The US shale gas canard

Dear friends,

Several of you have asked my opinion about the article by U.S. Prepares to Gas Russia Into Submission by Glenn Ford.  I don't have the time for a detailed reply, but I will say this: the entire notion of US shale fracking sent to Europe to undermine Russia is a canard. Not only does the entire infrastructure for this project need to be built - at huge costs - but it would take several years. Several absolutely critical years as the crisis in Crimea has forced Putin and his "Eurasian Sovereignists" (for an explanation of these terms see here, here and here) to "come out of the closet" and openly confront the AngloZionist empire and now this is a race against time: will the Empire have the time and means to disengage Russia from the West before Russia realigns itself with China and the rest of Asia or will the West be dependent on Russia long enough to allow Russia to realign?  I am quite confident that Russia will win this race, which makes the entire issue of us gas irrelevant.

Speaking of China and the West: consider that China's energy needs are immense, as they are in most of Asia and add to this that under Obama (did this guy ever ever do something not stupid?!) the US has openly adopted a new anti-Chinese policy which aims at "containing" China, i.e. preventing it form acquiring the type of influence which it would naturally have in the Asian-Pacific region.  The Chinese are not stupid, they know that they are next in line for "democracy" and "freedom" and they understand that without Russian help (energy, weapons, political) they cannot resist the Empire. Bottom line, both China and Russia must enter into a deep symbiosis (if not a formal "alliance") and help each other.  And there is no doubt in my mind at all the both Putin and Xi Jinping are both doing exactly that.

As for Europe - it is a depressed economy, a socially bankrupt continent, and a US protectorate.  The Kremlin understands all that, and while they will be more than happy to sell energy (or anything else) to the EU, they know that they cannot make any long-term plans with such partners: the AngloZionist Empire is an existential threat to Russia and Europe is just a US protectorate with no personal opinion, identity or policy other than "yes, Mr. President, whatever you say Mr. President".

China, India, Asia, Latin America and, especially, the Russian North - that is the future of Russia, not the West.  So all these sanctions can achieve is to accelerate this process.

Those who think that they can put Russian into submission are just as delusional as Hitler in 1945 with his talks about a "strategic counteroffensive": just ignore them.

Cheers,

The Saker

PS: two interesting reads about energy:

Shale Gas: The View from Russia

Ukraine, Russia and the nonexistent U.S. oil and natural gas "weapon"

Crimea SITREP March 18, 11:29 EST

Amazing events this morning in Moscow:

• Putin has made what is arguably the most important and best speech of his career in front of the Russian Federal Assembly in which he made the case for a re-integration of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol into Russia as subjects of the Russian Federation.  For the first time ever, his speech was met withs long standing ovations and shouts of "Russia! Russia!" by the audience.  I will try to get subtitled video footage of this amazing event.
• Immediately after this speech, President Putin, Crimean Prime Minister Sergey Aksenov, Sevastopol mayor Aleksey Chaly and top Crimean official Vladimir Konstantinov signed the treaty.
• The treaty states that there shall be three official national languages in Crimea: Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar.
• The US and EU have adopted a number of sanctions against Russia which, frankly, are both goofy and vindicative as they clearly target indivuduals not for their role in the recent events, but for their views.  The Guardian wrote a halfway decent article about this which you might want to check here.
• In response, Russian lawmakers have adopted a resolution asking President Obama and the EU to please sanction them all.

I just saw this on YouTube: misses the beginning, bad video, but the best available right now.  Listen for yourself:

The self-defeating fuite en avant of the US in the Ukraine

The past few days have seen an amazing acceleration of developments which has created a totally new situation.  In simple and plain language the following three momentous events have happened:

1) In Kiev an armed insurrection overthrew the elected President and replaced him with a new revolutionary regime.
2) Crimea completely broke-off from the rest of the Ukraine.
3) An counter-revolutionary insurrection has begun in the eastern Ukraine.

The situation in the eastern Ukraine is a complex one and I don't want to address it at this point in time.  What I propose to do here is to re-state some well-known and undeniable facts, organize them, and then do a basic "compare and contrast" exercise with the two clearly defined regimes/entities which have now formed in the Ukraine: the revolutionary regime in Kiev (which I will refer to as RRK and the secessionist regime in Crimea (which I will refer to as SRC).  I think that this exercise will allow us to fully qualify the decisions made by various governments to recognize and support one side or the other and it could also provide some hopefully useful talking points.  Finally, I want to repeat that I will refer to well-known facts only and I will try to refrain from loaded judgmental statements until I come to the conclusion part.

So let's look and compare the RRK and the SRC by a basic set of criteria.

1) Legal basis of the regime:

RRK: came to power by violent overthrow of the last lawfully elected President.  Then, an self-appointed group of political activists split the main government functions between themselves and went to the Maidan square to get popular approval of the assembled crowd.  Some candidates seems to have been endorsed, others were booed, but all were declared endorsed.  Nobody knows how many people were present at that moment on the Maidan, nor does anybody have any information as to who these people were.

SRC: came to power by peacefully declaring that the local officials would temporarily taken upon themselves all the functions of the federal authority which at that moment in time had already been overthrown by the RRK.  In some cities he former mayors which had been appointed by the Yanukovich regime have been replaced by locals also elected by crowd support.

2) Legality of their decisions:

RRK: Since the former President had fled but never resigned, none of the decisions of the RRK are legal, not by the old constitution, not by the new one.

SRC: The act of taking over the powers of the federal authority was illegal, but considering that the federal authority literally did not exist any more, it could be interpreted as a case of force majeure.

Special forces showed up overnight

 3) Popular support:
 
RRK:by most accounts the RRK enjoys a majority support in western Ukraine, central Ukraine, including Kiev, and north-central Ukraine; it has a probably the support of a minority in some parts of the eastern Ukraine.  In other words, and based on population density, it is most unlikely that more than 50% of the people in the RRK controlled areas actually support this regime.

SRC: I would estimate that the vast majority of Russian-speakers in Crimea support the SRC, something in the 95% or more, and I think that a seizable minority of Tatars also support it.  Still, assuming a 100% opposition of the Tatars and assuming a 15% opposition amongst Russian and Ukrainian speakers that leave no less than 75% of support for the SRC.

4) Foreign patrons:

RRK: whatever the degree of popular support the RRK enjoys in the part of the Ukraine it controls, there is no doubt that its political leaders are basically US appointed (Ms. Nuland said so much).  Furthermore, we also know that the US has spent 5'000'000'000 dollars to overthrow the Yanukovich regime.  As for the armed mobsters which gradually filled the Maindan square, there are numerous reports that these were specially trained groups of the so-called Right Sector which were trained in the Baltic States, in Poland and in Canada.  In other words, the RRK is a pure creation of the West.

