Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on May 14, 2018

Bookmark and Share

Gearing Up for the Third Gulf War

Public Policy

Will Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Tehran Face Off in a Future Cataclysm?

With Donald Trump’s decision to shred the Iran nuclear agreement, announced last Tuesday, it’s time for the rest of us to start thinking about what a Third Gulf War would mean. The answer, based on the last 16 years of American experience in the Greater Middle East, is that it won’t be pretty.

The New York Times recently reported that U.S. Army Special Forces were secretly aiding the Saudi Arabian military against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. It was only the latest sign preceding President Trump’s Iran announcement that Washington was gearing up for the possibility of another interstate war in the Persian Gulf region. The first two Gulf wars — Operation Desert Storm (the 1990 campaign to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait) and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq — ended in American “victories” that unleashed virulent strains of terrorism like ISIS, uprooted millions, and unsettled the Greater Middle East in disastrous ways. The Third Gulf War — not against Iraq but Iran and its allies — will undoubtedly result in another American “victory” that could loose even more horrific forces of chaos and bloodshed.

Like the first two Gulf wars, the third could involve high-intensity clashes between an array of American forces and those of Iran, another well-armed state. While the United States has been fighting ISIS and other terrorist entities in the Middle East and elsewhere in recent years, such warfare bears little relation to engaging a modern state determined to defend its sovereign territory with professional armed forces that have the will, if not necessarily the wherewithal, to counter major U.S. weapons systems.

A Third Gulf War would distinguish itself from recent Middle Eastern conflicts by the geographic span of the fighting and the number of major actors that might become involved. In all likelihood, the field of battle would stretch from the shores of the Mediterranean, where Lebanon abuts Israel, to the Strait of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf empties into the Indian Ocean. Participants could include, on one side, Iran, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and assorted Shia militias in Iraq and Yemen; and, on the other, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  If the fighting in Syria were to get out of hand, Russian forces could even become involved.

All of these forces have been equipping themselves with massive arrays of modern weaponry in recent years, ensuring that any fighting will be intense, bloody, and horrifically destructive. Iran has been acquiring an assortment of modern weapons from Russia and possesses its own substantial arms industry. It, in turn, has been supplying the Assad regime with modern arms and is suspected of shipping an array of missiles and other munitions to Hezbollah. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have long been major recipients of tens of billions of dollars of sophisticated American weaponry and President Trump has promised to supply them with so much more.

This means that, once ignited, a Third Gulf War could quickly escalate and would undoubtedly generate large numbers of civilian and military casualties, and new flows of refugees. The United States and its allies would try to quickly cripple Iran’s war-making capabilities, a task that would require multiple waves of air and missile strikes, some surely directed at facilities in densely populated areas. Iran and its allies would seek to respond by attacking high-value targets in Israel and Saudi Arabia, including cities and oil facilities. Iran’s Shia allies in Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere could be expected to launch attacks of their own on the U.S.-led alliance. Where all this would lead, once such fighting began, is of course impossible to predict, but the history of the twenty-first century suggests that, whatever happens, it won’t follow the carefully laid plans of commanding generals (or their civilian overseers) and won’t end either expectably or well.

Precisely what kind of incident or series of events would ignite a war of this sort is similarly unpredictable.  Nonetheless, it seems obvious that the world is moving ever closer to a moment when the right (or perhaps the better word is wrong) spark could set off a chain of events leading to full-scale hostilities in the Middle East in the wake of President Trump’s recent rejection of the nuclear deal. It’s possible, for instance, to imagine a clash between Israeli and Iranian military contingents in Syria sparking such a conflict. The Iranians, it is claimed, have set up bases there both to support the Assad regime and to funnel arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon. On May 10th, Israeli jets struck several such sites, following a missile barrage on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights said to have been launched by Iranian soldiers in Syria. More Israeli strikes certainly lie in our future as Iran presses its drive to establish and control a so-called land bridge through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. Another possible spark could involve collisions or other incidents between American and Iranian naval vessels in the Persian Gulf, where the two navies frequently approach each other in an aggressive manner. Whatever the nature of the initial clash, rapid escalation to full-scale hostilities could occur with very little warning.

All of this begs a question: Why are the United States and its allies in the region moving ever closer to another major war in the Persian Gulf? Why now?

