A ZioWahabi attack on Hezbollah and Iran?

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE SAKER

Few people can comprehend how Hezbollah, born in one of the Middle East' most war-ravaged and tiniest states, Lebanon, gave birth to a formidable fighting force such as Hezbollah. Their morale and discipline, and war record (they beat back the Israelis during their latest invasion of Lebanon) speak for themselves.

Israel, Saudi Arabia Setting Preconditions For War With Hezbollah – a critical analysis

SOUTHFRONT has just released a very interesting video analysis warning about the possibility of a war involving Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and, possibility, Syria, Iran, and Israel. That, of course, also means that Russia and the USA would be involved. First, please see the video here:

https://southfront.org/israel-saudi-arabia-setting-preconditions-for-war-with-hezbollah/

What I propose to do is go over the implications of such a scenario.

The context: a total AngloZionist failure on all fronts

To understand the context for these developments we first need to quickly summarize what has taken place in Syria and the rest of the Middle-East in the past few years.

The initial AngloZionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with the Takfiri crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you want). Doing this would achieve the following goals:

1. Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services.
2. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north.
3. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
4. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone”, but this time in Lebanon.
5. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
6. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
7. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
8. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
9. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.
10. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.

That was an ambitious plan, but the Israelis felt pretty confident that their US vassal-state would provide the resources needed to achieve it. And now this entire plan has collapsed due to the very high effectiveness of an informal but yet formidable alliance between Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

To say that the Israelis are seething with rage and in a state of total panic would be an understatement. You think I am exaggerating? Then look at it from the Israeli point of view:

1. The Syrian state has survived and its armed and security forces are now far more capable than they were before the war started (remember how they *almost* lost the war initially? The Syrians had to bounce back, learn some very hard lessons, but by all reports they have made tremendous improvements and while at a critical moment Iran and Hezbollah were literally “plugging holes” in the Syrian frontlines and “extinguishing fires” on local flashpoints, now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
2. Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
3. Lebanon is rock solid, even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
4. Syria will remain unitary and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced refugees are returning home.
5. Israel and the USA look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility left.

This is all a disaster for the AngloZionists who now are falling back to their typical attitude when met with resistance: if we can’t control it, then let’s destroy it.

The plan: force the USA to attack Iran

Hezbollah's role in Syria, along with Russian air power and advanced technologies, proved decisive in turning the tide.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he following is only my speculation and nothing more. I have no way of knowing what the Axis of Kindness (USA-Israel-KSA) has come up with, but I feel that I can take an educated guess. For one thing, this is nothing new. The Saudis and the other Gulf states have in the past made noises about intervening in Syria and we know that the Saudis have intervened in Bahrain and Yemen. As for the Israelis, their record of (completely illegal) military interventions is so long that we can safely assume that the Israelis will be involved in *any* ugly or evil plan to lay the region to waste. The main problem for the Saudis and the Israelis is that they have bad armies. Expensive ones – yes. High-tech ones – yes. But their problem is that their only true area of expertise is massacring defenseless civilians, that they are real experts at. But in terms of real warfare, especially against truly formidable adversaries like the Iranians or Hezbollah, the “ZioWahabis” (what a combo!) don’t stand a chance and they know it (even if they never admit it). Imagine how frustrating that must be: you basically control the USA which you have turned into a vassal-state, you spent billions and billions of dollars in equipping and training your bloated armed forces, but at the end of the day the Shias are just laughing in your face. And, for some reason you cannot fathom, every time you try to “teach them a lesson”, it is you who has to crawl back home in total shame to lick your wounds and try to hush up the magnitude of your defeat. That hurts, badly. So a plan to make the Shias pay for it had to be concocted. Here is what I think it will be.

First, the goal will not be to defeat Hezbollah or Iran anywhere. For all their racist rhetoric and hubris, the Israelis know that neither they nor, even less so, the Saudis have what it would take to seriously threaten Iran, or even Hezbollah. But their plan is, I think, much cruder: to trigger a serious conflict and then force the USA to intervene.

I have written many articles explaining that the US military does not have the means to win a war against Iran. And that might be the problem here: the US commanders know that full well and they are therefore doing whatever it takes to tell the Neocons “can’t do, so sorry!” (that is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not happened yet). From an Israeli point of view, this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: simply force the USA into a war they really don’t want. After all, who cares how many US goyim will die? As for the Iranians, the goal of an Israeli-triggered US attack on Iran would not be to defeat Iran, but only to hurt it, very very badly. That is the real goal. As far as the Israelis are concerned, not only don’t they give a damn about how many non-Jews will die (Judaic ethics teach that all non-Jews are most likely deserving to die anyway) as long as their Master Race benefits from it. Simply put: to them we are only tools, tools capable of thought, but tools nonetheless. That is also how Neocons view us, of course. In fact, I can just about imagine the glee of the Israelis seeing the Shia and Sunni Muslims are killing each other. Throwing in a few Christians only makes it even better.