SRC: one can speculate what would have happened if the Russian military had not intervened in Crimea, but the fact remains that it did.  There is overwhelming evidence that the "mysterious" armed men which suddenly appeared in Crimea are part of the Russian Spetsnaz GRU, probably the 3rd Independent Spetsnaz Brigade normally based in the city of Toliatti and, possibly supplemented by elements from the 15th peacekeeping brigade or the 31st peacekeeping division.  In other words, the SRC is fully backed by Russia, which also promised it financial support.

5) Ideology:

RRK: nobody denies that the Freedom Party and the Right Sector are neo-Nazis and racists.  The other parties in he RRK could be described as "nationalists", but nationalists who have no problems working hand in hand with neo-Nazis (both Tiagnibok and Iarosh have been offered top positions in the new government).  Also telling is the fact that the first two laws (illegally) adopted by (the illegal) "revolutionary Rada" were to re-authorize the propaganda of Fascism and to revoke the status of Russian as an official language (the RRK as now "revoked this revocation").  Nationalist demonstrations are full of photos of Stepan Bandera and neo-Nazis symbols, which the putatively "moderates" never remove.  Their goal is a unitary Ukraine in the image and likeness of the western Ukraine.

SRC: it has no clear ideology at all.  It is not unreasonable to suspect that some if its supporters are communists, but by no means a majority.  It is clearly pro-Russian, so it could be labeled as both "capitalist" (Russia is a capitalist society) and possibly as "Putinist", though that is by no means certain.  Their goal is a multi-ethnic Crimea which would be a sovereign state in a Ukrainian confederation.

The only real "Ukrainian Army" today

6) Future prospects:

RRK: a lot will depend on the situation in the eastern Ukraine where an insurrection against the RRK seems to be growing in power and resolve and which could see a real civil war taking place.  But even assuming that nothing at all happens in the east, Iatseniuk himself openly said that there is no money at all left and that his entire government is a "kamikaze government".  The RRK has no army, no police, nobody at all to ensure law and order.  Russia will cease its financial support to the RRK and Russian gas will be sold only a the previous price.  A social explosion is simply inevitable at this point.  At this point in time, there are already shortages everywhere and many stores and companies are closed.

SRC: the SRC enjoy a complete monopoly on power in Crimea, thanks to the numerous defections which took place over the past 24 hours, the SRC has its own military, its own police, its own special police (Berkut) and even its own security service (the SBU in Crimea switched sides).  Not only has Russia committed to assist the SRC financially, the SRC has a guaranteed source of revenue from the lease of the bases to the Black Fleet and from the huge amount of wealthy Russian tourists (about 6 millions each year).  At this point in time, all stores and restaurants are open, business is working as usual and there are no signs of social tensions.

Now let's sum it all up:

The USA and the EU have put their full support and political credibility behind a regime which is:

1) Illegal and came to power by violence.
2) Has no right to pass any law.
3) Whose popular support is dubious at best
4) Which is a pure creation of the West.
5) Whose ideology is basically neo-Nazi and/or rabid nationalism.
6) Which no matter what is headed for disaster.

Russia has put its full support and political credibility behind a regime which is:

1) Which is arguably legal, at least over the territory it controls.
2) Which has been forced to temporarily over-step its legal rights.
3) Which clearly enjoy the full support of a majority of the population.
4) Which has been secure in power by Russian military power.
5) Whose ideology is most likely social/liberal and pluralistic.
6) Which has all the means needed to be successful.

From the above I think that it is pretty undeniable that the West is not only supporting the wrong side, and also that this decision is only completely immoral but also amazingly short-sighted.  This is yet another case of what the French called fuite en avant (literally "to flee forward"): when somebody does something clearly and obviously mistaken and then, frightened by that, instead of reversing course decides to run forward at even a higher speed.  In contrast, Russia's decision is not only morally right, it is also pragmatically correct.  But there is more to this than just pragmatism.

Western-backed nationalists

As I have written in the past, for the USA, wrecking the Ukraine is a way of denying it to Russia.  This is a Cold War like logic, a zero-sum game and a way of making Russia pay for being independent of the AngloZionist Empire.  Still, this is also clearly a choice, an "optional crisis", a conflict which really does not have a strategic impact on US national security.  Not so for Russia.

For Russia the conflict on the Ukraine has become an existential issue.  For 20 years Russia did put up with corrupt, oligarchic, pro-Western and anti-Russian regimes, which blackmailed Russia and Europe over gas pipelines and which printed stamps of Stepan Bandera (whom Yushchenko even made "hero of the Ukraine").  Even when the Ukies sent neo-Nazis to support the Chechen Wahabis and when they armed Saakashvili to the teeth, Russia did nothing other than denounce it (nobody gave a damn).  But when it became clear that millions of Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians were threatened by neo-Nazis and that a bloodbath in the east was inevitable, Russia decided to act not only to protect its citizens abroad, but to protect itself.

There is also another phenomenon taking place.  Unlike the the USA or Europe, Russians have a much longer attention span.  While in the West nobody cares to ever remember that, Russians do remember the promise made to Gorbachev not to move NATO to the East, they remember the US bombing and invasion of Bosnia and Kosovo, they remember the West's support for Chechen Wahabis and Jewish oligarchs like Berezovsky, they remember the West's full support for Saakashvili's attack on Russian peacekeepers and the people of South Ossetia, they remember the deployment of missiles all around Russia and they remember the war on Libya, and the US and EU sponsored butchery of Syria.  And as one commentator put it yesterday, "this time it is not about Syrians or Ukrainians, it's about us, we are next in line".

Russian forces

Some have said that I make too much of the unanimous decision in the Duma and the Council of the Federation to authorize the use of force because these bodies are controlled by the Kremlin and basically rubber-stamp whatever Putin says.  First, this is not quite true, though there is much truth to it, but what this overlooks is the huge swelling of popular anger and even rage to which these politicians responded as least as much as to order from the Kremlin.  So when I wrote that "Russia is ready for war" I was not exaggerating.  True, in the general public nobody believes that a war will start: most Russians think that Obama, Merkel & Co. will run as soon as Putin bares his fangs, but that is not how people in the Kremlin or the General Staff think.  They know that wars can start for the wrong reasons, that the use of force is always dangerous, that before using military force each possible consequence and effect must be carefully calculated and assessed.  They also know that Obama is the worst and most incompetent President in US history and that they should never assume that he will do the rational, pragmatic thing, even in his own interests.  And I can promise you that when the military took the decision to tell Putin "we can do this" they did consider even the unlikely possibility of a US/NATO military response, either to protect the regime in Kiev, or even in Crimea (where and international coalition lead by Anglo powers already had attacked Russia in the past).  Russians don't do operations like sending the Marines into Beirut or Somalia.  If they use military force they are committed to it.  In this case, it is obvious that they felt that they had no other choice than to draw a thick and clear line in the sand to stop further US aggression by proxy.

