Conflict is assured once power is in the hands of the greedy and the absurd.
This week was to feature the last installment of our trilogy on the global economy. However, the flame of momentous events hijacked that plan. First there was the ouster of the maniacal John Bolton as the National Security Advisor to President Trump. Bolton’s exit demanded a sigh of relief. The man was a ceaseless merchant of war; his departure hopefully diminished the American rush to military conflict against any number of possible targets from Venezuela to Iran. Trump has named another NSA. The new pick will never be mistaken for a pacifist as the current American government is nothing if not a machine of war; but the incoming advisor will find it nigh impossible to surpass the fidelity the rapid Bolton paid to his favorite deity, Mars, the god of war.
Then came the attack against the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility causing such damage as to cut by half Saudi’s enormous 10 million barrel daily oil production. This audacious breach of the world’s largest facility panicked oil markets, shaking an already wobbly global economy. Worst, it seemed to pull an already tense region onto that narrow perch separating war from peace.
Yemen’s Houthi rebels claimed responsibility and recounted how they did it. United States Secretary of State Pompeo publicly disbelieved them, instead pointing an accusing finger directly at Tehran. President Trump hectored that he was ready to strike Iran once given the green light from Riyadh.
Afraid that oil supplies might dry, the Europeans, who were previously trying to mediate between the United States and Iran, got weak in the knees. They quickly moved to express support for the Saudis. All prior wrongs, including the ghoulish beheading of people for relatively harmless offenses from drug possession to advocacy of Shi’a Islam, were washed clean on the altar of oil.
The Saudis were no longer unpleasant ogres to be tolerated because of their indispensable economic function; economic necessity had magically transformed them into sympathetic victims. Warms the heart to see that European leaders remain as pragmatically nimble and short-sighted as their predecessors who a few generations ago arbitrarily carved from the rotting Ottoman Empire the contentious nation states we see today.
The Saudi Defense Ministry gave a long September 18 press briefing to assert Iran was indeed the culprit. Pointing to an array of scrap metal that would make an energetic, self-respecting junkyard owner proud, the Saudi spokesperson claimed the attack did not come from the direction of Yemen; thus, the Houthis were not source. Instead, he said it came from the north, meaning either Iraq or Iran was the launch site. He also asserted the evidence adduced from the ballistic fragments suggested Iranian manufacture.
The aggrieved Saudi leadership adeptly reached out to any government that would listen, contending the attack was not only against Saudi but the whole world. Witnessing a nearly 20 percent spike in oil prices, few nations were in a position to argue with that statement. Iran had effectively been placed in the docks as the accused and accursed for a crime it vehemently denied.
It would be easy to join the growing congress of those blaming Iran. However, let’s not be content with doing what is easy. Let’s seek to do what is right.
We must start with what we know then seek to answer what we don’t. We know the facility was damaged. What we don’t know is who did it and how. (Once you know who, you will easily determine why!) Notwithstanding the adamant nature of Saudi and American claims, we cannot take such claims at face value for three reasons. First, both Washington and Riyadh have blatantly misled the world community in the recent past. Second, the attack does not conform to Iran’s traditional caution. Iran has assiduously avoided the military offensive precisely to avoid giving the stronger U.S. a pretext to launch a broad strike against it. Iran well understands the power differential it suffers compared to the U.S. Iran has played the role of the weaker antagonist with skill and patience. There is no discernible reason why Tehran would deviate from this tried, proven policy in such a reckless manner.
Third, the muted, relatively diplomatic response of Saudi Arabia and the softening of America’s initial martial vocalizing are out of character. The leaders of the two nations are both impulsive men inclined toward rash action. Instead of gathering around the negotiating table, they would rather throw bombs — or resort to a hacksaw if the victim is within arm’s reach. This is the same Saudi government that lured the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi into a consulate to torture and dismember the man for merely publishing a few harsh words against the government.
Given the lack of mercy shown Khashoggi and the benighted tactics applied in the war in Yemen, the Saudis now show an extraordinary restraint in the face of a provocation that will costs billions of dollars and that dwarfs any insult the now dismembered Khashoggi or the straggling Houthis may have tossed at them. For them to hew the route of diplomacy at this instance is as much out of character for the Saudis as committing the attack is against the grain of normal Iranian behavior. The near preternatural calm exhibited by the Saudis seems almost pre-planned, leading one to, at least, question whether they knew beforehand what was to come.