The Geopolitical Impulse

The first two Gulf Wars were driven, to a large extent, by the geopolitics of oil. After World War II, as the United States became increasingly dependent on imported sources of petroleum, it drew ever closer to Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil producer. Under the Carter Doctrine of January 1980, the U.S. pledged for the first time to use force, if necessary, to prevent any interruption in the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to this country and its allies. Ronald Reagan, the first president to implement that doctrine, authorized the “reflagging” of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil tankers with the stars and stripes during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War that began in 1980 and their protection by the U.S. Navy. When Iranian gunboats menaced such tankers, American vessels drove them off in incidents that represented the first actual military clashes between the U.S. and Iran. At the time, President Reagan put the matter in no uncertain terms: “The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians.”

Oil geopolitics also figured prominently in the U.S. decision to intervene in the First Gulf War. When Iraqi forces occupied Kuwait in August 1990 and appeared poised to invade Saudi Arabia, President George H.W. Bush announced that the U.S. would send forces to defend the kingdom and so played out the Carter Doctrine in real time. “Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence,” he declared, adding that “the sovereign independence of Saudi Arabia is of vital interest to the United States.”

Although the oil dimension of U.S. strategy was less obvious in President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in March 2003, it was still there. Members of his inner circle, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the safety of Persian Gulf oil lanes and needed to be eliminated. Others in the administration were eager to pursue the prospect of privatizing Iraq’s state-owned oil fields and turning them over to American oil companies (a notion that evidently stuck in Donald Trump’s mind, as he repeatedly asserted during the 2016 election campaign that “we should have kept the oil”).

Today, oil has receded, if not entirely disappeared, as a major factor in Persian Gulf geopolitics, while other issues have moved to the fore. Of greatest significance in animating the current military standoff is an escalating struggle for regional dominance between Iran and Saudi Arabia (with a nuclear-armed Israel lurking in the wings). Both countries view themselves as the hub of a network of like-minded states and societies — Iran as the leader of the region’s Shia populations, Saudi Arabia of its Sunnis — and both resent any gains by the other. To complicate matters, President Trump, clearly harboring deep antipathy toward the Iranians, has chosen to side with the Saudis big league (as he might say), while Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel, fearing Iranian advances in the region, has opted to weigh in on the Saudi side of the equation in a major way as well. The result, as suggested by military historian Andrew Bacevich, is the “inauguration of a Saudi-American-Israeli axis” and a “major realignment of U.S. strategic relationships.”

Several key factors explain this transition from an oil-centric strategy emphasizing military power to a more conventional struggle among regional rivals that has already deeply embroiled the planet’s last superpower. To begin with, America’s reliance on imported oil has diminished rapidly in recent years, thanks to an oil drilling revolution in the U.S. that has allowed the massive exploitation of domestic shale reserves through the process of fracking. As a result, access to Persian Gulf supplies matters far less in Washington than it did in previous decades. In 2001, according to oil giant BP, the United States relied on imports for 61% of its net oil consumption; by 2016, that share had dropped to 37% and was still falling — and yet the U.S. remains deeply involved in the region as a decade and a half of unending war, counterinsurgency, drone strikes, and other kinds of strife sadly indicate.

By invading and occupying Iraq in 2003, Washington also eliminated a major bulwark of Sunni power, a country led by Saddam Hussein who, two decades earlier, had been siding with the U.S. in opposing Iran. That invasion, ironically enough, had the effect of expanding Shiite influence and making Iran the major — possibly the only — winner in the years of war that followed. Some Western analysts believe that the greatest tragedy of the invasion, from a geopolitical point of view, was the ascension of Shiite politicians with close ties to Tehran in post-Hussein Iraq. Although that country’s current leaders appear intent on pursuing a path of their own in the post-ISIS moment, many powerful Iraqi Shiite militias — including some that played key roles in driving Islamic State militants out of Mosul and other major cities — retain close ties to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

While disasters in themselves, the wars in Syria and Yemen have only added additional complexity to the geopolitical chessboard on which Washington found itself after that invasion and from which it has never extricated itself. In Syria, Iran has chosen to ally with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to preserve the brutal Assad regime, providing it with arms, funds, and an unknown number of advisers from the Revolutionary Guards. Hezbollah, a Shiite political group in Lebanon with a significant military wing, has sent large numbers of its own fighters to Syria to help Assad’s forces. In Yemen, the Iranians are believed to be providing arms and missile technology to the Houthis, a homegrown Shiite rebel group that now controls the northern half of the country, including the capital, Sana’a.

