Are We on the Eve of War? (FREEPOM)

JC CollinsFREEPOM, Geopolitical15 Comments

Is the US Leading Saudi Arabia Down the Kuwaiti Invasion Road?

By JC Collins

For the first time in a long time I feel concerned and worried about the prospect of war.  The reaction of Saudi Arabia to the Russian intervention in Syria has always been the wild card in the shifting geopolitical power base in the Middle East.  Turkey and Israel, along with Saudi Arabia are the three countries with the most to lose because of a strong alliance between Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia.

These three traditional American allies have been accustomed to Western support in regards to their own specific regional goals and ambitions.  This support has been so staunch and counterproductive to regional stability that the growing comfort and alliance between Iran and the US should be both confusing and worrisome to Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

On the one hand the US is making agreements with Iran and lifting sanction while on the other hand it is indirectly supporting Saudi Arabia’s and Turkey’s proxy war against Syria. A war which Iran, along with the support of Russia and Hezbollah, are resisting and countering with massive aerial and ground support.

This contradiction is suggestive of another and more complex strategy which may be unfolding in the Middle East.  A strategy which is beginning to look familiar.

Back in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait the state of the Iraqi dictator’s mind was both paranoid and desperate.  The once American supported leader at some point felt he would have the blessings of the US administration in his regional adventures.  The controversy surrounding US Ambassador April Glaspie’s comments to Saddam regarding having no interest in Iraq’s border dispute with Kuwait, and her later vindication by the release of a memo, is somewhat irrelevant as Saddam obviously felt the support was there.  Whether through direct and straightforward communication or through trickery.

Once Iraq invaded Kuwait the Western press mobilized and a massive propaganda campaign against Saddam Hussein commenced.  The once American ally was isolated on the world stage and suffered one of the worst military defeats in the history of warfare.

The interesting parallels between 1990 Iraq and 2016 Saudi Arabia are unlikely to be coincidental.  Both have militaries which were built with American equipment and support.  Both were used by American interests to counter Iranian regional ambitions.  Both supported the sale of their domestically produced crude exports in US dollars.

In support of this conclusion we find the recent statement of Iranian Armed Forces’ Chief of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, who stated:

“US Defense Secretary [Ashton Carter] is supporting and provoking the House of Saud to march to the war [in Syria]. This is an indication that he is at a loss.  It also proves beyond any doubt that they have failed.”

Are we to assume that the US strategy in the Middle East is at a standstill?  I seriously doubt that and America’s agreements with Iran would support something else being afoot.  America may be misleading Saudi Arabia down the same road as it led Saddam Hussein in the buildup to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Except this time the aerial bombardment will come from Russian forces and the mop up crew will consist of Iranian and Hezbollah forces.

Further support for this conclusion comes from the recent comments of John Kerry where he said “what do you want me to do, go to war with the Russians?

Why is there this disconnect and contradictory approach within the American government?  I seriously doubt that it is caused by opposing factions within the US establishment.  A potential war of this magnitude will not be left to the whims of domestic bantering and browbeating.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey are both pushed into a corner over the shifting power base in the Middle East.  The paranoia and desperation, like Saddam in 1990, could very well cause both countries to commit to the very act of aggression which will lead to their ultimate demise and removal from a position of influence within the region.

Are we on the verge of another war?

Perhaps.  But I still content that it will be a regional war only and that the objective of that war will be the removal of once American allies who have been funded and provided with the equipment which will now have to be destroyed and removed from the region.

In the post The Coming Islamic Revolution in Saudi Arabia I wrote the following:

“There is a growing consensus that there may be a division within the Saud family itself.  This is the one thing that could very well finally topple the monarchy.  The House of Saud could be tearing itself apart with opposing strategies.”

“One strategy is based on maintaining socioeconomic and military control over the country, and working with other nations, such as China, on developing business contracts which are not based on crude, but on other sources of revenue which can be gained from alternative energy sources, such as nuclear.”

“The other strategy involves a conclusion where the Shiite majority which is building up around Saudi Arabia will eventually incite revolution within the country as the conflict in Yemen spreads further across the border, and deeper regional integration between the Shiite players takes place.”

It is plausible that an overthrow of the House of Saud would benefit the American strategy against China.  The divisions within Saudi Arabia make it ripe for such a strategy explained above.  Especially if there is a faction of the House of Saud which would be willing to take control of what remains and fit within a larger Middle Eastern regional alliance.

A negotiation with China regarding crude sales in renminbi as discussed in the post The Petro-Renminbi Emerges, could very well be the macro-geopolitical and macro-socioeconomic strategy which is unfolding here.  Such an outcome would benefit both China and Russia, while also maintaining a check on Iranian regional ambitions.

To think that the US would enter into a major war against Russia over Saudi Arabia is fraught with mindlessness and madness.  The more probable strategy is the overthrow of the House of Saud, or at least a complete restructuring of the countries place within the Middle East.

Will Saudi Arabia take the bait and invade Syria?  I think we may know that answer sooner rather than later.  – JC

15 Comments on “Are We on the Eve of War? (FREEPOM)”

    1. Thanks. I’m off to the book store to get it. I’ve read Farrel’s previous works and find them extremely entertaining and informative. It’s always good to consider other perspectives.

  1. “ARE WE ON THE EVE OF WAR? “—-dont bet on it.
    A lot of people in the mainstream media would like you to believe that.

    but if you were to accept the ridiculous idea that somehow the Saudis were going to be leading the charge, then think again.

    Saudis in particular (and Muslims in general) dont do invasions much, if at all (witness Saddam Husseins half-baked effort to go to war against Iran 1980).