For now, the Saudis eschew military retaliation and that is a good thing. Their present goal is to isolate Iran diplomatically which has always been a prime goal. Some nations will be so relieved the Saudis did not pine for war that they will unquestioningly support the Saudis on this more modest objective of isolating Iran. The fact that there is no compelling evidence against Tehran will not bother most nations; they just want to get back to a normal flow of oil. Ostracizing Iran seems a rather small price to pay to secure this essential.
To the extent the Saudis can isolate Iran, the world will be assured that, at some future moment of their choosing, the Saudi government and its American ally will use force against a friendless Iran. As such, the Saudi government is using this incident to construct an elaborate, delayed trap for Iran, not dissimilar to the one used to fatally snare the contumacious journalist.
Like most aggressive governments, neither the Saudis nor the Americans are to be taken at their word. Any nation willing to transgress another will not allow the truth to prevent the incursion. A discerning person must remember the outrageous explanations issued regarding the Khashoggi murder. America’s perfidy in fashioning pretexts to launch war is the meat of legend. From Vietnam to Iraq, almost every major American military engagement was based on one false premise or another.
More recently, America created the perverse tale that Gaddafi was so wickedly prescient that he stockpiled stores of Viagra in Libya. He then dispensed the pills to his youthful fighters so they could inflict themselves on women. This canard was published by senior American officials as a rationale to bomb the once prosperous nation. Gaddafi did not send his fighters to rape women. However, America spread this tale that it might rape Libya of its independent future. On more than one occasion America fudged the truth about chemical weapons attacks in Syria, blaming the Syrian government when it knew others were more likely at fault.
Before we summarily conclude on such an important matter, we should more closely analyze the political terrain. Instead of focusing solely on one player, let us expand our study to encompass all the usual suspects.
- The Houthis: They claim responsibility and they have strong motive to inflict pain on Saudi given the cruelty of Riyadh’s hand in Yemen. On the other hand, one must question how the Houthis acquired the aerial weapons used in the attack. This attack was significantly more complex than any the Houthis had before tried against Saudi territory. Either the Houthis purchased these weapons from the illicit market or obtained the assets from an ally. It is possible that ally was Iran. Whether the supplier knew the specific target that was envisioned is another material question to which there likely will never be a clear answer.
- Iran: This nation had little to gain and much to lose from the brash attack. Causing no long-term damage to the kingdom, the attack risked precipitating a full-fledged military retort by the American-Saudi alliance with Israel sure to join the fracas for good measure. Such a muscular response could cripple Iran’s defensive and other national infrastructure. This, in turn, might foment internal instability by weakening the government in the eyes of the people.
Moreover, Iran and Russia are helping Syria break the last extremist redoubt in Syria. A cautious Iran would hardly embark on the Abqaiq caper when so close to long-awaited victory in Syria. The Iranians also would have gauged that the attack would dangerously isolate it by undermining the ability of Russia and China to offer them needed diplomatic support and cover. The attack would also alienate European opinion, thus chasing Europe into the hands of the Americans. This would contravene the established, partially successful strategy of exploiting the policy differences between the US and Europe.
For these reasons, it seems unlikely the Iranian civilian authorities would have embarked on this unwise roll of the dice. Iran’s posture has perennially been a defensive one. Noting in the alignment of the stars or of that nation’s vital interests recommends such an abrupt change of policy. Like any nation, Iran has hardline war hawks. These ruffians have been effectively caged and seem not to be on the ascendance. Possibly a group of frustrated hardliners went rogue and engineered this attack in hope of actually sparking a generalized war. Or perhaps they may have reasoned they could get away with such an attack because President Trump would recoil from a protracted military engagement due to next year’s election in America. While this cannot be ruled out, the gamble is so reckless as to be unlikely.
- Saudi Arabia: A false flag against its most vital facility? At first flush, the idea seems preposterous. The more thought it is given, the less far-fetched it sounds. This would help to explain why Saudi’s vaunted, costly billion dollar air defense system failed to detect this attack.
