The Mainstream Media Is Talking About A Coming Middle East War That Could Involve Saudi Arabia, Iran, The U.S. And Israel

By Michael Snyder, on November 7th, 2017

People better start waking up and paying attention to what is happening in the Middle East, because the situation is becoming quite serious. If things go badly, we could be facing a major regional war which would involve not only Saudi Arabia and Iran, but also potentially the United States and Israel. Yesterday, I quoted an article in the New York Times that warned that tensions between the Saudis and the Iranians were raising “the threat of a direct military clash between the two regional heavyweights”. And now Jake Novak of CNBC is saying that a “direct conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, as opposed to the proxy war they’re fighting in Yemen, looks inevitable.”

I put those last two words in bold so that there wouldn’t be any confusion. In fact, Novak is warning that the Saudis “are marching ever closer towards a wider regional war”. Novak understands the dynamics of the Middle East, and he realizes where things could be headed if cooler heads do not prevail.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have already been fighting proxy wars against one another in Syria and Iran for quite a while, but a direct military conflict between the two could literally be a nightmare scenario.

One of the primary characters in this ongoing drama is Saudi Arabia’s extremely hawkish crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. He hates Iran with a passion, and he has already said that he believes that a peace dialogue with Iran is impossible.

And over the past several days, events in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon have moved talk of war to the front burner…

First, the kingdom squarely blamed Iran for a missile attack on Riyadh from Yemen that was thwarted by the U.S.-made Patriot anti-missile system. The Saudis called that attack “direct military aggression by the Iranian regime and may be considered an act of war.”

Second, the Saudis accused Lebanon of — figuratively at least — declaring “war” against it because of aggression from Hezbollah. That statement spurred even Saudi ally and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to publicly urge for calm.

In an article yesterday, I discussed the “purge” that is currently taking place in Saudi Arabia. Many believe that this purge is all about removing any potential obstacles to a war with Iran. Mohammed bin Salman and his father have made dealing with Iran their number one strategic priority, and they have even enlisted the Israelis as allies in their cause…

As is already well-known, the Saudi and Israeli common cause against perceived Iranian influence and expansion in places like Syria, Lebanon and Iraq of late has led the historic bitter enemies down a pragmatic path of unspoken cooperation as both seem to have placed the break up of the so-called “Shia crescent” as their primary policy goal in the region. For Israel, Hezbollah has long been its greatest foe, which Israeli leaders see as an extension of Iran’s territorial presence right up against the Jewish state’s northern border.

If Saudi Arabia and Iran go to war, it is probably inevitable that Hezbollah will strike Israel at the same time, thus getting the Israelis directly involved in the conflict.

Not only that, if a major regional war does erupt in the Middle East it would almost certainly mean that the U.S. would have to get involved as well. Here is more from Jake Novak of CNBC…

But if full blown war breaks out directly between the two countries, it’s hard to see the U.S. being able to sit it out without at least some form increased weapons support and other aid. Then it will be up to Iran’s possible allies, like Russia and China to make the next move.

If you are thinking that this sounds like the type of scenario that could cause World War III to erupt, you would be correct.

The Iranians and the Saudis both have weapons of mass destruction, and so a direct conflict between the two would seem to be unthinkable.

But rational thinking does not always prevail in the Middle East. The conflict between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam has a long and bitter history, and the bad blood between the Saudis and the Iranians is never going to subside until one side or the other ultimately prevails.

Let us hope that a “hot war” between Saudi Arabia and Iran does not erupt any time soon, because such a war would not be good for the United States whatsoever. Pretty much every scenario that you can imagine ends with enormous numbers of innocent people dead, and such a conflict could ultimately be the spark that sets off World War III.

Is Saudi Arabia Heading For War With Iran?