Obama and the Neocons:

I have received many emails suggesting that the Neocons imposed that mess upon Obama who did not need that at all. I don't necessarily disagree with that version.  We know that the Republicans negotiated with the Iranians behind Carter's back and we know that the Republicans have a proud tradition of not giving a damn about legalities anyway.  Finally, there are also plenty of Neocons in the Obama administration itself.  But none of this can serve as an excuse.  If Obama really did let himself become a hostage of an operation run behind his back, he did not have to be a coward and fully endorse it when it became obvious.  Yes, I know, Kennedy was murdered for, amongst other things, not supporting the Bay of Pigs.  So what?  That just proves my point: Kennedy was no spineless coward whereas Obama is exactly that.  As are Merkel, Hollande and the rest of them in the EU.

Thus we see these 1%ers still at time: holding emergency sessions in NATO HQ, condemning Russia at the G7, making more threats on TV (Kerry) and at the UN (Powers) - they are all in the fuite en avant mode.  They hope that if enough words are spoken and loud statements are made, this will change something on the ground.  It's wont.  Magical thinking does not work in real life.  Right now there are two possibilities: either a civil war starts in the east of the Ukraine, or the RRC simply collapses and vanishes in thin air (a very real possibility).  After all, what can it do with no money at all and no basic resources?  Sing the Ukie anthem and blame Moscow for it all?  That is hardly a real program.  And even though the western corporate ziomedia tries hard to conceal it - nobody, and I mean *nobody*, in the new regime has *any* idea as to how to begin to address the current problems.  The best they could come up so far is to appoint to multi-billionaire oligarch to run the east and southeast of the Ukraine.  Check out this headline from the Kyiv Post: 

Oligarchs step in to save Ukraine’s sovereignty

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic: the so-called "anti-corruption" revolutionary regime appoints oligarchs to save the Ukraine.  When I saw that one it really felt like we were entering the twilight zone or lala land where the most ridiculous and crazy things could happen.  This makes for great stories, but for politics this is a recipe for disaster.  Sure, these oligarchs have more money that the RRK, but they made that money by robbing the Ukraine of everything it had.  And if anybody seriously believes that the Russians will deal with these two thugs then they are dreaming.

They really mean it

As I wrote in November, the Gates of Hell are opening for the Ukraine.  What is amazing is that the entire western ruling class seems to be determined not only to encourage the Ukraine to step in, but also to risk following it.  For the life of me I cannot imagine a more self-defeating, dangerous, immoral and stupid policy.

The Saker

Senators suggest recalling Russia’s ambassador from US over Obama speech

RT reports that Russian Senators are going to ask President Vladimir Putin to consider recalling Moscow’s Ambassador to the USA following President Barack Obama’s “aggressive” comments on the situation in Ukraine, the chamber speaker said.

Double bombing in Volgograd - a first assessment

The recent double bombing in Volgograd (ex-Stalingrad) represent a definitive escalation in the low-level but constant war which has opposed Wahabi insurgents to not only the Kremlin, but also to all the traditional Muslim authorities in Russia.  Before looking into what these latest attacks could mean for Russia in general and for the upcoming Sochi Olympic games, it would be helpful here to go over some basic fact.

Chechnia:

First, it would be a mistake to assume that any "Islamic" terrorist act committed in Russia would have to involve Chechens.  The reality is that Chechnia has not only been pacified, it is actually peaceful.  The Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov literally pulled-off a miracle when he turned the war-ravaged Chechen "black hole" into a prosperous and *truly* peaceful republic.  The fact that this miracle was either not reported or ridiculed by the Anglo-Zionist pundits, who had all gone on record saying that the Chechen insurgency would never be defeated, makes sense: recognizing it would simply be politically unthinkable.  Still, the fact that the young man who had all the external appearance of an average Chechen thug turned out to be an extremely capable and wise political leader is undeniable and even though no "war on terror" is ever truly "won", it would be fair to say that, at least for the time being, the Chechen terrorist phenomenon has been brought down to almost zero.  Unfortunately, if the future looks really bright for Chechnia, things are infinitely worse in neighboring Dagestan.

Dagestan:

Chechnia and Dagestan are neighbors, but they could hardly be more different.  For one thing, Chechnia is mostly inhabited by Chechens, whereas there is really no such thing as a "Dagestani": more than a dozen different ethnic groups live side by side in Dagestan.  In fact, Dagestan is the most diverse of all the Russian republics where no single group can form a majority.  This aspect is absolutely crucial because the fact that there is no one dominating ethnic group means that there cannot be a "Dagestani Kadyrov".  Second, the Dagestani economy is run by very corrupt elites who fight against each other and each other's clans.  In practical terms this means that the "recipe" used in Chechnia (to give a local Chechen leader a maximal level of autonomy and authority) would be a disaster for Dagestan.  The "solution" for Dagestan does probably involve a very forceful intervention from the Federal Center and a destruction of the current ethnicity-based clan system - not something anybody in the Kremlin would look forward to.

For the time being, however, Dagestan is the hotbed for Wahabi terrorism.  You could say that the Wahabi cancer that first took hold in Chechnia, spread to Dagestan while it was being destroyed in Chechnia.  The extreme poverty of Dagestan, combined with the millions of dollars provided by the Saudis to their allies and agents made it very easy for them to very successfully market their brand of Wahabism in Dagestan and to recruit local agents of influence and terrorists.

The Dagestani terrorists have learned the lessons of Chechnia well, and they are never trying to hold on to any territory or to create some kind of Wahabi statelet in Dagestan:  quite to the contrary, day after day after day, the security forces engage the Dagestani terrorists who each time end up either captured or dead (mostly the latter).  The reason for that is obvious: the Dagestani terrorists are weak and they cannot take on even the local cops.  But they are just strong enough to strap explosives on some young man or woman and send them to blow themselves up on a bus or train station.

Wahabis in the rest of Russia:

It also would be wrong to assume that all Wahabi terrorism in Russia has to come from Dagestan or even the Caucasus.  The Saudi-backed Wahabis are recruiting literally everywhere - from the south of Russia to Saint Petersburg and from Tatarstan to Moscow.  As a result, there are cases of ethnic Russians who are involved in Wahabi terrorist acts.  The bottom line is this: Wahabi terrorism in Russia is not a regional problem or an ethnic problem - it is an ideological problem.  So we should not jump to conclusions here and assume anything about who might be behind the latest attacks.  It literally could be anybody

From Volgograd to Sochi?

Volgograd has been the scene of several terrorist attacks in the recent past and the last two are only the latest in a series of events.  Why Volgograd?