The Saudis, in turn, have been playing an ever more active role in bolstering their military power and protecting embattled Sunni communities throughout the region. Seeking to resist and reverse what they view as Iranian advances, they have helped arm militias of an extreme sort and evidently even al-Qaeda-associated groups under attack from Iranian-backed Shiite forces in Iraq and Syria. In 2015, in the case of Yemen, they organized a coalition of Sunni Arab states to crush the Houthi rebels in a brutal war that has included a blockade of the country, helping to produce mass famine and a relentless American-backed air campaign, which often hits civilian targets including markets, schools, and weddings. This combination has helped produce an estimated 10,000 civilian deaths and a singular humanitarian crisis in that already impoverished country.

In response to these developments, the Obama administration sought to calm the situation by negotiating a nuclear deal with the Iranians and by holding out the promise of increased economic ties with the West in return for reduced assertiveness outside its borders. Such a strategy never, however, won the support of Israel or Saudi Arabia. And in the Obama years, Washington continued to support both of those countries in a major way, including supplying massive amounts of military equipment, refueling Saudi planes in midair so they could strike deeper into Yemen, and providing the Saudis with targeting intelligence for their disastrous war.

The Anti-Iranian Triumvirate

All of these regional developments, in play before Donald Trump was elected, have only gained added momentum since then, thanks in no small degree to the pivotal personalities involved.

The first of them, of course, is President Trump. Throughout his election campaign, he regularly denounced the nuclear deal that Iran, the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union all signed onto in July 2015. Officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the agreement forced Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program in return for the lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions. It was a plan that Iran scrupulously adhered to. Although President Obama, many senior American policymakers, and most European leaders had argued that the JCPOA — whatever its flaws — provided a valuable constraint on Iran’s nuclear (and so other) ambitions, Trump consistently denounced it as a “terrible deal” because it failed to eliminate every last vestige of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure or ban that country’s missile program. “This deal was a disaster,” he told David Sanger of the New York Times in March 2016.

While Trump, who has filled his administration with Iranophobes, including his new secretary of state and new national security adviser, seems to harbor a primeval animosity toward the Iranians, perhaps because they don’t treat him with the adoration he feels he deserves, he has a soft spot for the Saudi royals, who do. In May 2017, on his first trip abroad as president, he traveled to Riyadh, where he performed a sword dance with Saudi princes and immersed himself in the sort of ostentatious displays of wealth only oil potentates can provide.

While in Riyadh, he conferred at length with then-Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the 31-year-old son of King Salman and a key architect of Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical contest with the Iranians. Prince Mohammed, who serves as the Saudi defense minister and was named crown prince in June 2017, is the prime mover behind the kingdom’s (so far unsuccessful) drive to crush the Houthi rebels in Yemen and is known to harbor fierce anti-Iranian views.

At an earlier White House luncheon in March 2017, bin Salman, or MBS as he’s sometimes known, and President Trump seemed to reach an implicit agreement on a common strategy for branding Iran a regional threat, tearing up the nuclear agreement, and so setting the stage for an eventual war to vanquish that country or at least to fell the regime that runs it. While in Riyadh, President Trump told a conference of Sunni Arab leaders that, “from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death of America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.”

While no doubt gratifying to the Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, and other Sunni rulers listening, those words echoed the views of the third key player in the strategic triumvirate that may soon drive the region into all-out war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also known as “Bibi.” For years, he has railed against Iranian ambitions in the region and threatened military action against any Iranian move that would, as he saw it, impinge on Israeli security. Now, in Trump and the Saudi Crown Prince, he has the allies of his dreams. In the Obama years, Netanyahu was a fierce opponent of the Iranian nuclear deal and used a rare appearance before a joint session of Congress in March 2015 to denounce it in no uncertain terms. He has never — right up to the days before Trump withdrew from the accord — stopped working to persuade the president that the agreement should be junked and Iran targeted.

In that 2015 speech to Congress, Netanyahu laid out a vision of Iran as a systemic danger that would later be appropriated by Trump and his Saudi confederates in Riyadh. “Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world,” he asserted in a typically hyperbolic statement. “Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic strait at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.”