At first, the Saudis claimed the damage from the attack was vast; repair would take the longest time. Once those statements had the desired effect on world opinion and global energy markets, the Saudis walked back the story. Now they claim the fixes will be completed by month’s end. This means the attack was not as destructive as initially asserted. It is within contemplation that the limited damage was because this was a controlled attack.
The theory of a controlled attack also explains the measured, diplomatic Saudi response, traits not ordinarily attributed to the current Saudi leadership. The aim of the operation would be to isolate Iran. If the world community can castigate Iran for this attack, the world will more readily indict Iran when the next inexplicable attack takes place. Having cornered Iran like a hunted animal, Saudi and its allies hope to later pounce on the harried nation without so much as a finger or a plaintive word being lifted by another nation to protect Iran from the coming onslaught.
- United States: Much the same as 3 above.
- Israel: Much the same as 3. Also, the Israelis have the capacity to mimic Iranian weaponry so that the remnants of the assets used in the attack bear a distinctively (but forged) Iranian signature, thus implying Iranian guilt.
Before us stands one of the most extraordinary alliances of all times. Pundits speak daily of a clash of cultures and civilizations. The truth is more nuanced. This tripartite grouping features America, where right wing Christians are a major wheel of the ruling party, Saudi Arabia where extremist Wahhabism has great say in governance and Israel where secular and religious Zionism are the most potent political notions in the land.
Christian, Islamic and Jewish extremism meet and support each other, especially in their animus toward the descendants of the Persian Empire, that bastion of Shi’a Islam.
However, it is not the Persians’ choice of religion that is the grist of contention; the heat is caused by the inevitable consequences of Iran’s geopolitical position. The combine of America, Israel and Saudi is glued together by oil, land, money and power. These things trump faith. In fact, they are the faith of the amorally pragmatic and of those overly driven by a sleepless ambition.
Nestled beneath the waters of the Persian Gulf between Iran and Qatar, sits a rather large reservoir of natural gas. Iran wants to construct a pipeline north through its territory then west through friendly Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean to feed European energy consumption. This would strengthen Iranian influence in region and also in Europe. Saudi wants none of this. It wants the pipeline to drive south into its lands. To halt the Iranian plan, the Saudis financed and supplied the radical extremists fighting Syria’s Assad government. A pipeline cannot be constructed through a nation seemingly at war with itself. Saudi engagement in Syria was to stop Iran; its opposition to Assad was a mere byproduct of this larger game. One of the unstated reasons America reneged on the Iranian nuclear deal was to turn the proposed Iranian pipeline into an empty pipe dream.
Israeli interests coincided with Saudi’s. Israel seeks to hold the Golan Heights, partially as a security buffer and an imperfect roadblock to Iranian supply routes to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israeli interests also focus on water resources and now the significant oil reserves discovered in the Golan. Unsurprisingly, and though the land is not theirs, the Israelis granted oil exploitation rights to a recently-formed American firm owned by former VP Dick Cheney and other influential members of the American national security establishment.
Much like Saudi, Israel believes if Syria cannot be engineered into friendly hands then it should forever be in turmoil. America has always reserved Syria for the chopping block. Thus, it was willing to join forces with any group, from the Saudis to Al Qaeda affiliates, to overturn the Syrian government.
However, due to Russian and Iranian support for Syria, the plan to break that government seems headed toward resounding failure. With that, attention will refocus on Iran as a source of the failure in Syria and as an ever present threat to other aims in the region. Joining them again, America has a longstanding grievance with the Iran. Washington would like nothing better than to cart away the extant Iranian government in a tumbrel.
The lesson from all of this is that nothing is at it seems. Iran possibly could have authored the Abqaiq attack. However, Tehran’s culpability is not a foregone conclusion. It is also plausible the event was a false flag caper intended to secure the diplomatic isolation of Iran so that it can later be attacked without so much as a whimper from the world community.
President Trump seeks to avoid war for now. A military excursion would hurt his reelection bid next year. Thus, there is time and space to avert conflict. However, the clock is ticking and the door is closing on the prospects for peace. Somewhere John Bolton sits quietly, smiling to himself, secure in his belief that blood as much as oil will eventually flow. It would be nice I peace prevailed to wipe that smirk from the warmonger’s visage.
0806034025 sms only