Well, Volgograd is - along with Rostov-on-the-Don and Krasnodar - one of the major cities of southern Russia and it is close enough to Dagestan to make it fairly easy for the Dagestani Wahabis (assuming that they are involved) to organize a terrorist attack in that city.  In fact, Volgograd is pretty much at the same distance from Dagestan as Sochi.  Not a pleasant thought.

Another factor which might have played a role in the terrorist's decision to strike at Volgograd is that most Russian counter-terrorist efforts are currently concentrated in, and around, Sochi.  One of the basic rules of counter terrorism says there are always more targets to protect than resources to protect them.  Even if Volgograd had been put on total lockdown, the terrorist could have chose Astrakhan, Elista, Stavropol or any other city.  My guess is that the local and Federal security are primarily focused on keeping the Olympic infrastructure safe and that, as a result, Volgograd was unusually exposed.

What do we know so far?

Several of you have written to me (by email or the comments section) asking me if I thought that these latest attacks were a result of the recent Saudi threats.  Honestly - I don't know, this is way too early to tell.  The Russians are working fast and Russian media sources report that the suicide-bomber which blew up the railway station yesterday has been identified as Pavel Pechenkin.

Pavel Pechenkin

D. Sokolov and N. Asiialova

As far as I know, this has not been officially confirmed and DNA analyses are still being conducted.  If true, however, this would point to a group of ethnic Russians which would include Dimitri Sokolov, who was recently killed by the security forces, was an ethnic Russian who lived in Dagestan and who joined a terrorist group in the city of Makhachkala.  However, it is interesting to note that his contact with the Wahabi underground did not begin in Dagestan, but in a mosque in Moscow were he had signed up to take lessons of the Arabic language.  Sokolov was the common law husband of Naida Asiialova, a suicide-bomber who blew herself up in a crowded bus in Volgograd in October of this year.  Pechenkin, Sokolov and Asiialova apparently all were part of the same terror cell which, while based in Dagestan, included ethnic Russians.

This group was very well known to the Russian security services and the parents of Sokolov and Pechenkin both made desperate statements to the Russian media begging their sons not to commit any violent acts and to give up a life of terrorism.  While these people definitely had accomplices, Sokolov and Pechenkin were clearly the public image of this group and, as far as I know, there are no more senior figures of this cell on the run from the security services.  As of now, and that is a very preliminary assessment, there are no "Saudi fingerprints" on these attacks.  They appear to be what the Americans call a case of "home grown terror" and, if there is a Saudi link, it is through the massive funding of Wahabi mosques in Russia (and worldwide).

Russian internal options

As H. L. Mencken wrote, "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".  In this case this simple solution is to shut down all the Wahabi linked mosques in Russia and some simple minded individuals in Russia have already expressed their desire to see that happening.  There are many problems with such a "solution".

1)  That would be simply illegal.  Russia has (finally!) more or less become a country where the rule of law matters or, at least, Russia is on its way to become such a country.  What is certain is that the vast majority of Russians want their country to become a normal, civilized, country where the rule of law is central to the political life.  To shut down mosques would be simply illegal.  On what grounds should they be shut down to begin with?  On "suspicion of Wahabism?".  There is no such crime in Russian law.  For receiving foreign money?  That is not illegal either.  For being linked to terrorist networks?  Yes, that would be illegal, but that is also very hard to prove and there is no way that the FSB or the Investigative Committee could make such charges stick in a court of law against most such mosques.  The bottom line is this: Putin is not a dictator and he cannot act outside the Russian law, nor would he want to.

2) That would be immoral.  I lived for many years literally right next to a big mosque fully financed by the Saudis and, to my knowledge, not only did that mosque never ever have anything to do with terrorism, the people attending that mosque were not even involved in a single case of petty crime.  God knows that I hate the Wahabi ideology with all my mind and heart, but I cannot say that most Wahabis are bad people at all, or that they are linked to terrorism.  They are not and they should not be the scapegoats for the actions of others.  I am fully in favor of the physical destruction of every single Wahabi terrorist on the planet, but as long as they don't take up arms and start murdering and maiming their fellow human beings, the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab should not be made to pay for the actions of others.

3) It would be counter-productive.  The one good thing about leaving such Wahabi-linked mosques free to operate is that that gives the security forces a perfect target to penetrate and keep an eye on.  Shut down these mosques and you will push them into an underground where they might be much harder to infiltrate.  In fact, such Wahabi-linked mosques can even be used as honeypots to attract, identify and arrest homegrown terrorists.

No, the best way to deal with the Saudi financed propaganda and terror is to support anti-Wahabi, traditional, Islamic organizations and religious leaders.  There are plenty of smart and well educated Muslims in Russia, including quite a few well-known imams, who can take the ideological and spiritual fight to the Wahabis and denounce them for what they are.  What the Russian state should do is a) physically protect these people b) listen to them and their assessment of the situation c) explain to the non-Muslim population that these are vital allies in the struggle against Wahabi terrorism.

What if a Saudi trace is found?

That is a big "if"!  But let us assume, for argument's sake, that the Russians do find some kind of Saudi "fingerprints" in these attacks, or in upcoming attacks during the Sochi Olympics, and look at various Russian responses:

1) An overt retaliatory strike on Saudi Arabia:

In purely military terms, this is a no-brainer.  The Russians could strike with bombers, submarine based cruise missiles, ballistic missiles - you name it.  And while the US would express all sorts of outrage, CENTCOM would do nothing about it because the original purpose of CENTCOM was to prevent a Soviet invasion of Iran, not to defend the Saudis against a Russian retaliatory strike.  The problem with this option is that it would be illegal under international law and that is something Russia does not want.  If Russia decided to publicly and officially accuse Saudi Arabia of terrorist attacks against Russia, it would have to go to the UNSC or the International Court of Justice and make the case legally.

2) File an official complaint at the ICJ and try get a UNSC vote to condemn the KSA:

Actually this is a very neat option because it would put the Saudis in a very embarrassing political position.  Depending on the wording of the resolution, the US would either abstain or veto it since, no matter how much problems there have been between the two sides recently, the US and the KSA are still strategic allies.  Still, such an official complaint by Russia against the Saudi regime would put even more egg on the faces of the medieval monkeys in power in Riyadh.  I would personally like that a lot, but this would not be in Putin's style - he prefer a much more low key kind of diplomacy.