So it’s all simple: have the Saudis attack Lebanon and/or Iran, observe how they lose, then switch on the propaganda machine at full power and explain to the average TV-watching goy that Iran is a threat to the region and the aggressor here, that the Saudis are only defending themselves from Iranian aggression. And if that is not enough, they scream “oy gevalt!” in the US Congress and have the prostitutes on the Hill explain to the American people that the US must “lead the Free World” to “defend” the “only democracy in the Middle-East” against Iranian “aggression” and that the USA has a “responsibility” to prevent the Iranians from “seizing the Saudi oil fields” etc. etc. etc.

It’s a win-win situation for the Israelis as long as they are not caught red-handed manipulating it all. But we can count on our beloved Ziomedia to make sure that no such “anti-Semitic” accusations are ever made, even if Israeli fingerprints are all over the place.

Moon of Alabama has just posted an interesting article entitled “Revealed – Saudis Plan To Give Up Palestine – For War On Iran” which seems plausible to me and which further corroborates my thesis that the goal is to get the USA to attack Iran. Of course, the very notion that the Saudis could give up Palestine implies two outright outlandish notions: first, that the KSA has not already sold out the Palestinians many times over and, second, that the Saudis could somehow “deliver” Palestine to the Zionist Entity. Still, I recommend the reading of this article which contains a lot of very interesting revelations about the true nature and intentions of the Saudis regime.

As for the Israelis, they are offering to share intelligence (read: targeting data) with the Saudis. How touching it is to see these two medieval, backward and generally evil regimes are so willing to work together. At least they are both now showing their true, ugly, faces!

The counter-plan

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he Iranians really have no good options here. The least bad option is to do what Putin is doing in the Donbass: remain externally passive at the risk of having the not too gifted accusing you of caving in. Regardless, if your enemy’s plan is not to win, but to lose, then refusing to engage him makes perfectly good sense, at least on the strategic level and temporarily.

---

Hezbollah in military terms represents something new and old at the same time: an army with a clear religious but not backward ideology attached to modern technology and tactics.

---

I am not suggesting that the Iranians not fight back on a tactical level. Even the Russian Task Force in Syria has official orders to defend itself if attacked. I am talking at a strategic level. Basically, tempting as it might be, the Iranians have to refrain from striking back at Saudi Arabia or Israel. In a paradoxical way, Iran cannot do what Hezbollah did in 2006 and the reason for that is very simple: by the time the first Hezbollah missiles began raining down on Israel the Israelis had already reached their highest level of escalation (their usual vicious campaign to make civilians pay). But in the case of Iran, the AngloZionist Empire could step up the level of violence way beyond what the Israelis and the Saudis could ever do by themselves. The combined power of Israel and the Saudis is dwarfed by the kind of firepower the USA (CENTCOM+NATO) could unleash against Iran and it is therefore crucial that the Iranians not give the US Americans any pretext to officially join the attack. Instead of destroying the regime in Riyadh the Iranians should let, or even help, the regime in Riyadh destroy itself. I think that the Saudis have even less staying power than the USA or the Israelis, so there is no need to force a rapid outcome of any war between Iran and the KSA.

Needless to say, if the AngloZionist Empire joins in and unleashes its full military might against Iran, something which I consider a very real possibility, then all bets are off and Iran should, and will, retaliate with a full set of symmetrical and asymmetrical responses, including strikes against Israel and the Saudis, and even strikes against CENTCOM bases in the entire region. However, such a situation would have catastrophic consequences for Iran and should therefore be avoided if at all possible.

At the end of the day the best hope the world has is that a US American patriot will see through this rather obvious plot to “wag the dog” and tell the ZioWahabis “not on my watch” like Admiral Fallon did in 2007 (will that honorable man ever get the historical recognition he deserves, say a Nobel Peace Prize? Possibly never in this world, but in the judgment of God he shall be called a “son of God” (Matt 5:9)). By themselves the Israelis and the Saudi are just a gang of medieval thugs which even Hezbollah can terrify and force to run. Their only real power is the power they have in Congress and the US Ziomedia: the power of corruption, the ability to lie, deceive and betray. I know for a fact that there are many US officers on all levels in the US armed forces which see straight through these Zionist smokescreen and whose loyalty is to the United State and not to the nasty little Zionist Entity in Palestine. I have studied and worked with such patriots and there are plenty of them in the Saker Community today. I am not suggesting that we should count on top US commanders refusing to execute a Presidential order (like this article is suggesting). The truth is that anybody who has served in the military, especially at a high command level (Pentagon, CENTCOM), knows that there are all sorts of creative ways to make sure that something does not happen. Finally, I have not lost all hope that Trump could do the right thing. Yes, he is a weak man, yes, he is now cornered and has no allies left, but when faced with the horrendous consequences of a attack on Iran he still might say “no” and order his staff to come up with some other plan. Trump might also realize that refusing to wage war on Iran would be his best revenge against those who have smeared him and who are now apparently trying to impeach him.

Conclusion: will the attack happen?

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n short, probably yes. The simple truth is that the nutcase regimes in power in Israel and Saudi Arabia are cornered and desperate. The rise in power of Iran over the past decade has been immense and irresistible. The recent failure of the ZioWahabis to bring even tiny Qatar to heel is indicative of the tremendous erosion in power and credibility these wacko regimes have suffered. I believe that the recent trips by Bibi Netanyahu and even the Saudi King to Moscow are all part of an effort on the part of the ZioWhabis to gauge the Russian response to an attack on Iran.