By Michael Snyder, on November 6th, 2017

Is a major war in the Middle East looming on the horizon? Most of us living in the western world simply do not realize how much Saudi Arabia and Iran truly hate one another. Saudi Arabia is the global center for Sunni Islam, and Iran is the global center for Shia Islam, and the two major sects of Islam have a history of bad blood that literally goes back for over a thousand years. The Saudis and the Iranians are already engaged in “proxy wars” in Syria and in Yemen, and now a missile that was fired at Riyadh’s international airport threatens to turn the conflict between the two regional powers into a hot war.

If you are tempted to think that I am exaggerating one bit, just consider what the New York Times is saying about this…

Saudi Arabia charged Monday that Iran had committed “a blatant act of military aggression” by providing its Yemeni allies with a missile fired at the Saudi capital over the weekend, raising the threat of a direct military clash between the two regional heavyweights.

The accusations represent a new peak in tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran at a time when they are already fighting proxy wars in Yemen and Syria, as well as battles for political power in Iraq and Lebanon.

And Yahoo is reporting that the Saudis are saying that this missile attack “may amount to an act of war”…

On Monday, a Saudi-led military coalition battling Tehran-backed rebels in Yemen said it reserved the “right to respond” to the missile attack on Riyadh at the weekend, calling it a “blatant military aggression by the Iranian regime which may amount to an act of war”.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir also warned Tehran.

“Iranian interventions in the region are detrimental to the security of neighbouring countries and affect international peace and security. We will not allow any infringement on our national security,” Jubeir tweeted.

For those that have not grasped the implications of what I am saying yet, let me break this down very simply for you.

If Saudi Arabia and Iran go to war, the United States will be involved in that war on the side of the Saudis.

It would be a war unlike anything we have ever seen in the history of the Middle East, and it is almost a certainty that weapons of mass destruction would be used in such a war.

Essentially, what we are talking about is the potential for World War III to erupt in the Middle East.

And all of this comes at a time when the biggest “purge” in the modern history of Saudi Arabia is taking place…

A campaign of mass arrests of Saudi Arabian royals, ministers and businessmen expanded on Monday after a top entrepreneur was reportedly detained in the biggest anti-corruption purge of the kingdom’s affluent elite in its modern history.

The reported arrest of Nasser bin Aqeel al-Tayyar followed the detention of dozens of top Saudis including billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in a crackdown that the attorney general described as “phase one”.

The purge is the latest in a series of dramatic steps by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to assert Saudi influence internationally and amass more power for himself at home.

Some would say that the Saudis are “cracking down on corruption”, while others would say that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is “consolidating power” prior to going to war.

In any event, this situation deserves our full attention, because it could ultimately result in a major regional war in which the United States is directly involved.

I was going to post something on Saudi Arabia yesterday, but got involved in the elections instead. And Michael Snyder explained the situation better than I could anyway.

Despite all the $billions we're giving the Saudis in military aid, their military just is not that good. They're having a hard time with the rebels in Yemen. They're new king is trying to institute some liberalization of the country (if giving women the right to drive can be considered liberalization), and he's trying to crack down on corruption, even to the point of killing a Saudi prince who apparently resisted arrest. (Don't worry about the Saudis running out of princes, there are thousands of them.)

And he's right, that missile could not have been fired at Riyadh without Iranian help.

Things just feel like they're coming to a head. This could get nasty. Really, really fast. Everyone is looking at North Korea now, but maybe they're looking in the wrong direction.

Onward and upward,
airforce

I read something the other day, I should have copied the link because I can't find it now. That linked a coup in Saudi Arabia to the Las Vegas shooting in short it said that Prince Mohammed bin Salman was in Vegas at the time and the shooting was a diversion or possibly a purchase of weapons to assassinate him that went wrong. That would be a good reason for the Gov. to seize all of the surveillance footage to cover up an attempt on a foreign leader on US soil.

Mechanic. I just read the article your refer to this morning.