3) A covert retaliatory strike on Saudi Arabia:

Also well within the means of the Kremlin not only because it could use Russian capabilities to hit some Saudi prince or two, but because it could easily subcontract that job to an allied force.  The problem with that is even if this would be a retaliatory strike it would still be an act of terrorism.  So far, the only case that I am aware of the Russians assassinating somebody is when they killed the notorious terrorist Ibn al-Khattab: the Russian special services intercepted a letter for Khattab, and laced it with a special poison which would be harmless for anybody except Khattab (a far more effective and sophisticated method than the idiotic accusation that they would use polonium to kill somebody).  In this case, however, the Russians admitted their role and even made more or less official declarations giving the details of the operation.  While this assassination was conducted using covert methods, this was not a true covert operation because the Russians voluntarily admitted that they were behind it.  Khattab was such a piece of scum that nobody sane expressed any problems with it: this was one of those very rare, black and white, slam dunk, case where pretty much everybody agrees that the killed person truly had it coming and that justice was served.  But that is the exception.  All too many so-called "covert operations" are simply a pious euphemism for terrorist (counter-)attacks i.e., something a civilized country should not do.

4) What then?  Aiming at the long term:

In a struggle against terrorism keeping the moral high ground is absolutely vital: you have to do your utmost to deny your enemy the status of "freedom fighter".  To do that, you absolutely must keep your hands as clean as possible and you have to only engage in those actions which, if discovered, would make you look honorable.  Dick Cheney's notion that "now the gloves are off" is just a reflection of his lack of sophistication.  The same thing can be said of the CIA's "plausible deniability".  The result of such self-delusion is that the USA is hated and despised worldwide and there literally isn't a vile, dishonorable or stupid action which anybody would put past the US covert operations community.  Does Russia really want to become the "next villain" (again!)?!

I personally think that it is crucial for a civilized country to have its official, declaratory, public policy in harmony with what it does behind the scenes.  There is nothing inherently wrong with covert operations as long as they are conduced in such a manner as to make those who ordered them look reasonable and honorable if the operation is discovered.  Russia cannot constantly speak of the absolutely crucial role which should be played by international law in international relations and then happily go on violating the basic rules of international law.  For this reason, any use of force (military or covert) by Russia has to be predicated on the following principles:

1)  All other non-violent options have either been already attempted or are impossible to implement.
2) The use of force is proportional to the attack which triggered it.
3) Every effort is made to avoid innocent victims.

Sounds Pollyannaish?  Well, it shouldn't!

Decades of absolutely irresponsible and reckless use of force by the USA, the Israelis, the Europeans and the Soviets have thoroughly desensitized us to the fundamental immorality of violence.  Raised as most of us have been on John Wayne movies and Ronald Reagan presidencies, we have lost the disgust of the civilized man for the ugliness and immorality of violence.  Worse, we are so conditioned by decades of watching CNN special reports from the Pentagon showing the latest "briefing" about some US military intervention that we forget that "shooting from the hip" is a most ineffective way of dealing with a problem.

When dealing with an issue like terrorism, it is always better to plan for the long term.  From that point of view, I would argue that the Saudi regime is a big enough problem to deserve to be considered a inherent national security threat to Russia and that, in turn, means that it should be a Russian national security strategy to achieve regime change in the KSA.   This goal, however, should be pursued only or, at least, mainly, through legal means such as, for example, arming the Iranians and the Syrians who, in turn, will arm Hezbollah.  This goal can also be achieved by isolating Saudi Arabia on the international scene by means of "consultations" with allies and friendly nations.  Furthermore, Russia should seek to expand its role and influence in the Muslim and Arab world in order to counteract the current influence of the Saudis and the other Gulf monarchies.  

In the short term, the Russian public needs to be openly told that terrorism cannot be eradicated, that this is a pipe dream cooked up by dishonest politicians.  But if no nation or government can really eradicate terrorism, one can learn how to live with it.  After all, the actual amount of victims of terrorism is extremely small, far less than, say, road accidents.  The real power of terrorism resides in the psychological effect it has not on its direct victims, but on those who witness it.  As soon as the general public accepts the notion that even if terrorists attack can be brought down to a minimum, some will always remain possible, terrorism will lose its real force.  Terrorism can either be accepted as a fact of life, or a nation can be drawn in an endless spiral of futile counter-terrorist measures which are far more damaging than the terrorism which triggered them.

Does Russia really want to become a terrified and paranoid Fascist state like the USA?  Or does it prefer to accept the fact that terrorism will never be "defeated" and keep on living as best as can be in an always dangerous world?

Russian politicians are already hotly debating whether to cancel the current moratorium on the death penalty: Nikolay Pligin, United Russia MP and head of the Duma’s Constitutional Law committee, declared that "no social groups will be discriminated against, no special activities will be carried out against any specific group – all activities will be conducted solely within the constitutional norms and in accordance with existing laws” while Ramzan Kadyrov urged the parliament to “infinitely increase the penalty for those, who not only commits terrorist acts, but share the ideas of the terrorists, spread their ideology and train them. I’m absolutely sure that we won’t cope with this evil by playing democracy and humanity”.  

Well, at least both agree that the correct place to discuss this issue and decide on what policies to adopt is the Parliament.  I expect that Duma to speak in one voice and give the Kremlin pretty much any law the latter would want, so the real decision will be in Putin's hands.  I am personally confident that his choice will be to abide very strictly to the letter and spirit of Russian national law and international law and that there shall be no Russian over-reaction.

The Saker

PS: Sorry about all the typos, weird sentences and poor grammar - I am writing that under a lot of time pressure (-: yes, I do have a life :-) and I simply don't have the time right now to sit down and proofread this text.  My apologies for that!  The Saker
PPS: most (all?) of the numerous typos and other horrors of the text above have been kindly corrected by S. to whom I owe a big debt of gratitude for all his kind help!

Short update on the events in the Ukraine and a better option for Russia

I just wanted to update everybody on a few interesting aspects on the current crisis in the Ukraine.

The opposition:

 Vladimir Klichko, Arsenii Iatseniuk, Oleg Tsiagnibok

 

Yulia Timoshenko

The opposition is currently headed by four people: Vladimir Klichko, Arsenii Iatseniuk, Oleg Tsiagnibok and, of course, Yulia Timoshenko (in jail, of all things, for signing a gas deal with Putin).  There are a number of smaller parties also participating on the opposition movement, but these four politicians are clearly in charge.  Well, by now, all four of them have officially declared that they goal is not to get the government to reverse its decision or to renegotiate anything.  By now all four have openly and officially declared that they goal is to overthrow the current government.  This is now the official goal of the opposition: regime change.