SIDEBAR  While we will never know what was said behind closed doors, my guess is that Putin indicated in clear terms to the ZioWahabis that Russia will not step aside and let them strike at Iran. In truth, Russia has very limited options. Unless Russian personnel are directly attacked, Russia cannot just go to war in a overt and formal way, that would be way too dangerous, especially against the USA. But Russia could immensely (and very rapidly) strengthen Iranian air defense capabilities by deploying her aircraft (A-50, MiG-31s), in Iran or even by flying them in from Russia to conduct surveillance flights. Russia can provide the Iranians with intelligence far beyond anything the Iranians could collect themselves. Likewise, the Russians could quietly deploy some of their electronic warfare systems to key locations in Iran. The US Americans would rapidly detect all this, but Russia would still have a “plausible deniability” on a political level. Finally, the Russians could do for Iran what they have done for Syria and integrate all the Iranian and Russian air defense capabilities into a single network thereby immensely improving the capabilities of the currently rather modest, but rapidly improving, Iranian air defense capabilities.]

At this moment in time it is pretty clear that an attack on Iran is being prepared and such an attack is possible or even likely. But it is not a done deal yet. For one thing the Saudis and Israelis have a long history of empty threats and both regimes love posturing and grandstanding. And for all their bravado they do realize that Iran is a formidable and very sophisticated adversary. They probably also remember what happened when the Iraqis, with the full help and support from the USA, the Soviet Union, France, Britain and pretty much everybody else attacked Iran when Iran was at its weakest. Following a long and horrible war, the Iranians are now stronger than ever, Saddam is dead and the Iranians are more or less in control of Iraq. Iran is simply not a good country to attack, especially with a lack of a clear vision of what “victory” constitutes. So you ought to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem is, of course, that the Saudis and the Israelis are crazy, they have proved that many times over. So our best hopes is that they might be just “crazy”, but not “that crazy”. Not much of a hope, but that’s the best we got.

—The Saker

This article was written for the Unz Review 

BONUS FEATURE

SouthFront Documentary about Hezbollah

SELECTED COMMENTS
from original thread

1. • • Larchmonter445 on November 17, 2017  ·  at 1:29 am UTC

       Will there be war?

       Of course. More war because that’s all the nutcases have.

       The immediate future well into 2018 will be more Syrian war, the Golan as hot as the Israelis can make it, and CENTCOM trying to stay in bases along both sides of the Iraq-Syria border.

       • proper gander on November 17, 2017  ·  at 5:51 am UTC

         More war, of course? Really?

         Even my libtard sister can see that the world has become an awful lot more peaceful under Trump. A few missiles over Syria, with a pre-warning and 90% shot down. A big mother bomb over Afghanistan. All the rest is threats and tweets and gestures in the right direction for the benefit of the deep state. But he ain’t shooting.

         This discussion is based on the observation that the Anglo zionists are cornered, do not have the backing of the State department, and its agents (CIA, Media, Israel and sidekicks) are beginning to try and act alone, to drag the US in. I don’t believe Trump will move.

         Bannon, Trump and Co. understand that the war within the US is globalist vs nationalist. They know that globalism rides on the back of the power and military of dollar hegemony towards a global leadership, and that global currency and global control at some point must and will remove the crown from the dollar and the USA . It has to. A nationalist knows that the dollar and military is critical to US interests, but that the whole mechanism has been captured, controlled and expanded for the interests of people who do not believe in US, or any, sovereignty.

         This is the fine line that Trump must walk, and is walking. He can’t collapse the dollar system, but he must take the hammer out of the hands of the globalists or, sooner or later, it will lead to the necessary demise of the US.

         This war talk is globalist. Trump will not back it, I am quite certain. And neither Israel nor Saudi can do this without them. Nor can the CIA pull the necessary power together without either impeaching Trump or the provocation of an unequivocal false flag and media pressure

         • Larchmonter445 on November 17, 2017  ·  at 9:23 am UTC

           You are virtually alone in thinking Trump has control of the Shadow Government/Deep State.

           It would be wonderful if he was in command.

           The details and facts on the ground indicate the US is preparing its remaining proxies and willing “rebels” in Syria and among Kurds in Iraq and Syria for a long war of insurgencies to harass the governments (allied with Iran, Turkey and Russia). Thus, more war is reason enough for CENTCOM to stay active and in pursuit of kinetic actions against Hezbollah, Shia militias, PMUs and IRGC forces.

           Notify us all here when CENTCOM leaves Syria and Iraq. Until then, war in small form will persist.

           And some form of larger scale action will be on the front burner, as Saker indicates above. The target will be Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran proper. Israel is not going to become the smallest of all in the region. And that is what her influence will be if the status quo (Russia the regional decisive power) remains as it is going. Russia is moving on all fronts, economic, diplomatic, military, gas and oil, weapons sales, training militaries, humanitarian. Countries are waiting in line for S400s, for jets, for tanks, and for Russian Intel against terrorists and destabilizing plots.

           Israel is the outsider, banded with corrupt regimes like SA.

           Trump is a non-factor in the reality of the ME. He went, he danced with sword, he left with arms sales. That’s all he cares about.
           Next round of sales requires more war. N’est pas?