Now, Netanyahu is playing a major role in driving the already crippled region into a war that could further destroy it, produce yet more terror groups (and terrorized civilians), and create havoc on a potentially global scale, given that both Russia and China back the Iranians.

Girding for War

Pay attention to the words of Netanyahu in Washington and Donald Trump in Riyadh. Think of them not as political rhetoric, but as prophesies of a grim kind. You’re going to be hearing a lot more such prophesies in the months ahead as the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia move closer to war with Iran and its allies. While ideology and religion will play a part in what follows, the underlying impetus is a geopolitical struggle for control of the greater Persian Gulf region, with all its riches, between two sets of countries, each determined to prevail.

No one can say with certainty when, or even if, these powerful forces will produce a devastating new war or set of wars in the Middle East. Other considerations — an unexpected flare-up on the Korean Peninsula if President Trump’s talks with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un end in failure, a fresh crisis with Russia, a global economic meltdown — could turn attention elsewhere, lessening the importance of the geopolitical contest in the Persian Gulf. New leadership in any of the key countries could similarly lead to a change of course. Netanyahu, for example, is now at risk of losing power because of an ongoing Israeli police investigation into allegedly corrupt acts of his, and Trump, well, who can say? Without such a development or developments, however, the way to war, which will surely prove to be the road to hell, seems open with a Third Gulf War looming on humanity’s horizon.

 Michael T. Klare

Tom Dispatch

17 Comments on "Gearing Up for the Third Gulf War"

  1. eugene on Mon, 14th May 2018 7:57 pm 

    America hasn’t ever hesitated to kill. It’s kind of our national pass time. Course it’s always for a good cause. You can trust the media to make it a good cause. Russia sells arms but is a mere shadow of the US. It is always a good tactic to mention Russia. Keeps the fires burning so to speak.

  2. Duncan Idaho on Mon, 14th May 2018 8:34 pm 

    We are not going to have the casualties of Bush/Cheney.
    That was a bloodbath.

  3. Cloggie on Tue, 15th May 2018 12:19 am 

    The Donald is going to blow up the US empire. During the Iraq disaster, when the Shia managed to drive back the Americans into the Green Zone, France, Germany, Russia and China were neutral.

    That will be no longer the case here. The whole world backs the Obama deal.

    This time sophisticated Russian and Chinese missiles will be used by the Iranians against the US.

    In 1982, a “2nd world country” like Argentina would have beaten the UK over the Falklands, provided they had acquired some extra French Exocet missiles, which US diplomacy under Alexander Haig knew to prevent, albeit lukewarm.

    Today’s missiles are far better than those Exocet fire crackers. The US ships are toast anyway, but I can’t even see how the US will acquire its famed “air supremacy” this time.

    The key to a Eurasian victory over the United States is to achieve a US casualty rate in the tens of thousands. Vietnam has shown that the US can’t take more before serious protests erupt.

    In contrast to 1975, today the US are ethnically a deeply divided country. A 50,000 casualty rate could initiate a serious uprising within the US itself, if the war isn’t going anywhere.

    Europe should respond with determination if the US initiates sanctions against Europe for non-compliance with anti-Iranian sanctions. We can boycott Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and replace them with European/Eurasian stuff (Samsung, Linux, Android, European online platforms). Russia did the same after useless anti-Russian sanctions. Globalism is mostly in the interest of the US but the rest not so much (“we print dollars, you work”).

    Let’s bring it on.

  4. MASTERMIND on Tue, 15th May 2018 12:43 am 


    Europe is on notice..

  5. Makati1 on Tue, 15th May 2018 12:48 am 

    Duncan, the Bush years will look like a picnic when the US invades Iran. Wait and see. The Us casualties will be int the tens of thousands. Maybe multiples of that. The Us has not fought a real army in four generations. Only goat herds.

  6. Cloggie on Tue, 15th May 2018 1:25 am 

    Europe is on notice..”

    I’m trembling in my boots.

    Note that like yesterday, millimind is posting during Pacific/Vancouver hours

  7. DerHundistlos on Tue, 15th May 2018 2:19 am 

    Notice that when Trump announced the US’ unilateral withdrawal from the agreement with Iran, he could not cite even a single Iranian violation.

    No doubt about it, Trump is itching for a war and he will have one before his term is up. Trump could care less about the consequences, which may very well be the final nail in the US empire coffin.