Here it is. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7b1kzk/the_las_vegas_shooting_and_the_mass_arrests_in/

Wow, that's quite a story! It does have a couple major flaws, the main one being that the trained assassins would have nothing to do with those dumb bump fire stocks.

But... I've been thinking of a possible coup ever since the "corruption" roundups began in Saudi Arabia. There is definitely something fishy about it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Saudi prince was in Las Vegas, or anywhere out of the country, simply because they got wind of something, and left to gain time. They needed the time to figure out the extent of the would-be coup, and figure out how to deal with it.

Very, very interesting. I'm not a big fan of complicated conspiracy theories, but that was a good find, Mechanic!

Onward and upward,
airforce

Saudi Purge: Middle-East On the Verge of a New War

Region may be heading for large-scale conflict

Zero Hedge - November 9, 2017

Saudi Arabia is going through a major internal political crisis the likes of which has rarely been seen.

A missile was fired on the Saudi capital – a missile, which was allegedly built in Iran and smuggled to Yemen, just to be fired at Saudi Arabia.

According to initial reports, two Saudi princes died back to back in 24 hours: one in an “accidental” helicopter crash, the other during a firefight that broke out while security forces were trying to arrest him. On November 7, Saudi Arabia’s information ministry spokesman said that “Prince Abdulaziz is alive and well”. However, the prince could not be independently reached for comment by the media.

Other high-ranking members of the establishment and the royal family – the two tend to be one and the same in Saudi Arabia – get arrested on charges of corruption, with their bank accounts frozen.

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri unexpectedly resigns after he was summoned to Riyadh by his Saudi-backers.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia accused Iran of conducting acts of “direct military aggression” and accused Lebanon of “declaring war” on Riyadh by allowing Hezbollah “aggression” against the kingdom.

All this happened in a span of just a few days.

With ever-growing security challenges and problems at the regional level, the crisis that took hold of Saudi Arabia does not seem to be slowing down.

One contributing factor to the ongoing crisis is a major split in the Saudi royal family: the power struggle that resulted in the former crown prince being deposed and replaced with a new one, a move that shook things up quite a bit inside the country. The echo of this can be seen in the current “anti-corruption” persecution, enforced by the current Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

Outside the country, several key foreign policy projects failed: the effectiveness of the Yemen intervention can be judged by the fact that it resulted in a missile being fired at Riyadh. Bashar al-Assad is still in power in Syria. The attempts to scare Qatar into submission backfired, as Qatar has been getting more and more friendly with Russia, Turkey and Iran.

Iran is gaining more and more influence in the region, while the Saudis seem to be losing it, hence they are trying to compensate for their losses by participating in proxy wars elsewhere.

The Saudis also tried to flex their diplomatic muscle. King Salman even visited Moscow, where the two sides exchanged promises with no guarantees that these will ever be fulfilled. This also backfired, as some considered it a demonstration of weakness or an attempt to make peace by making concessions.

Add economic struggles to this series of failures, and one can see why the King’s and his Crown Prince’s position seem less and less stable by the minute. The situation apparently seemed so dire, that in order to keep everything afloat active persecution seemed the only possible way to keep the King and his successor in power. The “anti-corruption” campaign is just an excuse: the corruption has always been high in Saudi Arabia, and no one batted an eye before now.

These are temporary measures.

Persecution can hardly solve foreign and internal matters, and it will not lead to a solution of the problems. Right now, the kingdom’s leadership is desperately in need of an enemy to unite the population and draw their attention away from the chaotic events unfolding in the country.

A warlike rhetoric against Iran, Lebanon and Hezbollah are a clear sign of this. While Iran is a potent regional power in military and diplomatic terms, Hezbollah is a non-state actor. So, Riyadh may choose the group as an enemy for its risky foreign policy undertaking. Saudi Arabia and Israel are obvious allies in their will to destroy Hezbollah. On November 5, Tel Aviv started the largest-ever aerial exercise in the history of Israel. A leaked diplomatic cable confirmed that the Saudis and Israelis are coordinating their efforts against Iran and Hezbollah thus escalating the already tense situation in the Middle East.