           Your Trump can’t even stop Porky in Kiev from killing children and old women in his war crimes bombardments of Donbass. And you pitch us this drivel of Trump, POTUS.
           He’s “45”-IMPOTUS.

           His keepers won’t even let him talk to Putin. What Commander is on such a tether?

           Only the deft diplomacy and skills of Putin and Nasrallah and the effectiveness of Russian General Staff and their weapons systems will have a chance at preventing more war.

           The forces of hatred want to “bleed” Iran and upset her development arc. Iran is destined to be very rich, very young, very inventive and a powerful nation within the ME and South Asia regions. Israel could not compete in its own neighborhood. That terrifies the monsters who rule there. And those monsters call the shots in DC, not the super salesman Trump.

           • TSP on November 17, 2017  ·  at 10:51 am UTC

             “You are virtually alone in thinking Trump has control of the Shadow Government/Deep State.”
             I think the comment was that the deep state doesn’t have the authority to wor.
             Not bc Trump has control, but because the JCS/Pentagon has control.
             And they know they can’t win.

             “The target will be Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran proper.”
             My target is the moon, but it doesn’t matter when its totally unattainable.

             “His keepers won’t even let him talk to Putin.”
             Did I see something about them shaking hands, last weekend?

             Democrats are against every war when a repub is in the WH.
             Anyone with a sense of fiscal conservativism is against every war regardless.
             I just described about 90% of the national voter base.
             Elections are 11 months away, and the house and senate hang in that balance.

             No one here has any appetite for a middle eastern war. Literally, nobody.

             • Anonymous on November 17, 2017  ·  at 12:10 pm UTC

               America has not had ‘civilian control of the military’ since at least the early 90’s. Examples of when the civilians have tried to tell the Pentagon what to do are rare, but here are a few …

               — Clinton soon after taking office tried to fulfill a campaign promise about ‘gays in the military’. The Pentagon told Clinton where he could stuff that and with suggestions of how hard to do it.

               — During the East Timor crisis, Clinton tried sending an Admiral over to talk to the Indoneseans about lessening the massacres. The Admiral disobeyed orders and instead expressed support for the Indoneseans and their killings. Clinton had to order him back with orders to give his message instead. Not at all sure that was ever delivered.

               — Dubya pretty much did whatever the Pentagon said to do. The Saker above mentions the one notable case where Dubya/Cheney wanted to attack Iran and the JCS just said no.

               — We’ve seen the conflict between the Pentagon and the Deep State against Trump’s campaign promises to improve relations with Russia. That the power does not lie with the candidates elected by the American people is now obvious.

               — Early in the exchange of bombast between the soulmates Kim and Trump, Trump said he was ordering a second CV to Korea. But, the Pentagon didn’t bother to send the order and the CV was instead spotted sailing around Indonesia.

               All of which means, at this time, I’d say the Pentagon is going to do what it wants to do.

             • Struth on November 18, 2017  ·  at 7:49 pm UTC

               “Elections are 11 months away, and the house and senate hang in that balance.”

               This is the key… Trump won’t (and indeed cannot) do anything until he has allies in the political system to support him. I hope/believe he is playing the long game, playing cozy with the neo-cons/zionists in order to keep his head and his position until he has the support necessary to do what he wants to do.

               The ‘sacrifice’ of some of his allies was exactly that… a sacrifice to the neo-con ‘gods’ to keep them placated and solidify the illusion he is pandering to them. Perhaps I am only being optimistic… time will tell.

           • proper gander on November 17, 2017  ·  at 12:07 pm UTC

             @ Larch

             If your reply is based on the premise of your first sentence, I won’t read any further. I said no such thing. I am no Trump apologist, either. I gave reasons why this war won’t happen, in response to the article.

             I stated that:
             1. There is a war in the US between globalists (deep state, AZ’s) and Nationalists
             2. the ME has been a globalist’s war
             3. Trump is not a globalist, and is not playing ball.
             4. That the anglozionists / deep state/ CIA etc can not operate, or start this war in Lebanon without effectively circumventing the authority of the President (people) or putting his arm up his back with a false flag, or impeaching him.

             This war can’t happen because of the internal struggle in the US, which is plain to see. It does not mean the vestiges of the last 30 years interventionist policy will evaporate over night, or its flywheel stop spinning, or that Trump does not see some benefit in selling arms or ‘pivoting to Asia’. But the deep state / AZ’s can no longer orchestrate and start new globalist acts with the unquestioning approval of the president as they have done. The rational of war in the US is shifting towards nationalism. And that is a big shift.

             We are watching impotent actors whipping up dust and pushing a little here and there from old positions. That’s all. And Trump is not playing ball. We are watching a wind down. He is no pacifist, but this is a wind-down of a war that he described as an expensive disaster and of no benefit to the US.

             Time will tell who is right.

             • Anonymous on November 17, 2017  ·  at 8:26 pm UTC

               Internal struggle? Are you sure? Could the struggle be simply a deception? That’s where I’d investigate.

               • proper gander on November 18, 2017  ·  at 3:25 am UTC

                 @ anon

                 Go have a listen to some of Bannon’s very recent speeches. He is still working hand in glove with Trump. You (and I) might not agree with everything he says, but he is specifically nationalist and very, very anti globalist.

