombed, and the continuous displacement and massacre of civilians.

The roots to this shift are complex. In part, they spring from the western postmodern zeitgeist. But also they reflect the same dilemma that faced a tormented, twisted Genghis Khan: How would he control the world without a big army; in fact, with only a tiny one.

“Everything that’s happened today was planned out just 50 years ago – back in 1974 and 1973â€. I want to describe how the whole strategy that led to the United States today, not wanting peace, but wanting Israel to take over the whole Near East took shape graduallyâ€, Professor Hudson has explained (here and here).

Hudson relates:

“I met many [neocons] at the Hudson Institute, where [I] had worked for five years in the mid ‘70s; some of them, or their fathers, were Trotskyists. They picked up Trotsky’s idea of permanent revolution. That is, an unfolding revolution – whereas Trotsky said what began in Soviet Russia was going to spread around the world: The neocons adapted this and said, No, the permanent Revolution is the American Empire. It’s going to expand, and expand, and nothing can stop us – to the entire worldâ€.

In their ambition, they were another Genghis Khan: the U.S., lacking the military means, would seize the Middle East using Israel as its proxy on the one hand, and Saudi-facilitated Sunni fundamentalism on the other. The Hudson Institute, under Herman Khan, persuaded the dominant political figure Scoop Jackson that Zionism could be America’s battering ram in the Middle East. That was in the early 1970s. By 1996, Scoop Jackson’s former Senate aides had crafted –specifically for Netanyahu – its Clean Break Strategy.

Explicitly, it was the blueprint for ‘a new Middle East’. It argued that the Israel proxy would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. In March 2003, Patrick J. Buchanan, referring to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, wrote, “Their [Clean Break] plan urged Israel to [pursue regime change through] ‘the principle of preemption’â€.

Professor Michael Hudson points out the design’s fatal flaw: The Vietnam War had shown that any attempted conscription by western democracies was not viable. Lyndon Johnson in 1968 had to withdraw from running for election precisely because everywhere he’d go, there would be nonstop stop-the-war demonstrations.

So what then was left to the United States and Israel? Well, what is available – if your objective is to found Greater Israel – is ‘war without limits’ [i.e positively seeking huge collateral deaths] – a war without limits such as that which Genghis Khan practised: the total annihilation of other peoples and the suppression of their separate identities. A single power – the Hobbesian ‘Leviathan’ – achieved through disarming everyone. The ultimate aim being to suppress any plurality of wills.

The flaw is that the Israelis, as the U.S. proxy force, have limited forces, both by numbers (it is a small army, dependent on reservists), and by being constrained by its ranks being drawn from a westernised, postmodern culture.

�

All the war “games†played over successive years have resulted in America losing.

A major war between Israel and Iran is soon likely to erupt – so says Israel’s Defence Minister Gallant. It will be initiated when Israel launches its long mooted strike on Iran. Gallant has promised that Israel’s strike on Iran will be “lethal, precise and especially surprisingâ€, adding that Iran “won’t understand what happened to it, or howâ€.

‘How’ so – an interesting choice of words.

As of this morning, there is no sign of the lethal response promised by Gallant. It would appear that Israel which initially attached importance to responding swiftly and directly, is awaiting the THAAD anti-ballistic missile batteries to be set up – and for the U.S. troops that will operate them to arrive in Israel.

THAAD likely is no ‘game-changer’. Iran proved on 1 October its ability to saturate and overwhelm Israeli Air Defence capabilities through two successive volleys of incoming ballistic missiles. The point here about the THAAD arrival is that, on the one hand, Israel is running short of intercept missiles, and secondly, that drawing the U.S. into a war between the U.S. and Iran – is hugely more important for Netanyahu than keeping to timetable.

The THAAD batteries paradoxically might do just that (draw the U.S. into the war). With U.S. forces now deployed on the ground in support of Israel’s military kinetic action against Iran, Israel effectively inserts an American ‘tripwire’ into the war drama: Should American soldiers be killed, then the U.S. is at war with Iran; It would feel bound to react forcefully to the deaths of American soldiers.

Netanyahu has been wanting this war for 25 years. He can now see it taking solid shape – directly in front of his eyes. It comes too, from his perspective, at an benign juncture – just before the U.S. elections in which almost every candidate vies to pronounce his or her fealty to Israel.