The region may be heading for another large-scale military conflict.

I haven't really been following this but the intel provided here has been great. I just read this on RT which seems relevant. https://www.rt.com/news/409475-hezbollah-leader-says-lebanese-pm-detained/

Saudi F-15\'s are reportedly on alert, getting ready to strike Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. The Daily Star is somewhat hit-or-miss when it comes to credibility, but if nothing else this is a good overview of what's been happening so far.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Is a Saudi-Israeli alliance emerging?

Onward and upward,
airforce

Oil Prices Could Double If Middle East Conflict Escalates

Barrel traders recently pushed the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil above $US 55; the first time in over two years.

Scarcity doesn’t really justify the upward price movement. There isn’t a shortage of oil in the world. But there could be, in the worst case, if missiles start flying between two of the world’s largest oil players: Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Maybe it won’t happen. But maybe it will. And that’s what the “geopolitical risk premium” is all about. It’s an anxiety surcharge that’s tacked onto every barrel of oil, in fear of supply disruption on a moment’s notice. And the fear is back.

After three years of naivety we’re back to acknowledging the known unknowns of the Middle East, the uncertainties that strap a 10-to-20 percent premium on the price of a barrel.

Paying a risk premium for oil is nothing new. It’s been around for decades and has gone up and down with the hostility thermometer of the Middle East.

Unusually, the pricing of risk dropped to zero around 2015. Three main reasons prompted a sense of world peace: the promise of the Iranian nuclear deal; a feeling that booming oilfields in Texas could offset any disruption; and a growing surplus of oil inventories in storage tanks around the world.

Of late, the notion of oil obsolescence has also perpetuated a feeling of nonchalance. “Who cares about the Middle East and their oil?” has been a question driven by the utopian narrative: “I’m not worried, everyone will be driving electric cars in a few years anyway.”
Related: Oil Tycoon Hamm Slams EIA’s Overoptimistic Shale Forecasts

But it’s all been a false sense of security.

Electric cars are still rare. Oil remains vital to the world economy. Its geographic concentration is such that a large proportion of the world’s needs is produced from underneath layers of geopolitics, religious antagonism, authoritarianism, civil strife and corruption.

When I reflect on the extremes of oily politics, I pull out my old copy of Life Magazine from 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo. Back then, in a rare moment of unity, Arabs came together to curtail oil shipments to the west, demanding that Israel cede lands it captured in the 1967 war.

I’m struck by the two-page spread showing a Dutch freeway that’s completely empty, not a car on the road due to widespread gasoline and diesel shortages. The disruption was less than three percent of world supply and lasted only a few months, but it was enough to momentarily paralyze transportation in affected countries—and change attitudes about energy security too. The fallout led to big changes in personal mobility—smaller cars, greater fuel economy and alternate modes of transport like high-speed rail—especially in Europe and Japan.

Juxtaposed on the fuel-starved image is a photo inset of a meeting between various leaders of the embargo. The snapshot is taken at a moment with lots of laughter, suggesting the not-so-subtle message that they were pleased with their destabilizing accomplishment. Maybe.

But no one is laughing now. Regional animosity is elevated, the weaponry is lethal and it’s hard to figure out allegiances and regional political ambitions. And the scale of consequence is bigger too: In 1973 oil consumption was almost 56 million barrels a day. Today it’s pushing 100 million bpd, with a quarter flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, strategic chokepoint between Saudi Arabia and Iran.


The geopolitical premium is likely to increase over the next year. Oil markets are slowly heading back towards what OPEC calls “balance” and global inventories are gradually draining. The calculus is pretty simple: Progressively thinner margins for error, plus greater risk of disruption, equals more volatile prices to the upside.

If oil supply is pinched again, for whatever machination or military operation, the price of a barrel could easily double (prices quadrupled as a result of the 1973 embargo). And 20 years from now we may look back at a magazine spread of a freeway, this time showing a handful of cars—only the electric variety.