                 The main thrust of Trumps presidency seems to be taking back, and aggressively if necessary, trade and manufacturing from China. Of course, the possible error in presumption is that America is better at manufacture than China, and the US population is more capable and better educated. He knows it is not. Bannon seems to say that all the ills of America – under employment, under education, opioid crisis, crime, social inequality etc – flow from lack of stuff to do and make. And I agree with him.
                 Try this:

                 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bannon+speech+sept+2017&t=ffnt&atb=v35-2&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=Qfa5-icI3xw

         • Mataman on November 17, 2017  ·  at 12:17 pm UTC

           What on Earth are you going on about here? Under Trump the rate of bombing and droning countries in Africa and the ME has increased. But one of many articles confirming this:
           http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-is-dropping-bombs-at-unprecedented-levels-2017-8

           We know he has increased troop levels in Afghanistan and Africa. There is the insane brinksmanship with North Korea, and the unrelenting build up on Russia’s borders.

           And, if that were not enough, we have his absurd imperialist Ziocon UN speech, and his self-congratulatory weapons sale speech this week. Not to mention all the offensive talk of Japanese samurais and encouraging Japan to return to it’s imperial roots.

           This notion that Trump is a secret strategic mastermind, as opposed to a blowhard hack, needs to end. He is busy having his administration roll back environmental protections at home, the only kind of trade he seems interested in are weapons sales, and he’s pushing for a huge tax break for the oligarchs. Oh, and let’s not forget that right when China is finally banning the abhorrent ivory trade, Trump has lifted restrictions on hunting endangered animals because his sons enjoy murdering for sport. How people can believe this man is the savior of the America is beyond me. As if America could ever elect anyone who wasn’t a monster—our “leaders” can only reflect what we have become. And as much as his naive supporters want to frame his victory as some sort of populism, again, look at his campaign backers (Adelson, for example), and his cabinet (Goldman Sachs, Neocons, corporate interest) and then explain how this is populism or how TPTB would even allow his election. His election was the defeat of one group of oligarchs by another, nothing more. And finance still comes out on top, even if oil and mining have curried more favor than social media and cell phones.

           So we are going to see more war because we have already seen more war, and because Trump’s America continues to refuse diplomacy. You don’t put a Nikki Haley in the UN to make peace.

           • nazcalito on November 17, 2017  ·  at 8:19 pm UTC

             Mataman, I was a little puzzled too about what he was talking about. 🙂

             • proper gander on November 18, 2017  ·  at 3:43 am UTC

               In reply to both Mataman and nazcalito.

               I am not trying to find in Trump what I want to find. I have listened to what his acolytes are saying and at what he is and is not doing, and have made a prediction about what is going to happen in Lebanon.

               Can I refer you also to this video:

               https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bannon+speech+sept+2017&t=ffnt&atb=v35-2&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=Qfa5-icI3xw

               or here

               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfa5-icI3xw

               The intro comments by Gorka say it all, but carry on through. Listen at 1.5x speed, if you are impatient. If you listen to nothing else, listen from the 12th minute, for about 1 min. Sovereignty!

               The US is moving away from globalism and towards nationalism. Elementary thinking tells you that globalist governance requires the US to hand over its authority to supra national interests.

               Lebanon won’t happen because it is not in the interests of the US. Period.

           • JJ on November 18, 2017  ·  at 6:12 am UTC

             Ermmm…also record 590billion defense bill authorised too!!! ! To me…the build of momentum to do something is just relentless…….DT will enjoy his chocolate cake when sending off missiles as showmanship but sadly may have to eat the consequences and not enjoy the taste in his mouth…..I do think that stuff he cannot deal with just goes to the back of his mind for sineone else to be tasked with dealing with then fires them if it goes wrong….but by then the issues he should have dealt with by support of a trusted intelligence agencycould have gone irrepairably snafu…..unlike VVP and his trusted intelliegence,defence ,diplomatic and military support systems. Too many rogue lions and elephants in usa services…..and they do not want to be brought home as “trophies”… methinks.

             • JJ on November 18, 2017  ·  at 10:27 am UTC

               Correction…700 b defence budget authorised.

               • proper gander on November 18, 2017  ·  at 12:54 pm UTC

                 @jj

                 I have not said anything about ‘no war’ or ‘Trump the peacemaker’.

                 The objective of US aggression is shifting from globalist goals to nationalistic goals. The article is about a ramp up in war in Lebanon, and I believe Trump will not buy it, because it is part of the historical use of US military for globalist goals. It is not in the interest of the US. The world has become peaceful as the globalist agenda is de-funded (except where US proxies and mercenaries need to be wiped up – Somalia, Syria, etc)

                 Is Trump preparing for a trade confrontation with China, or at least an aggressive trade and encirclement policy? Yes. 100% Will this succeed? No. 100%

         • lizzie dw on November 17, 2017  ·  at 2:55 pm UTC

           Proper Gander. I appreciate you clear remarks about what our president may be doing. It has appeared to me to be big noise – no action, which I applaud for sure but was only hopeful that this was a correct interpretation. It is reassuring to see that another thinks the same.