To be clear, this is no ‘small beer’. It may evolve into a major conflict with Russia, should Tehran be threatened. Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its inhuman – beyond all Rules of War – bombing of civilians in Lebanon to force a terrorised submission, has turned Russia into a full partner with Iran. Russia therefore, has worked hard to supplement Iranian defences with their own top-of-the-line defence systems.

Russia’s role however likely will be confined to providing Iran with this defence assistance: Russian ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance); its latest electronic warfare system; certain missiles; and possibly S-400 Air Defence missiles (though their arrival in Iran has not been confirmed).

Russia will have a prime interest in observing how these weapons perform against an Israeli strike.

Should they function well, it will provide a major boost to Russian general deterrence.

And here lies the key point: For Israeli Zionists and American neocons, the path to a de-fanged Moscow is viewed as passing through a de-capitated and defeated Tehran. Iran winning – the Resistance winning therefore – is very much a Russian interest.

Excited by Israel’s de-capitation of much of the Hizbullah senior leadership, and heartened perhaps by unauthorised (and wrong) signalling from Iran that it might respond perfunctorily to an Israeli strike, Team Biden might well perceive a new Zionist-led Middle East about to be born.

Will the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon intervene to stop the march to conflict – as they did over Blinken’s escalation plans in Ukraine? It seems unlikely. They have unreservedly supported Israel up to now. And they have agreed to send the THAAD batteries.

The Joint Chiefs certainly will have experienced the strong pro-Israeli sentiment in Congress, in marked contrast to the growing disenchantment with Ukraine.

Yet, taking on Iran – supported by Russia and China – is no small thing: Is it truly ‘winnable’? What if it isn’t? What if Israel loses – and therefore America loses? It would be an earthquake; a humiliation that would shake the western world.

One commentator, James Kroeger, intriguingly predicts that “Israel’s attack, if it comes, will be yet another decapitation strike: This time executed in even more stunning fashion than the one they pulled off vs Nasrallahâ€.

“You see, the Pentagon won’t sign on to IDF’s plans to attack Iran’s oil fields or even Iran’s buried nuclear industry; but they have a history of supporting Israel when it targets the Resistance leaders who oppose Israel. Didn’t the IDF just use 82 – 2,000lb U.S. bombs in Beirut to kill Nasrallah? With full U.S. complicity?

“As a basic concept, the U.S. is likely to approve and possibly even enable a ‘decapitation’ strike on Iran’s key leaders in Tehran in the belief that Iran would be too stunned to respond with a ‘total war’ attack on Israel. After all, what did Iran do after Nasrallah was killed? Attack some IDF Air Bases in a way that killed no Israelis? Did it deter Israel from daring to attack Iran once again?â€

“What the Pentagon would not be likely to approve is the use of nukes to decapitate Iran’s government – because it just might be enough to trigger the all-out war that the Pentagon so fears: But what if cunning Israel, after accepting America’s assistance in an operation to deliver a conventional ‘bunker buster’ bomb attack on the Supreme Leader, decides on its own, to also deliver a tactical or strategic nuke on Tehran that completely devastates Iran’s chain of command?â€

“Understand, Israel’s intent is not to avoid an all-out war with Iran, but to ignite one & using a nuke on Tehran would do just that. 100% guaranteed. Bibi understands that after such an attack, if Iran responds by attacking Israel with everything it’s got, he’ll be able to get Congress to pass a Declaration of War vs Iranâ€.

“MSM and the State Dept [together with Congress] would be marshalled first, to deny that nukes were used, and then to make emotional excuses for why Israel needed to use its nukes “to defend itselfâ€. The theme they’ll endlessly repeat: Poor Israel, threatened with annihilation by terrorists, resorted to the only weapons it had left to defeat the evil it was facing …â€.

“Madness? Yeah. Netanyahu ‘madness’†… Yet, Gallant’s enigmatic “lethal, precise and especially surprising: Iran won’t understand what happened to it, or how†– odd wording fits neatly with this Kroeger thesis.

Big unknown: Will the Pentagon be able to take a stand and refuse to comply? Indeed the Pentagon consistently has opposed all-out war between the U.S. and Iran.

Why? All the war ‘games’ played over successive years have resulted in America losing.

�
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World