Higher oil prices are generally welcomed by petroleum producers and their upstream stakeholders. Yet amplified volatility and the potential of another oil crisis is a greater friend to purveyors of electric vehicles; they are the natural beneficiaries to their rival’s instability.

By Peter Tertzakian for Oilprice.com

Mohammad bin Salman is a bad guy. But the U.S. press is treating him like he's not.

Onward and upward,
airforce

The Saudi crown prince has vowed to "pursue terrorists until they are wiped from the face of the earth." I'm obviously skeptical, but this Islamic counter-terrorism alliance is something new. This could get interesting.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Report: Israel vows to destroy Iranian positions within 40 km of Syrian border

By Shoshana Kranish

November 26, 2017

Syrian President Bashar Assad reportedly offered Netanyahu a comprehensive deal that would include a demilitarized zone stretching 40 kilometers from the border.

Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jarida revealed on Sunday that an Israeli source disclosed a promise from Jerusalem to destroy all Iranian facilities within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of Israel's Golan Heights.

The source, who remains unnamed, said that during Syrian President Bashar Assad's surprise visit to Russia last week, Assad gave Russian Premier Vladimir Putin a message for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Damascus will agree to a demilitarized zone of up to 40 kilometers from the border in the Golan Heights as part of a comprehensive agreement between the two countries, but only if Israel does not work to remove Assad's regime from power.

The report also claims that Putin then called Netanyahu to relay the message, and that the Israeli prime minister said he would be willing to accept the deal, but that Israel's goal of eradicating Iran and Hezbollah from the country would remain.

According to the source, Jerusalem sees Assad as the last president of the Alawite community, indicating that a change of regime in Syria - at least towards a government less-linked to Iran - would be favorable for Israel. The Alawites are a minority Shi'ite community in Syria, and have long been supported by Iran, which seeks to extend its influence from the Gulf across the region to the Mediterranean.

The source also commented that after the defeat of the Islamic State, the conflict in Syria would become ''more difficult,'' likely pointing towards a vacuum that would be left without the group. Russian, Syrian and Iranian-backed forces have been fighting against ISIS, while also seeking to knock out rebel groups that oppose the current regime. Russia's stated interests have been in line with Iran's in wanting to keep Assad in power.

Israel has participated mostly on the periphery of the war in Syria, responding to fire on the northern border and occasionally bombing positions, including a weapons depot and scientific research center that allegedly produces chemical weapons. Damascus and Jerusalem have exchanged heated remarks as well, with Netanyahu threatening to bomb Assad's palace, and Syrian officials warning of ''dangerous repercussions'' to Israeli strikes on Syrian targets.

Over the course of the war, Israel has operated several field hospitals near the Syrian border, where those injured from the war are treated and subsequently returned to Syria. Some of those who have been treated have been rebels fighting against the Assad regime, leading some to say that Israel is assisting the rebels to unseat Assad.

Yasser Okbi contributed to this report.

Israel does not bluff or play. Hopefully the Syrians and Iranians will realize that and act accordingly.

Trump May Recognize Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel In December

Could spark widespread violence or even war

Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse - December 1, 2017

Is President Trump about to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? If so, this would be one of the most historic events to happen in the Middle East in a very long time.

Needless to say, the government of Israel would be absolutely thrilled by such a move, while the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbors would not be pleased at all. In fact, some Palestinians have suggested that if the Trump administration actually moves the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem that it could spark widespread violence or even war.

But Donald Trump promised that he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel during the campaign, and it looks like he intends to keep his word…

A senior U.S. administration official said on Thursday that President Donald Trump is considering recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel without moving the embassy to the Israeli capital, at least for the time being.

Trump wants the recognition of Jerusalem to be a gift to Israel on the occasion of its 70th Independence Day, and he may even announce this recognition by means of a statement to be made by Vice President Mike Pence, who will visit Israel in December.