           • mundanomaniac on November 17, 2017  ·  at 3:40 pm UTC

             just what I think, big noise – no action, great player
             with a weak hand, in for a longer game

       • Anonymous on November 17, 2017  ·  at 11:25 am UTC

         If we look at things like recidivism, habit, and the like it would seem that war is never off the table, and one on the way. Nutcases. What was that expression, about the Bourbons or something, forgotten nothing and learned nothing? Dead reckoning has a whole other meaning.

     • Dr. NG Maroudas on November 17, 2017  ·  at 2:53 am UTC

       Very interesting to see Saker’s analysis posted side by side with Rev.NasrAllah’s call to refrain from analysis until we have a clearer idea of the facts behind recent turmoil in/by the KSA. Saker’s analysis chimes with that of Nasr’Allah insofar as any attack by Israel on Lebanon would not depend on the politics of KSA/Lebanon but only on whether the ZioNazi regime thought they could get away with it; moreover, Rev.Nasr’Allah laughs at the idea of KSA even having capability to move its army anywhere near Lebanon (see Episode 4 of his speech as posted on the Vineyard). So, that leaves the Saker’s suggestion: that Uncle $cam’s favourite nephew, little Izzy, will scam Uncle into sending The Man to do and die in the thousands for Israel, as The Man from Uncle did in Iraq. We shall see, especially with the growing realization that things were getting better — in the USA, in the MENA generally and in Israel as well, until 2010 when Nobel Peace Laureate, Barak Obomba, appointed Lady Macbeth from Arkansaw, Hilary Shrillery Killery Clinton, to direct US foreign policy. There is a great longing for peace after these last 7 years of senseless Anglo-Zio-Capitalist inspired wars; the world might seize the opportunity that Russia and Allies have provided by defeating them once again on the field of battle.

       “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice … ?”.

     • DannyO on November 17, 2017  ·  at 3:06 am UTC

       There is an under estimation of the Iranians resolve in this article – the point is well made by the Saker that Iran stood against the world and survived. However, this time Iran will not only survive but prevail. If – and this is a still a big IF – the zionists attack Iran I believe four things will happen.
       1. An immediate and totally devastating retaliatory attack against the entity – both military and civilian targets by Iran and Hezbollah using overwhelming numbers of ballistic missiles.
       2. A direct mobilization of ground forces by Iran, Hezbollah and the SAA into occupied Palestine. Likely across Galilee and straight to the coast cutting the strip in half.
       3. The iof will collapse on all fronts and retreat to Haifa and Tel Aviv – the zionists will immediately call for a cease fire once the see that coordinated air defense systems are keeping iof jets contained.
       4. The US, on seeing the rapid debacle, will get cold feet and demand the zionists accept a cease fire with Russia and the US as guarantors of whatever the iof is still holding onto of the entity.

       As for the ksa they will be sitting on the sidelines begging for mercy and praying they are not next.
       There will be no war between Iran and ksa – however, the entity will be crushed if it raises its hand against Iran and ksa will collapse under its own weight.
       I believe the western oligarchy maybe aware of the outcome of such a blunder?

       • Yk on November 17, 2017  ·  at 6:43 am UTC

         You made some valid points but, you’re overlooking something, something very vital which is that if – I concur it’s a big IF – the Zionists attack the Resistance Axis(led by Iran) in other to create a major war it would be base on the guarantee that the US will intervene on their behalf. Iran will not take this bait and will allow Hezbollah and assortment of Shia militias across the middle east to do the fighting with Qods Forces and IRGC embedded among them and supply them to the hilt with necessary weapons and political cover this is a of the purpose of the land bridge from Iran the Mediterranean. I believe this will do the job and deny Washington the pretext for directly intervening in the war, the most dangerous scenario is if Israel bomb Iran, then Iran like any major power will have to respond militarily and directly could this prompt a military action from Washington on Iran? Honestly I still think there are some sane people left in Washington even among the deep state who can clearly see this for what it is ‘a suicide mission’ and who will do whatever it takes to avert it though I believe Iran will not base her decision on such notion. Now the question is: will America intervention subdue Iran? The Saker as correctly stated this in the past: if all major powers failed to subdue Iran in the past in her weakest state, what will stop Iran now? Do I hear nuclear weapons? I can recall when Ali Akhbar Salehi was Iran foreign minister he said even if Iran is nuked it won’t stop Iran, I believe this is based on calculated risk. Look at the picture of the middle east if there’s a nuclear fallout which country is safe? On the Northern side of Iran we have Azerbaijan an America ally on the Eastern side we have Pakistan an America ally, on the Western side we have gulf nations, all America allies with America bases. And we have Hezbollah embedded in population centers and a stone throw from Israel with pinpoint missiles that can hit Israel’s nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons sites. I don’t think a nuclear war is possible in the middle east without the local populace turning against America and their government. And I remember a speech by Iran supreme leader a man not known for telling lies or exaggeration that if America attack Iran that Iran will harm America’s interest all over the world.

         https://www.memri.org/tv/iranian-leader-ali-khamenei-if-americans-attack-iran-iran-will-harm-their-interests-worldwide

         This is as far back as 2006, is this possible? Coming from a man who was president of Iran during the 8 years war with Iraq and have seen it all well your guess is as good as mine. That doesn’t mean one can figure out everything and that Iran will not be wrecked and damaged beyond recognition by such war, but let’s just call a spade a spade the cost for America will be the loss of superpower status and America will never be the same again, not in the middle east and not in the rest of the world. Those in Washington who are in the know knows these and I repeat will do everything to avert it. But the rest of the world are preparing.

