Are We on the Eve of War? (FREEPOM)

JcollinsFREEPOM, Geopolitical16 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

16 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?
    Muwahahah!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-10/confidence-lost-fred-hickey-says-bear-market-will-last-until-qe4

    “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.

      http://www.energyenhancement.org/Psychopath/psychopath-Hervey-Cleckley-the-mask-of-sanity-SECTION-TWO-THE-MATERIAL-Part-1-The-disorder-in-full-clinical-manifestations-19-Stanley.html

      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.

      http://www.ancient.eu.com/Alcibiades/

      What Plutarch said about him.

      http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alcibiades*.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.

    http://geab.eu/en/petro-euro-argent-dette-crise-bancaire-economie-reelle-dix-ans-pour-sceller-le-sort-dun-systeme-economico-financier-2/

    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BdsTABz2PaM/0.jpg

  8. Collins, attaché’ is article by Thierry Meyssan – ‘Confrontation at Bilderberg 2017’ with bit more detail than your reference(FYI), PEP

    Confrontation at Bilderberg 2017
    by Thierry Meyssan
    While President Trump seems to have sorted out his problems of interior authority – more or less – the conflict has now moved on to concern NATO. Washington is currently speaking against the manipulation of terrorism, while London has no intention of giving up such a useful tool for the extension of its influence. The Bilderberg Group, initially organised as a sounding board for the Alliance, has just been the stage for a difficult debate between the partisans and the adversaries of imperialism in the Middle East.
    Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 6 June 2017