Pence will be visiting Israel next month, and he is scheduled to deliver an address to the Knesset. If the Trump administration is going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it is believed that it may happen at that time.

Israel became a nation in 1948, and so 2018 will be Israel’s 70th anniversary. There will be independence celebrations throughout the year, and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as we approach this highly significant time would be considered a great gift to the Jewish people.

For the moment, however, the Trump administration will not be moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The White House recognizes that such a move could spark violence in the region, and so administration officials are treading carefully…

President Donald Trump and his senior aides are mulling a plan to eventually move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a decision that could derail Trump’s attempts to restart peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

A leading option under consideration: temporarily keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv while also outlining a longer-term strategy to begin the process of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, according to two administration officials. The plan is meant to strike a middle ground on the politically treacherous issue.

We shall see how this plays out, but Vice-President Mike Pence sure sounds optimistic that moving the embassy will actually happen. Earlier this week, he posted the following message on Twitter…

While for the past 20 years, Congress and successive administrations have expressed a willingness to move our embassy, @POTUS Trump is actively considering when and how to move the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. #70toIsraelUN

Of course moving the embassy would have very serious ramifications, and without a doubt many those surrounding Trump are advising against such a move…

American intelligence circles may caution Trump against the move, warning of the security-related ramifications that could ensue and danger that it could pose to American embassies around the world.

Rumors of Trump’s planned announcement were met with warnings from Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who said during a visit to the US that “the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem at this stage will have repercussions in the Palestinian, Arab and Islamic scene.”

I will be even more blunt. If the U.S. embassy is moved to Jerusalem, there will definitely be violence, and it could potentially move us closer to armed conflict in the Middle East.

But U.S. policy should never be dictated by threats of violence. Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem is the right thing to do, and we cannot allow anyone to intimidate us. In 1995, Congress passed a law that requires the U.S. embassy to be moved to Jerusalem, but ever since then presidents have used “waivers” to delay the move.

The current “waiver” expires on December 1st, and Trump is expected to sign another one at that time.

But even if the U.S. embassy is not moved to Jerusalem any time soon, the truth is that the next major war in the Middle East seems to be getting closer with each passing day. Just check out some of the things that have happened over the past week…

-Saudi Arabia just intercepted another ballistic missile that was fired from Yemen. The civil war in Yemen is essentially a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the Saudis hold the Iranians directly responsible whenever a missile is fired toward their territory.

-China has announced that they will be sending “elite troops” into Syria to fight alongside the Syrian army in the ongoing civil war that is raging there.

-Just a few days ago, the Pentagon acknowledged that there are approximately 2,000 U.S. troops currently in Syria working with forces that would like to overthrow the Syrian government.

The Middle East is a tinderbox that could literally erupt at any moment. Most Americans have absolutely no idea how close we are to a major regional war, and let us pray that one does not happen any time soon.

War with Iran May Be Much Closer Than We Think

The US does not intend to end or even curtail its military presence in Iraq (as well as Syria) after the defeat of the Islamic State. It is planning to turn Iraq into a major theater of confrontation with Iran. There are signs that a war with Iran may be much closer than we think.

CIA director Mike Pompeo, an official known for his staunch opposition to Iran, has warned Tehran that the United States would hold it accountable for any attacks it conducted on American interests. Addressing high-ranking US military and security officials on Saturday, Dec. 2, at a defence forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute in Simi Valley, California, Pompeo said that he had sent the letter to General Qassem Suleimani, a leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and elite Quds. “What we were communicating to him in that letter was that we will hold him and Iran accountable… and we wanted to make sure that he and the leadership of Iran understood that in a way that was crystal clear,” the CIA director explained.