The EU:

Over the past week or so, the center of Kiev has witnessed constant flow of senior EU political figures who came to express their support for the opposition including Carl Bildt (ex Prime and Foreign Minister of Sweden), Loreta Grauziniene (chairwoman of the Lithuanian Parliament), Guido Westerwelle (German Foreign Minister and homosexual activist), Vlad Filat (ex Prime Minister of Moldova), Mikheil Saakashvili (ex Georgian President and loser of the 08.08.08 war), Jerzy Buzek (ex President of the European Parliament), Jaroslaw Kaczynski ( leader of Poland’s opposition party Law and Justice), John Baird (Canada’s Foreign Minister, no EU but still) and many others. All spoke about the *Russian* interference in the Ukraine's internal affairs :-)

The "pro-Russian" government:

In the meantime it became know that President Yanukovich put forth a number of demands which the EU would have to accept before the Ukraine would sign the association agreement including the joint modernization of the Ukrainian gas transport system and the revision of the EU's position "on the construction of economically unsound facilities for the transportation of natural gas to Europe, bypassing Ukraine".  In other words, the EU would have to stop getting gas from Russia by the North Stream and South Stream gas pipelines.  Yes, this "pro-Russian" politician demands that the EU stop directly purchasing Russian gas.  With friends like these...

The Ukraine riding to a bright future, no doubt

Let's summarize it all:

The opposition wants to overthrow the government, EU politicians are actually on the ground supporting the opposition while the putatively pro-Russian government of Yanukovich demands that the EU renege on its agreements with Russia.

As for me, I honestly wonder whether Russia would not be far better off *without* such wonderful "allies", "friends" and "brothers" as the modern Ukrainians and whether it not be a far better option for Russia to let the (already sinking) Ukrainians join the (already sinking) EU and then sit back and relax to watch the ensuing "love fest" between these two russophobic forces.

The Saker

Is a Syrian "domino effect" being used in a power struggle in the US deep state?

written specially for the Asia Times

Following the ratification by all parties of the recent Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 countries, it is worth looking again at the official narrative explaining this "sudden breakthrough".  It goes something like that:

"Iran was ruled by President Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, who did everything in his power to deny the international community the monitoring rights it demanded and to keep the Iranian nuclear program unimpeded in its progress.  Then the people of Iran elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, who accepted the terms of the P5+1 countries and a deal was finally signed."

That is pretty much the official version.

Of course, every sentence in the above paragraph is absolute nonsense. 

The new President of Iran

Iran is not ruled by its President, but by its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who selects the six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council which, in turn, vets all aspiring Presidential candidates before they can run for office and which also can veto any decision of the Iranian Parliament.  The Supreme Leader also appoints all the members of the Expediency Discernment Council which can resolve any disagreements between the Parliament and the Guardian Council.  Hassan Rouhani was appointed as a member of the Expediency Discernment Council by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his bid to run for President was also approved by the Guardian Council.  In other words, not only did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never have the political authority to independently take any crucial political decisions, but his successor has the 100% approval of the Supreme Leader.  Thus, while there is a very clear difference in style between Ahmadinehad and Rouhani, it is ridiculous to suggest that the replacement of the former by the latter is the real cause of the "sudden" breakthrough in the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran.  The fact is that Rouhani has the full support of the Supreme Leader and that his election, while not trivial, cannot be considered as a real change in Iranian policies, including nuclear ones.

P5+1?

The media speaks of the P5+1 as if it was a body formed of more or less equal partners taking decisions together.  This is also nonsense.  Who are the P5+1?  The five permanent members of the UNSC plus Germany:  China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States (P5) and Germany (+1; officially added for economic reasons).  P5+1 is really a misnomer as it should be called "1+1(+4)":  Those who matter - the USA and Russia - and those who don't China (which is happy to follow the Russian lead on this issue) France, the UK and Germany  (who will pretend to have an opinion but who will let the USA deal with the serious stuff).  And since Russia under Putin is a strong ally of Iran, this really only leaves the "Big One" i.e, the USA as the negotiating counterpart to Iran.

So why this "sudden" breakthrough in negotiations between the USA and Iran.  Could it be that the big change which made it possible did not occur in Iran but in the United States?

I have a different interpretation to offer.

It is my belief that it all began in September when, following a few dramatic days which almost saw a US attack on Syria,  Barak Obama had to accept "Putin's gambit": the US would not attack Syria in exchange for the full destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.  I believe that this absolutely tectonic reversal US foreign policy has now triggered what I would call a  "domino effect" which is still ongoing and which might result in  further unexpected changes in US foreign policy.

Let's look at this domino sequence of events one by one:

Domino 1: Barak Obama accepts Putin's gambit

Whether it was really Barak Obama himself or his puppeteers is really irrelevant here.  The President being the official Commander in Chief he is the person who had to announce that an agreement had been reached and that a US attack on Syria would be delayed/scrapped.  Let's set aside for a moment the exact reason(s) why the US took this decision (we will come back to this crucial issue later) and just say that this was a major change for the following reasons.

a) This meant that the US would have to delay and, in all likelihood, give up on its long-standing objective of "regime change" in Syria.
b) This also meant that the US would now have to negotiate with the Syrian government.
c) Since chemical weapons were completely irrelevant to the military dynamic on the ground and since US had committed not to strike government forces, this meant that the USA was essentially giving up on its plan to help the insurgency win the war.
d) This removed the last pretext(s) possible for the US to continue to stall and avoid a Geneva II conference.  From now on, the US had to get serious about Geneva II or lose it all.

Before this development the USA had two possible ways to deal with a Geneva II conference: to try to sabotage it or to try to use this opportunity to achieve something.  As soon as Obama accepted Putin's gambit only the second option remained.  Indeed, since regime change in Syria is clearly not an option any more, and since the US foreign policy in the Middle-East was predicated on regime change in Syria, the US now had to reconsider it all.  This meant that the best possible option for the US was  to try to use Geneva II to actually finally get something done.  However, there is one truism which the US diplomats had to take into account: no solution in Syria will ever be achieved unless Iran approves of it.  In other words, having accepted Putin's gambit, the US was not only committed to negotiations with the Syrians, but also with the Iranians.  This the real causes of the "sudden" breakthrough between the "P5+1 and Iran": the defeat of the US in Syria literally forced the White House to negotiate with Iran, at which point to continue to stonewall at the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program became counter-productive and, frankly, absurd.

Domino 2: the USA and Iran finally agree on the nuclear issue.

As I have written it many times in the past, nobody in the US (or elsewhere), really believes that the Iranians are secretly building a nuclear weapon right under the nose of IAEA inspectors (who are still working in Iran) while remaining a member in good standing of the NPT Treaty (no NTP member has ever developed nuclear weapons).  The real US objective has always been to prevent Iran from becoming a regional economic superpower and, if possible, to find a pretext to isolate and destabilize the Iranian regime.  By accepting to negotiate with Iran, the USA is not "making the world safe from nuclear-armed Mollahs" but accepting the reality that Iran is, and will remain, a regional superpower.  This is really what is at stake here, and all that talk about Iran nuking Israel in a "2nd Holocaust" is just a pious fig-leaf used to hide the real US policy objectives.  Now that the US had given up on the notion of attacking Syria it made no sense to continue to act as if an attack on Iran was still possible.  This left only two possible solutions: let the Iranians do whatever they want and appear to have failed to persuade Iran to take into consideration US objections, or actually find a mutually acceptable compromise which would be to the advantage of both sides.  The US, wisely, chose the second option.