  2. Has anybody seen Fred Hickey and Muad’Grumps in the same room?

    “You have to be patient. But when gold lifts off the mining stocks will be even greater. Right now, gold mining stocks trade at multi decade lows relative to the price of gold. These are levels that even people who have been in the industry for a long time have never seen before. So the mining stocks would have to triple to just attain average levels relative to the price of gold.”

  3. This is a brilliant article JC! It’s up on Zerohedge and now hopefully more people can take notice of all the amazing work you’re doing!!

  4. Interesting analysis, thank you!
    However I’m wondering, given Washington’s history of changing partners in the Middle East, shouldn’t it be obvious to Riyadh that it’s only a matter of time before it, too, will get thrown under the bus? So given the facts that the petrodollar is dead and gone, and that China needs Middle Eastern oil more than anyone else, the most logical conclusion to me would be for Saudi-Arabia to switch partners/ protectors before the US does.

  5. I get the sense your metrical approach is acceding to the madness of war. I always felt JC that, for all your analytical genius, too much stock was placed on the unswerving primacy of rational actors.

    It’s noteworthy to see madness and irrationality rearing their ugly heads and challenging the very notion of a metrcis-based analysis. I would think it lies beyond the mandate of schemas to properly assimilate the great ‘immeasurables’ of nihilism and self-destruction. Believe me, I was rooting for your overarching premise that cooler, analytical heads would prevail, even as I remained skeptical.

    I still hope you’re right and have no desire to cheer your miscalibrations from humanity’s mass grave. –nb

    1. Norman I fully agree with you. I do so for very specific reasons. I’m of the belief that a large amount of the Powers That Be are psychopaths. Psychopaths often do the most outlandish things for completely ridiculous reasons. Sometimes they do things for very long term goals but sometimes they just manipulate people for fun. A great read on this kind of behavior is the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley, “The Mask of Sanity”. Here’s a chapter all should read. It’s about Stanley. Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most outrageous lies. Maybe it will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. “They’re pulling a Stanley”. The whole book is on the web and worth reading.

      Any study of what’s going on in the world without taking into account psychopaths is incomplete.

      The past has shown that psychopaths can destroy whole countries. It only takes a few psychopaths to destroy a country. A prime example is Alcibiades. Alcibiades went from city to city in the ancient world. In Sparta he was more Spartan than the Spartans. Changing his chameleon skin every time he moved somewhere else and betraying everyone he came in contact with. Alcibiades killed Athens with risky schemes to glorify himself.

      What Plutarch said about him.*.html

      “…He had, as they say, one power which transcended all others, and proved an implement of his chase for men: that of assimilating and adapting himself to the pursuits and lives of others, thereby assuming more violent changes than the chameleon. That animal, however, as it is said, is utterly unable to assume one colour, namely, white; but Alcibiades could associate with good and bad alike, and found naught that he could not imitate and practice. 5 In Sparta, he was all for bodily training, simplicity of life, and severity of countenance; in Ionia, for p65 luxurious ease and pleasure; in Thrace, for drinking deep; in Thessaly, for riding hard; and when he was thrown with Tissaphernes the satrap, he outdid even Persian magnificence in his pomp and lavishness. It was not that he could so easily pass entirely from one manner of man to another, nor that he actually underwent in every case a change in his real character; but when he saw that his natural manners were likely to be annoying to his associates, he was quick to assume any counterfeit exterior which might in each case be suitable for them…”

      Definite psychopath. Alcibiades was responsible for talking the Athenians into attacking Syracuse. Syracuse was directly responsible for the end of Athens as a power.

    2. Norman, I have always contended that there could be a regional war over this monetary transition. This is what is potentially developing in the Middle East. My position that there will be no world war over this monetary transition remains as strong and resolute as ever. The big players are all working towards the same macroeconomic and monetary objectives. Though they are using some of the smaller players as geopolitical leverage to retain, or gain, access to resources and trade routes. When it comes to crunch time, no one will allow for the start of another world war.

      1. Right or wrong, your naiveté is breathtaking. There are scenarios where global war plays into the interests of the global players, you’re just not covering them. In straight up dispassionate analysis competing scenarios are compared and contrasted, all new events have a place instead of being ignored if they don’t conform, and there is no “right” or “wrong.” Instead, you make “arguments” you then have to tediously defend which is a waste of everyone’s time because we just want to be informed, not convinced.

  6. Greetings Mr. JC,
    Very interesting comments and your very interesting article. I have been following Syria assiduously the last two years and feel the potential for a great disaster and I see several fellow Americans share the opinion.
    From my perspective, the Bankers with their NEOCON servants seem to be running the show, from what I’ve read and understand the Pentagon brass aren’t enthused.
    Nevertheless, to get a handle on this labyrinth would probably take some research.
    My take is that even if there were a 15% chance of super power collision would be an extremely dangerous scenario for any American living inside the United States.
    So, my one question to you and my fellow Americans: It seems we have lived with the danger of nuclear disaster for so long that it appears normal now that it can actually happen. If this were to happen, I don’t think anywhere inside the Continental United States would be safe. So the question then is, why do so many commentators including yourself remain?
    Thanks for your fine article and the comments from some are your very smart readers.

  7. Chilling analysis, chilling as the Tyrant’s Accusation of the Bene Gesserit etched into the walls of long-lost Sietch Tabr.

    For our system died in 2006, but there was no alternative path to escape, no Secher Nbiw. The crash was forestalled, for the alternative would have been millennia of despair But that is no longer the case! In the ten years hence, The Golden Path has been prepared.

Leave a Reply