According to Pompeo, the message was sent after the senior Iranian military commander had indicated that forces under his control might attack US forces in Iraq. He did not specify the date. “You need to only look to the past few weeks and the efforts of the Iranians to exert influence now in Northern Iraq in addition to other places in Iraq to see that Iranian efforts to be the hegemonic power throughout the Middle East continues to increase,” he noted. Pompeo also said that Saudi Arabia had grown more willing to share intelligence with other Middle Eastern nations regarding Iran and Islamist extremism.

According to Kurdish Basnews, large-scale US forces arrived at the Kaywan base-K1 west of Kirkuk on Nov.28 to split into two contingents. Several hundred servicemen stayed on base. Another contingent headed east on Dec. 1 towards Tuz Khumatu in eastern Iraq and took control of the Siddiq military airport 35 km to the west. Tuz Khumatu lies 100 km west of the Iraqi-Iranian border and 163 km north of Baghdad. US forces have never been deployed so close to the Iranian border since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

In mid-November, several hundred US Marines were reported to be building a new base in western Iraq, about 20 km from the strategic Anbar Province town of Al Qaim, which had been captured from Islamic State. Evidently, the move is part of US plan to prevent the creation of a Syrian-Iraqi corridor from Iran.

In mid-October, the Iraqi government allowed pro-Iranian Shia forces to capture Kirkuk and its oilfields from the Kurds. The US is not happy with the prospects of Iranian control established over Northern Iraq’s oil. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on October 22 said it was time for Iranian military advisers and fighters “to go home and allow the Iraqi people to regain control.” Tehran supports large parts of Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), composed mainly of Shiite militias, both militarily and financially. But they have gone through a process of state legitimization, becoming a part of Iraq’s security forces. Their status and activities are an internal Iraqi affair.

Tillerson’s statement was followed up by US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who said in an interview on Oct.25 that it is possible to contain Iran's influence in the Middle East, and that a strong Iraq would be part of that.

Coincidence or not, the American forces were deployed near the Iranian border at almost the same time Israel delivered an air strike (Dec.2) at the Syrian army’s 91st Brigade HQ, outside al-Kiswah – 14km southwest of Damascus where an alleged meeting of pro-Iranian Shia militia chiefs was taking place. On November 10, the BBC released a report that Iran was “building permanent military base in Syria.” Israeli leaders have sworn to prevent Iran from establishing permanent bases.

43 Congress members sent a letter dated Nov.14 to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson calling for a change of strategy in Syria. According to the lawmakers, “A strategy for Syria that includes how the United States plans to prevent Iran from gaining a permanent foothold on Israel and Jordan’s doorstep and to block Iranian arms exports to Hizbollah”.

Another essential component of the United States’ anti-Iran strategy is promoting Saudi-Iraqi ties. A meeting between Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud took place with US blessing when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attended the launching of Coordination Council. The abovementioned Tillerson’s statement (Oct.22) was made at his meeting with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. The US’ return to the centre stage in Iraq to challenge Iran’s regional influence will give much vigor to the US’ alliance with Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is seeking alliances that can cement its presence in Iraq. The high-level Iraqi visits to Jeddah and Riyadh have increased lately on the diplomatic, economic and military levels. Riyadh has also increased its participation in international economic forums in Baghdad, counting 60 companies that partook in Baghdad’s International Fair. This summer, Moktada al-Sadr, the leader of the Sadrist movement, which represents millions of poor Shia Muslims in Baghdad and throughout southern Iraq, paid a visit to Saudi Arabia. He also visited the United Arab Emirates, another Sunni state that opposes Iran.

The US military presence in Iran allows it to prevent the establishment by Iran of a land link to the Mediterranean via Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, boost its role in Syrian settlement, conduct covert cross-border operations to destabilize the government in Tehran and maintain staging areas to deploy reinforcements in case of war. There are signs that a coordinated campaign to roll back Iran is underway. The possibility of war against Iran has grown immensely in the recent days.

Saudi Arabia has intercepted another missile aimed at Riyadh from Yemen.

Onward and upward,
airforce