So far, Dominos 1 and 2 have fallen, but let us take a look at what might be happening next if nothing stops the momentum generated by these two dominos.

Domino 3: the two big losers - Saudi Arabia and Israel

It is rather obvious that the Saudis and the Israelis have done literally everything in their power to prevent the fall of Dominoes 1 and 2 from happening and that they are now the big losers.  Both countries hate and fear Iran, both countries were deeply involved in the Syrian war and both countries appear to be outraged by the actions of the White House.   When all the signs indicated that a deal would be struck, the Saudis and the Israelis even sent their top decision-makers (Bandar and Netanyahu) not to Washington, but to Moscow in a (futile) attempt to prevent what they see as an absolute catastrophe from happening. 

Now that a deal has been reached, both Israel and the KSA are now showing all the signs of "loosing it" and are turning to crude forms of terrorism to lash out at their enemies: according to Hezollah, the Saudis are behind the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Beirut while the Israelis are behind the murder of a Hezbollah commander, also in Beirut.  One can dismiss these Hezbollah accusations as politically motivated, but I personally find them very credible simply because they "fit the picture" perfectly (and Hezbollah does have an excellent record of making only truthful statements).  Whether one chooses to believe Hezbollah or not, nobody denies that there are now real and deep tensions between Israel and the KSA on one side and the USA on the other.  That would also explain the rather amazing "rapprochement" taking place between Israel and the KSA who now have a common problem (the USA) and lots of common enemies (first and foremost Iran, of course).

Considering the huge power of the Israel Lobby and the, more discrete but also very powerful, Saudi Lobby in the USA, it is by no means certain that the new KSA-Israeli alliance shall not eventually prevail over what I would call the "USA-firsters" (in contrast to "Israel-firsters").  I shall also come back to this topic later, but let us assume that the current US policies will not be revered and that the US will sign a long-term agreement with Iran in six months or so.  What could happen next?

Domino 4: goodbye US anti-missile "defense shield" in Europe?

Think about it: if the USA accepts the notion that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, why insist on deploying an anti nuclear missile defense shield over Europe?  Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has already clearly said that much and that is likely to remain a Russian policy position for the foreseeable future: now that the putative "threat" from Iran has been dealt with by means of negotiations - why should the US still deploy anti-missile systems in Europe?

Of course, the US could plow ahead with this project as if nothing had changed, but would it not be logical to at least talk to the Russians to see if some modifications could be made to the US anti-missile system which would satisfy the Russian side?  Having agreed to negotiate with Syria and Iran, would it not also make sense to seriously sit down with the Russians and find a mutually acceptable compromise?

After all,  Russia (backed by China, of course) can easily prevent any deal between the US and Iran (by a UNSC veto for example) and that would leave the USA is a very vulnerable negotiating position: to be in a great need of a deal with Iran while Iran would not feel equally interested in negotiating.  And, of course, a breakdown in negotiations between Iran and the USA on the nuclear issue would mean very bad news for the USA in Syria.  The fact is that the USA will desperately need Russian collaboration to hammer out a long term deal with Iran.  And that, in turn, will have major consequences for a host of other issues, including European foreign policy.

Domino 5: an end to the European "Drang nach Osten"?

Not since the days of Hitler has Europe been so hysterically anti-Russian as in the last decade.  Of course, some of that russophobia has been fed by US propaganda needs, but one quick look at the European press and will show anyone that the worst of this Russia-bashing really comes from Europe, especially the UK.  As for the EU and NATO, their offensive to towards the East is really reminiscent of Hitler's, the only difference is that it is pursued with different means.  Of course, West European revanchism is only part of the picture.  There is definitely a desire by many East Europeans to become "true Europeans" combined with a hope that a EU+NATO combination would protect them from Russia.  Nevermind that Russia is not in the least interested in invading them - most east Europeans are generically afraid of what they perceive as a resurgent superpower in the East.  And if getting the "protection" of NATO and the EU means accepting a semi-colonial status in the US empire - so be it.  Better to be a serf of the US empire than a serf in the Russian one.  That is an ideological position which cannot be challenged by facts or logic.  Most east Europeans probably understand that Russia has no interest in invading them, and most of them must be aware that joining the EU has been disastrous in economic terms for countries like Bulgaria or the Baltic States.  Frankly, most people don't care.  They look at German highways, French stores or Dutch airports and want to get a share of that wealth even if that is only a pipe-dream.

As for the west Europeans, they shamelessly feed that illusion, promising much and delivering nothing.  As for NATO, it continues to follow Hitler's example and attempts to push its influence into the Caucasus.  As a result, the EU+NATO offensive now spans a "front" from Estonia in the Baltic to Georgia in the Caucasus - an exact copy of Hitler's strategy for his war on Russia.

Hitler and his promised "1000 year Reich", of course, was defeated in only 12 years and the EU is not doing too well either.  In fact, it is facing a systemic crisis that it has no idea of how to tackle.

The modern Kulturträgers

I am not even referring to the so-called "PIGS" (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain), but also to the supposedly "better off" nations of northern Europe.  Did you know that only 3 of the 17 nations of the Eurozone have a AAA credit rating or that while no fewer than seven of the world’s top rated nations are in Europe, most are either not in the Euro (Denmark, Sweden) or not in the EU at all (Norway, Switzerland)?  Anyone doubting the full magnitude of the social and economic crisis which has hit the Eurozone should read the report recently published by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies entitled "Think differently: humanitarian impacts of the economic crisis in Europe" (makes me wonder if anybody in the Ukraine has read this one!).  Europe is in a deep crisis and this begs the obvious question: can Europe really afford a new Cold War with Russia?  What about the US - does it need a new Cold War in Europe?  Isn't it about time to set aside this crazy Drang nach Osten and accept that a non-imperial Europe would have much more to gain from a partnership with Russia than from another Cold War?

Time will show whether this last domino will also fall.  What matters for our purposes here is not to accurately predict the future, but to look at the opportunities such a different future would offer.  Let's ask a key question: if all the dominoes above did fall, would the USA be better or worse off?  My personal reply is that the USA would be far better off, as would be Europe.  And if that is the case, one can wonder, did the US really stumble into a situation which triggered a domino effect or what this the plan all along?  Could it be that some forces of the USA have decided to use the failure of the US policy in Syria to trigger a much larger change?

A project of the "USA-firsters"?