         • Anonymous on November 17, 2017  ·  at 12:32 pm UTC

           Presuming that the prevailing winds in the area come from the west.

           Pakistan, to the east of Iran, is at best a very shaky American ally. Several reports, say from Mr. Escobar for example, have pointed out that as the USA has shifted its alliance from Pakistan to India, Pakistan in turn has been moving closer towards being a Chinese ally.

           So, I’m not sure how much concern fallout in Pakistan might cause DC. But India is next in the path of the fallout to the east. And at some point, just the sheer numbers of people affected by the fallout in both Pakistan and India would cause concern.

           With the EU being the more interested party to watch. The EU is generally closer to Iran and willing to do deals with Iran. And the EU would be the population most likely to strongly object to mass civilian disease and casualty rates from nuclear fallout.

           A nuclear strike would certainly rally the Shiite world to Iran’s side. So far, we have not seen Shiite terrorists attacking the west. That might well change if people are inspired by a nuclear strike. And its not entirely clear that even the Sunni part of the ME would be happy with this. There would likely be a strong current of belief that the USA and Israel just sacrificed a lot of lives in the ME, and there has long been a current within the ME against the USA and its dominence. Much of the Sunni-Wahabbi terrorists talk along such lines, and just because the CIA controls the leaders of the terrorists, that doesn’t mean the rank n file can’t have other ideas.

       • Katherine on November 17, 2017  ·  at 10:28 pm UTC

         How do you say “Make my day” in Farsi?

         I should would love to see DannyO’s scenario come to pass.
         Katherine

       • Bessarab on November 18, 2017  ·  at 8:15 pm UTC

         Your words in God’s ear . Thanks

     • Master on November 17, 2017  ·  at 3:55 am UTC

       Where the hell is China in all of this? Do they think everyone will do the dirty job for their OBOR project? How can a regional power like China not be able to even muster and station a Landing Ship in the Persian Gulf to protect its interests? Is China that militarily impotent globally?

       • proper gander on November 17, 2017  ·  at 6:18 am UTC

         China’s weapon is better, fairer trade deals and more money than the US can offer. This diplomatic war against the US is better served by less military activity. It is a silent strangle hold, and arguably more effective than bombs.

         Pretty deadly alliance this Russia -China thing.

       • Larchmonter445 on November 17, 2017  ·  at 10:17 am UTC

         China has no policy or intention of projecting military or hegemonic power.
         It uses its wealth and infrastructure technologies as its calling card.

         It won’t fight on the ground or air or sea anywhere beyond its own territorial interests.

         Sadly, the Chinese won’t do what would be smart to do in the ME. Show up with some peace-keeping military power. Even its base in Djibouti will be tiny. It’s an outpost and will be dwarfed by the US’s Camp Lemonnier. It will serve as a filling station for PLA Navy ships on patrol for anti-piracy work in the region. They planted a flag and not much else.

         Chinese simply are not a martial nation. They absorb enemies. They don’t fight them.
         Now that Russia is out in the world again, China sees less reason than ever to stand with anyone in war or to confront the Hegemon where it rains chaos and death.

         The opportunity in Syria to fight Uyghurs was passed up. A very stupid decision. Those fighters will go to Xinjiang, Yunnan and Sichuan and kill Chinese. The PLA should have gotten into the fight. They didn’t.

         China is a massive power, but not a true military power anyone has to worry about unless they plan to attack China or try to separate from it (Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan).

         The Chinese will try this strategy until the new Indo-Pacific ring around her closes tight. Then its economy will be very limited, the Hegemon’s containment will have worked.
         The only saving factor will be Eurasian rail and North Arctic Route, both safeguarded by Russian military.

         China is playing coy about its latent power. But rope-dope led to Ali’s Parkinsons because he took a pounding thereafter, using that defense.

         In geopolitics, military is crucial. And China’s military is a huge weakness, not a strength. If you don’t throw a punch, you don’t have a punch, and your rival has nothing to respect or fear. But China’s enemies are building massive militaries in the Indo-Pacific in order to confront and contain China. A doubled oppositional force is forming against China. India-Japan-US-Australia are the Quad of the Indo-Pacific containment arc.

         China should have put a few planes and a few thousand special forces into Syria.
         There and Iraq, China has big oil interests, so too, in Iran. But China did not want to bleed. China did not want to take sides. She did not want to join the anti-hegemonist forces. We’ll see how this works out over the next five years.

         The Hegemon has nearly everything important going its way at the present. It wins when it loses, because chaos is all it needs to maintain fear and trepidation among its challengers.

         China is classic in the form of “strength is weakness”. The gigantic PLA is a National Guard, not a true Military of a SuperPower. Russia, one-tenth the size of China in economic and population size, is ten times the military of China. All the world fears the latent power of the RF. China’s three biggest foes, India, Japan and the US have little fear of the Chinese PLA. They each taunt Beijing, knowing the Chinese are passive.
         They have their red lines, but all are at its own borders.

