Could a Regional Force Turn Against Saudi Arabia & Israel?
By JC Collins
With the growing concentration of military power in Syria comes the increased potential of a major regional conflict. Such a conflict, between China, Russia, and Iran, as well as Syria, on one side, and the US, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, France, Canada, Australia, Britain, etc.., on the other side, could very well be considered a war involving the world’s major powers.
But consider the possibility that such sides will not materialize, and influential leaders will be successful in their attempts to organize and consolidate all under one collective mandate. With Germany’s Angela Merkel stating today that Assad must be a part of any Syrian peace talks, and Russia and China both becoming more involved in the conflict, such a possibility is now appearing to be more probable than it would have appeared only a few weeks ago.
The change in tune from American leaders on Syria and Assad is also signaling a policy shift where the US may finally be settling into the new multilateral position on geopolitical negotiating. In fact, based on comments made last year by China (see Zero Hedge article from today), the US could very well be forced to either turn against its strategic covert force, represented by Islamic fundamentalism, or face future proceedings within the International Criminal Court for its support of crimes against humanity and supporting said extremist.
With the UN, World Bank, IMF, China, and the US Treasury itself, about to turn against US policy on monetary reforms (see post IMF Interim Reforms and the December Target), and implement Plan B strategies on restructuring the international monetary system, the US is slowly finding itself increasingly isolated on the world scene.
It has been made very clear by the emerging countries, represented largely by BRICS, and their central banks, as well as the international financial institutions, that any further American delays on monetary reforms will not be tolerated. The fact that US allies joined on with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank earlier in the year is a testament to the shift in momentum, or loss of influence, which is turning against self-serving American interests.
The willingness of both the IMF and China to work closely together on monetary reform speaks volumes about the trend of future events.
Now we are seeing the same US allies who joined the AIIB also openly supporting a political solution in Syria which includes Assad, as detailed above with Germany.
Along the same lines, we are also being told that Ukraine, the other American front against the loss of the US economic and geopolitical power, will never be a member of NATO. Such an act would be tantamount to declaration of war against Russia, as reported on RT. This is a clear sign that other countries, including Eurozone members, are feeling less inclined to continue supporting American mandates.
Especially when such mandates are being proven to be counterproductive to the stability of the international monetary system and geopolitical direction of all concerned.
There have been various studies over the last few years which have shown that no one country, whether it’s Russia or China, could defeat America in a military confrontation. But these studies also proved that America could not solely win a military confrontation against these other countries when they are unified as one force.
The US policy makers are very well aware of these scenarios and are becoming less inclined to get involved in a confrontation with a concentrated force of allies from around the world.
The concentration of firepower in Syria is worrisome in that the slightest mishap or misfire could set the region ablaze in all-out war between the majors. This is why open dialogue is becoming more important. The more guns in the region, the more open conversation is required to keep everything together.
A possible scenario which could unfold is the unification of all forces, including American, against the Islamic fundamentalist forces in the region. For the most part, such a war would be extremely one-sided, as enemy positions are bombarded from the air by allied planes. The damage inflicted upon the extremist forces would decimate any counterforce within days, or at the most, weeks.
It would be something similar to the blitzkrieg unleashed by America upon Iraq during the first Gulf War.
The fall of Damascus is hardly a foregone conclusion, and in fact is becoming less likely by the day.
Yet, it’s hard to imagine a reconciliation taking place between Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Iran and Israel, or even the political impact of a positive vote on Palestinian statehood in the United Nations. The threat to Israel, and potentially even Saudi Arabia, by way of the war in Yemen, is that such a concentrated and unified force in the region could potentially be turned against them after the extremists are rooted out and the military machine begins looking for a new target.
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are aware of this possibility, and have taken preliminary political steps to position themselves alongside both Russia and China, in the event their traditional American ally doesn’t just turn against their covert partners, but also against their not so covert regional partners.
The increase in tension surrounding the geopolitical events and monetary reforms are moving in unison. It is becoming extremely difficult to not see the connection between both. Almost two years ago I began writing about these events, and things have been progressing, for the most part, as expected.
It is still my contention that we will avoid all-out war and the world will transition to a multilateral monetary framework without the massive economic collapse that many are predicting. There will be volatility, and some banks and institutions will fall, but at the end of the day, the world will transform, and the merits of the new system will become challenged right out of the gate, as the faults of Man continue to corrupt what emerges from the fray. - JC