As I have written in a recent article, I believe that the Presidency of Barak Obama has resulted in a shift of power in the US "deep state" which had the previously almighty Neocons pushed aside from the Executive Branch and replaced with what I call "old Anglo imperialists".  They could also be called "USA-firsters" (as opposed to "Israel-firsters").  As a rule, they are far more sophisticated actors than the Neocons.  Typically, the USA-firsters are better educated, more cautious in their discourse and methods and, unlike the Neocons, they can count on the support of patriotically-inclined Americans in the armed forces, State Department, CIA, and elsewhere.  Finally, they enjoy the big advantage over the Neocons in the fact that they have no need to hide their real agenda: in their foreign policy they care first and foremost about US national interests (internally, of course, both the USA-firsters and the Neocons are the prototypical "one percenters" whose real objective is to defend their class interests while keeping the remaining 99% in serf-like conditions).

So could it be that this "domino sequence" was deliberately initiated by Anglo USA-firsters who seized the opportunity to promote their agenda while pushing the Neocon Israel-firsters aside?

Let's look at "domino 1" again.

I think that there is a preponderance of evidence that Obama accepted Putin's gambit against a background of absolute chaos both in Syria and in the USA.  Iranian forces were covertly entering Syria to fight, a powerful  Russian naval task force was positioned right off the coast of Syria, the British Parliament had refused to support an attack on Syria, demonstrations were taking place all over the USA - and elsewhere - against an attack, and all the signs were that Congress would not approve a military operation.   It is hard to prove a negative, of course, but my sense is that the first domino fell pushed by all these factors and not a result of a deliberate change in US policies.

What about "domino 2" then?

In contrast to domino 1, there is strong evidence that domino 2 clearly "fell" as a direct result of a political decision made in Washington.   If we accept that the only change in the Presidency of Iran was mainly a cosmetic one, then we also have to agree that the USA deliberately decided to open negotiations with Iran.  Could it be that somebody in the White House or in the US deep state realized that the fall of "domino 1" presented real opportunities for the USA and the interests of the USA-firsters and decided to deliberately add momentum to  "domino 1" and also push "domino 2"?

I believe that the sequence of events in Syria and Iran does offer a fantastic opportunity for the USA to finally rid itself from the disastrous legacy of many years of Neocon rule (in my opinion from 1993-2009).  I should immediately stress that I am not saying that the Neocons are "out" as they still control the US corporate media and Congress with an iron hand.  I am only saying that I am detecting the signs of a major change in US foreign policy which appears to be breaking free from the "Wahabi-Zionist alliance" of the combined lobbies of Saudi Arabia and Israel.  Again, the fact that both Netanyahu and Bandar felt the need to travel to Moscow to stop Washington is absolutely unprecedented and amazing and I have to interpret that as a real sign of panic.

How far can the US really go?

A shift in the power equation inside the US does not mean regime change, far from it.  In most circumstances US politicians will continue to mantrically repeat "there is no light between the U.S. and Israel”, the constant verbal genuflection before everything Jewish, Israeli or Holocaust-related will continue and it is quite possible that the next Israeli Prime Minister to address Congress will also get more standing ovations than the US President.  However, it is also quite possible that between closed doors the Israelis and the Saudis will be told to "tone it down or else" and that the US support for these two regimes will become contingent of them not doing anything crazy (such as attacking Iran).

Let's look again at dominos 4 and 5 (basically, a stop in anti-Russian policies) from a non-Zionist and non-Wahabi point of view:  would the USA gain or lose from such a development?  It could lose some money if the European missile defense "shield" was scrapped, but the Russians are offering two alternative solutions: either let the Russian military become full partner in this system (thereby removing the threat to Russia) or move the entire system to western Europe away from the Russian borders (thereby also removing the threat to Russia).  Since the Russian asymmetrical response (special forces, relocation of launchers, special missiles) will defeat the proposed system anyway - why not accept either one of the Russian offers?

Politically, such an agreement would open the doors for far more important collaborative opportunities (in Central Asia and the Middle-East) and it would remove the USA from the "collision course with the rest of the planet" it has been on since 9/11.

Clearly, a deal with Russia would be very beneficial for the USA.

What about Palestine?

Here, unfortunately, I have to remain as pessimistic as ever.  As so many times in their history, the Palestinians have again committed something of a "strategic suicide" when they decided to support the anti-Assad forces in Syria.  Just as with Saddam, the Palestinians are yet again with the losing side and, which is even worse, their only halfway decent resistance movement - Hamas - has now been taken over by Saudi interests which basically puts them under Israeli control no less than Fatah.  The last "real" resistance movement in Palestine is now the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but it is comparatively small and weak and cannot be a partner in any real negotiations with the USA and Israel.  In this context, it is likely the Israelis will simply impose whatever "solution" they want on the ground without having to negotiate with any Palestinians at all.  This is very sad and this did not have to be, but the Palestinians really did it to themselves and they only have themselves to blame now.

Bottom line: no domino effect in Palestine.

Conclusion: a real window of opportunity

The future is by no means certain and the Israel-firsters and their Saudi allies have many options to reverse this process (just imagine Hillary as President!!).  And yet it is also possible that the USA might shift away from the disastrous course it has been following for the past two decades and return to a more traditional, pragmatic, foreign policy: it will remain an imperial power with global imperialist goals, but at least it will be driven by pragmatic - if cynical - considerations and not foreign ideological interests.  In contrast to what the USA has been doing for the past two decades, it is possible that the developments in the Middle-East will convince the USA that negotiations and compromise are more effective foreign policy tools than threat and military actions.

Historically, Republicans have had a comparatively better foreign policy record than the Democrats and senile psychopaths like McCain are not typical of Republican leaders.  In contrast, US Democrats have often provided the most ideological and arrogant leaders and the very real possibility of Hillary running for the Presidency is a frightening indicator that what appears to be the current phase of pragmatism might be short lived.  The good news is that both parties have an opportunity to seize the moment and nominate halfway sane candidates for the next Presidential election.  Of course, if what we end up with is a Sarah Palin - Hillary Clinton race all bets are off and the world will be in for some very, very bad times.  But if the USA-firsters can give the boot to the Israel-firsters currently controlling the key positions inside both parties (folks in the model of Rahm Israel Emanuel) then there is a real possibility that the US could break free from its current subservience to Zionist and Wahabi interests and resume a more pragmatic, reasonable, foreign policy.

Do these USA-firsters really exist?  Honestly, I don't know.  I hope that they do and I want to believe that the fact that the fall of the Syrian domino was followed so soon by the fall of the Iranian domino might be a sign that somebody inside the US deep state has decided to use this opportunity to try finally rid the USA from the foreign interests which have literally hijacked the country. 

If after six month a permanent deal is agreed upon and signed by the P5+1 and Iran and if more or less at the same time the US begins serious negotiations with Russia such a scenario will become credible.  At this point, it is too early to tell. 

The Saker