         China is playing a very long game of Wealth. Expecting Beijing to change is unrealistic. It’s not in their nature. They are not a martial nation. The masses all want to be rich, not strong. The leaders are ideological political infighters, not boyars. Does anyone study Chinese military history like they study Russian military history? Warlords and serfs work only as long as the horses have oats and water. Even naval power is not fully projected or built to be projected. It’s all green water littoral strength, not much blue water. The last time China had global naval presence, Admiral Zheng He was the big maritime leader (1433–six centuries ago).

         • Anonymous on November 17, 2017  ·  at 11:33 am UTC

           And now China has an overseas base. Where might their next base be? China has stated I believe, that they will protect their silk road projects, I could be wrong. So complexity could show up.

         • proper gander on November 17, 2017  ·  at 12:26 pm UTC

           “In geopolitics, military is crucial.”

           No it is not. Military is crucial if you are playing European imperialism.

           Everything else you have written, analyzing China from this perspective, is therefore gob-shite.

           The Chinese do trade. Their military exists to defend against internal threats to continuation of governance. It’s current military is to defend the same against external threats.

           Traders don’t think in terms of war. It is bad business.

           • Red Ryder on November 17, 2017  ·  at 1:33 pm UTC

             You might want to document contemporary geopolitics, say the last 50 years, in any region, with no military component.

             We’ll wait . . .

             • proper gander on November 17, 2017  ·  at 4:57 pm UTC

               @ red Ryder

               Yes. Contemporary ‘geopolitics’ has been the one way traffic of imperial plunder, since the 16th century reformation/redistribution. It is not politics. It is piracy. It started with the outright theft of the peoples land (held in trust by the Church) in Europe for the benefit of the few, extended to enclosures of common land and then extended to other peoples lands. That is the trajectory and history of contemporary ‘geopolitics’.

               Over the last 50 years that plunder has been transitioned into plunder by usury, aka the dollar reserve system enforced at the point of a gun. It is the same old piracy.

               The Chinese do not do this, and never have.

               What the west is failing to come to terms with, and is being beaten by, is the effect the internet has had on the ability of the globe to communicate and trade impartially and peacefully. You can not overrun, lay siege to or plunder a country that is in 24hr full view of the planet and has an infinite number of digital tunnels through which it communicates, trades and supplies itself. Since 2012 we have seen the US attempt the exact playbook that easily broke the Soviets in the 80’s. It has entirely failed because of a failure to grasp this fact.

               This is a paradigm shift in genuine geopolitics into which China naturally fits. Stability by trading contract, not stability by storming and occupying everyone’s castle.

               Chinese tradition is dynastic in family and governance. Their faith and traditions esteem looking back to forefathers and re-enforcing the dynastic lineage and duty to it. Their military exists for an entirely different purpose to ours, that is, to ensure dynastic stability at the top tier of responsibility, and therefore national stability.

               This is the future. Not plunder, but contract. This is what I think Trump and co. want a big slice of: superiority by robust trade.

               In summary, if you go into a shop with a gun and no wallet, you are looking for a short term bonanza, no option for return, and a boom bust life style. You are a pirate. If you go into a shop with a wallet and build a relationship, you win out in the end. You are politic. A military has nothing to do with politics. It is the absence of politics.

               The sooner you American’s all get your head around this, and start trading – yes even your small outfits – internationally rather than fighting, the better. I buy stuff all over the Europe, China, all direct super rapid and cheap. I sell plenty into the US, but I tried 5 times this year to buy different products – upto $16k sales from the US from companies that really out to know better, and could I hell. Not interested, not able, didn’t even understand why I would ask.

               The future is not about fighting and plunder. It is about trade and the geopolitics of trade relations.

               • J on November 18, 2017  ·  at 11:31 pm UTC

                 PG, Well put. Chinese army is to defend, protect and serve the country. Not to waging war.
                 People from other culture do not comprehend it, that it why they are short lived.

         • Anonymous on November 18, 2017  ·  at 4:19 am UTC

           And when lightning stuck the imperial palace, the emperor thought that the naval expeditions were angering the ‘mandate from heaven’. The emperor had all the Chinese naval vessels dismantled and prevented Zheng He from sailing and exploring new lands via sea route. The emperor turned china into a hermit kingdom due to which China would stagnated for centuries to come. Fast forward a few centuries ahead when the British and French navies allied to attack mainland china after the Chinese prohibited opium trade, the Chinese response was to accept defeat and sign a treaty that asked china to pay for the wars that the European colonizers ganged up and waged against it, allow missionaries on its soil and give key Chinese coastal cities to them. The Chinese being meek thought that the colonizers would stop at this, what followed were perpetual wars waged by the European powers against china. From the British, French, Portuguese, Germans, Russians to the Japanese, all descended upon china to plunder her and take her spoils. All this happened because the Chinese wanted to deal diplomatically rather that militarily, with the enemies far away from their homeland and their policy hasn’t changed much. The Chinese just choose to selectively learn lessons from history.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

---

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]