    There exist no photographs of the meeting of the Bilderberg Group, whose work is confidential. Security for the meeting is not handled by the FBI, nor the Virginia police force, but by a private militia organised by NATO.
    The Bilderberg Group was created in 1954 by the CIA and MI6 in order to support the Atlantic Alliance. It was intended to gather personalities from the economic and media sectors with political and military leaders in order to sensitize civil society to the « Red peril ». Far from being a place for decision-making, this very exclusive club has historically been a forum where the elders had to juggle with their fidelity to London and Washington, and the younger members were expected to show that they could be trusted with the opposition to the Soviets [1].
    It was during the annual reunion of 1979 that Bernard Lewis revealed to those present the rôle of the Muslim Brotherhood in the resistance to the Afghani Communist government. This Israëli-British-US Islamologist then proposed that the « War for Freedom » (sic) should be extended to all of Central Asia.
    It was in 2008, in other words two and a half years in advance, that Basma Kodmani (future spokewoman for the Syrian opposition) and Volker Perthes (future advisor to Jeffrey Feltman for the total and unconditional capitulation of Syria [2]) explained the interest of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in order to dominate the Middle East. They stressed the « moderation » of the Brotherhood faced with the West, and the contrast offered by the « extremist sovereignty » of Iran and Syria [3].
    And it was in 2013 that the chairman of the German executive board, Ulrich Grillo, made a case for the organisation of a massive migration of 800,000 Syrian workers to German factories [4].
    Bilderberg 2017
    The Bilderberg Group has just held its 2017 meeting, from 1 to 4 June, in the United States. Contrary to habit, the 130 participants were not all defending the same project. Quite the opposite – following the speeches by Donald Trump at the Arabo-Islamic-US summit, and at NATO [5], the CIA and MI6 organised a first-day debate which opposed those who are partisans of the fight against Islamism and those who support it. The point was, obviously enough, either to find a compromise between the two camps, or to acknowledge the dissension without allowing it to destroy the initial objective of the Alliance – the fight against Russia [6].
    On the anti-Islamism side (that is opposed not to the Muslim religion, but to political Islam as formulated by Sayyid Qutb), we noted the presence of General H. R. McMaster (President Trump’s National Security Advisor) and his expert Nadia Schadlow. McMaster is a recognized strategist whose theories have been verified on the battle-field. Above all, Schadlow has worked on the ways of transforming military victories into political successes. She is particularly interested in the restructuration of poltical movements in conquered countries. She should soon be publishing a new book about the struggle against Islamic radicalism.
    On the pro-Islamism side, we note the presence, for the United States, of John Brennan (ex-Director of the CIA) and his ex-subordinates Avril Haines and David Cohen (financing of terrorism). For the United Kingdom, Sir John Sawers (ex-Director of MI6 and a long-time protector of the Brotherhood) and General Nicholas Houghton (ex-Chief of Staff, who prepared the land invasion of Syria). For France, General Benoît Puga (ex-Chief of Staff for the Elysée and commander of the Special Forces in Syria) and Bruno Tertrais (neo-conservative strategist for the Ministry of Defence). Finally, for the private sector, Henry Kravis (Director of the investment fund KKR, and unofficial treasurer for Daesh) and General David Petraeus (co-founder of Daesh).
    And if this imbalance were not enough, the organisers had planned for the presence of experts capable of justifying the unjustifiable, like Professor Niell Fergusson (historian of British colonialism).
    The possible reversal of alliances
    It will take a little time before we know what was said during this meeting, and to understand the conclusions that were reached by the various attendees. However, we already know that London is pushing for a change of paradigm in the Middlde East. If the model of the « Arab Spring » (reproduction of the « Arab Revolt of 1916 » organised by Lawrence of Arabia in order to replace the Ottoman Empire by the British Empire) is abandoned, MI6 hopes to create a new agreement on the basis of political Islamism.
    As a result, while Washington has renewed its alliance with Saudi Arabia, and has convinced it to break with the Brotherhood in exchange for 110 billion dollars worth of armament [7], London is pushing for an agreement between Iran, Qatar, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood. If this project were to be realised, we would experience the abandon of the Sunni/Chiite conflict and the creation of a « croissant of political Islam » encompassing Teheran, Doha, Ankara, Idleb, Beyrouth and Gaza. This new distribution would enable the United Kingdom to maintain its influence in the region.
    The only thing upon which the Allies seem to agree is the necessity of abandoning the principle of a jihadist state. Everyone admits that the devil has to be put back in his box. Which means getting rid of Daesh, even if some people keep working with Al-Qaïda. This is why, worried about its survival, the self-proclaimed Caliph has secretly transmitted an ultimatum to Downing Street and the Elysée.
    Choosing sides
    We shall see within the next few months if Saudi Arabia’s about-face is genuine. It would be good news for the Syrians, but bad news for the Yemenites (whom the Western world would then ignore). It would offer King Salman the possibility of stimulating the evolution of Wahhabism from a fanatical cult to a normal religion. Already, the sudden conflict which opposes Riyadh to Doha on the question of Iran is doubled by an argument about the possible kinship between the founder of the cult, Mohammed ben Abdelwahhab, and the Qatari Al-Thani dynasty – a claim which has enraged the Saudi’s.
    The project of « political Islam » consists of uniting the Muslim Brotherhood and the Khomeinists. It would mean that Iran, and even Hezbollah, would have to substitute this problem for the fight against anti-imperialism. If this were come to pass, it would most certainly lead to the withdrawal of Iran from Syria. The White House is taking this very seriously and is frantically preparing for it. In his speech in Riyadh, Donald Trump already designated Teheran as his new enemy, and has just nominated Michaël D’Andrea (who organised the assassination of Imad Mougniyeh in Damascus in 2008) as the representative for the Iranian section of the CIA [8].
    Russia had already prepared for a potential new deal in the Middle East. Consequently, by supporting Syria, it pursued its ambition of gaining access to « warm waters », and by seeking rapprochement with its hereditary adversary, Turkey, of being able to navigate freely via the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus (indispensible for entering the Mediterranean). However, in the long term, political Islam could only cause it problems in the Caucasus.
    As always when the players sort their cards, they all have to define their positions. The United Kingdom defends its Empire, France defends its ruling class, and the United States defends its people. In the Middle East, some people will fight for their community, others for their ideas. But things are not always so simple. Thus, Iran might follow the ideal of Imam Khomeiny, confusing the end and the means. What was in the beginning an anti-imperialist revolution led by the power of Islam could evolve into a simple affirmation of the political use of this religion.
    The consequences for the rest of the world
    MI6 and the CIA took a huge risk by inviting a non-Atlantist to the meeting of Bilderberg 2017. The Chinese ambassador, Cui Tiankai, who was scheduled to speak only on the fourth day of the seminar, was thus able to evaluate the positions of each member of NATO as from the first day.
    On one hand, Beijing is counting on the collaboration of Donald Trump, the opening to the United States of its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the development of all its commercial routes. On the other, it is hoping that the Brexit will lead to an economic and financial alliance with London [9].
    Ambassador Cui, who was the Director of the Centre of Political Research for the Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs, might possibly be satisfied with the simple destruction of Daesh. But he is not unaware that the people who organised the Caliphate in order to cut the « Silk Road » in Iraq and Syria, and then the war in Ukraine in order to cut the « new Silk Road », are preparing, preventatively, to open a third front in the Philippines and a fourth in Venezuela in order to cut off other communiction projects.
    From this point of view, China, which, like Russia, has an interest in supporting Donald Trump, if only to prevent terrorism in its own country, will be asking itself about the possible long-term consequences of British hegemony in the « croissant of political Islam ».
    Thierry Meyssan
    Translation
    Pete Kimberley

    [1] “What you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group”, by Thierry Meyssan, Komsomolskaïa Pravda (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 9 May 2011.
    [2] “Germany and the UNO against Syria”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 28 January 2016.
    [3] Sous nos yeux. Du 11-Septembre à Donald Trump, Thierry Meyssan, Editions Demi-lune, 2017.
    [4] “How the European Union is manipulating the Syrian refugees”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 2 May 2016.
    [5] “Trump advances his pawns”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 30 May 2017.
    [6] « La réunion 2017 du Groupe de Bilderberg », Réseau Voltaire, 1er juin 2017.
    [7] “Donald Trump against jihadism”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network, 23 May 2017.
    [8] “The CIA is preparing to take rather harsh measures against Iran”, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 5 June 2017.
    [9] “The Brexit reshuffles world geopolitics”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 28 June 2016.

Leave a Reply