"
The ‘War’ for the Future of Middle East" (Crooke):
",. . . what happened to Aramco on 14 September has shocked both Israel and America: the former Commander of the Israeli Air Force wrote recently,
“recent events are forcing Israel to recalculate its path as it
navigates events. The technological abilities of Iran and its various
proxies has reached a level at which they can now alter the balance of
power around the world”. Not only could neither state identify the modus
operando to the strikes (even now); but worse, neither had any answer
to the technological feat the strikes plainly represented. In fact, the
lack of any available ‘answer’ prompted one leading western defense
analyst to suggest that Saudi should buy Russian Pantsir missiles rather than American air defenses.
And worse. For Israel, the Aramco shock arrived precisely at the moment that the US began its withdrawal
of its ‘comfort security blanket’ from the region – leaving Israel (and
Gulf States) on their own – and now vulnerable to technology they never
expected their adversaries to possess. Israelis – and particularly its
PM – though always conscious to the hypothetical possibility, never
thought withdrawal actually would happen, and never during the term of the Trump Administration.
This has left Israel completely knocked, and at sixes-and sevens. It
has turned strategy on its head, with the former Israeli Air Force
Commander (mentioned above) speculating on Israel’s uncomfortable options
– going forward – and even postulating whether Israel now needed to
open a channel to Iran. This latter option, of course, would be
culturally abhorrent to most Israelis. They would prefer a bold,
out-of-the-blue, Israeli paradigm ‘game-changer’ (i.e. such as happened
in 1967) to any outreach to Iran. This is the real danger.
It is unlikely that the stirring of protests in Lebanon and Iraq are
somehow a direct response to the above: but rather, more likely, they
lie with old plans (including the recently leaked strategy paper for
countering Iran, presented by MbS to the White House), and with the
regular strategic meetings held between Mossad and the US National
Security Council, under the chairmanship of John Bolton.
Whatever the specific parentage, the ‘playbook’ is quite familiar:
spark a popular ‘democratic’ dissent (based on genuine grievances);
craft messaging and a press campaign that polarizes the population, and
which turns their anger away from generalized discontent towards
targeting specific enemies (in this case Hezbollah, President Aoun and
FM Gebran Bassil (whose sympathies with Hezbollah and President Assad
make him a prime target, especially as heir-apparent to the leadership
of the majority of Christians). The aim – as always – is to drive a
wedge between Hezbollah and the Army, and between Hezbollah and the
Lebanese people."
and:
"We have noted before, how the US sought to leverage the unique
consequences arising from two World Wars, and the debt burden that they
bequeathed, to award itself dollar hegemony, as well the truly
exceptional ability to issue fiat credit across the globe at no cost to
the US (the US simply ‘printed’ its fiat credit). US financial
institutions could splurge credit around the world, at virtually no cost
– and live off the rent which those investments returned. But
ultimately that came at a price: The limitation – to being the global rentier –
has become evident through disparities of wealth, and through the
incremental impoverishment of the American middle classes that the
concomitant off-shoring brought about. Well-paid jobs evaporated, even
as America’s financialised banking balance sheet ballooned across the
globe."
"
Saudi Arabia Launches Its Long-Awaited IPO Of Aramco" (Durden). In their own stock market - which is almost as good as selling shares out of the back of a van - as they couldn't find a legitimate stock market to take it!
Posts