  8. deadly on Tue, 15th May 2018 5:32 am 

    55 Palestinians died yesterday. They doth protest too much. There are better things to do.

    You have to make choices.

  9. Davy on Tue, 15th May 2018 5:47 am 

    The US is not going to invade Iran. Look at the map and tell me how the US could amass the necessary equipment for such an invasion. I watch very closely with fascination the whole buildup and commencement of hostilities when the US invaded Iraq those conditions are not present today. Most of all public support is not there and other nations necessary for a staging ground don’t support it. Even a false flag initiator is not going to make it happen. It takes months to build up troops and supplies. Those conditions that made that huge operation possible are not there today for ground troops. We are talking a couple of hundred thousand troops and that is ground troops. You then need even more support troops dedicated all over the world. Afghanistan route is dependent on Pakistan for troop and supply movement. It is a precarious journey and Pakistan would most likely not allow it. Afghanistan is likely not going to allow the US to use its country for an invasion staging ground. There are nowhere near enough troops currently in Afghanistan now for the invasion. Iraq is not going to allow US troops to move through from Kuwait. There are very few troops in Kuwait currently. Turkey didn’t allow the US through in Iraq why would it with Iran especially now with relations so poor.

    An even bigger issue is the current US military posture. It is not the same military it was 15 years ago. The US is much more committed in multiple regions today. The money is not there. The players in the region are different. This is not going to be a ground war with Iran it could be an air war. Air wars degrade they don’t win. We will likely see a continuation of a proxy war in Syria and Yemen and that is it. It is possible that Iran could be attacked by the air but the damage would be great to all sides. Why do you think the US did not attack a few years ago? It knew all too well it would not gain any advantage from attacking Iran. The whole ME oil infrastructure thing is in play too. An air war in this region could disable the global economy from a quick war induced oil shock that would last years not months. Extremist and people with agendas don’t think about the practical side of invasions. They are just playing their mind games. They fantasize about the outcome and disregard the nitty gritty of getting it done. Lots of uneducated armchair military guys here especially the anti-American crew itching for war.

  10. Dooma on Tue, 15th May 2018 6:36 am 

    Mmmm yes Davy, look at all “the anti-American crew itching for war”.

    It must be quite concerning to such a peace-loving nation such as the US. I mean since WW2 America has just been sitting on their hands minding their own business.

    Thankfully they have not built bases in all corners of the globe or have stupendously large Army/Navy/Airforce.

    Yep, them Americans are just simple folk never looking for trouble. It must be very alarming for all your generals in the Pentagon.

  11. Davy on Tue, 15th May 2018 7:11 am 

    “Mmmm yes Davy, look at all “the anti-American crew itching for war”.
    Doomoo, your buddy 3rd world talks about war daily. While I am not sure the nedernazi is your buddy but he is broadcasting war daily. What about you? I think you would love to see the US to get into war with China and get its ass kicked because you are one of those who is part of the angry anti-American Anglo squad. 95% of your comments are the same anti-American shit. Thank god your numbers are dropping on this forum. Talk about some delusional characters. To think we consider Australian and Canada allies is beyond me. You guys are concerned with one thing and that is degrading and diminishing the US in every way shape and form. There are good Canadian and Australian sheeples but they are drowned out by the assholes. There is no concern for what is good in the US because from your viewpoint there is nothing good that is American. The US is a convenient scapegoat for all your nastiness. You guys are just as bad and as a matter of fact if you somehow would have been the superpower the world would likely be over by now because of your condescending holier than thou attitudes. It is people like the Anglo anti-Americans that have a special deep reserve of hate and will go to whatever means it takes to get to an end. Oh but they act respectable and peace loving but that is just a deception for their real intentions.

    “It must be quite concerning to such a peace-loving nation such as the US. I mean since WW2 America has just been sitting on their hands minding their own business.”
    What are you talking about dumba? How does that relate to what I said? I am talking about the mechanics of war and how it is unlikely there will be a ground war in Iran. Get back on topic dummy and quit the childish anti-American gibberish.

    “Thankfully they have not built bases in all corners of the globe or have stupendously large Army/Navy/Airforce.”
    Oh, now we want to be a sarc clown.

    “Yep, them Americans are just simple folk never looking for trouble. It must be very alarming for all your generals in the Pentagon.”
    You are so cute dumba please give us some more. Lol. Are you capable of contributing or just being a cute load mouth?

  12. Sissyfuss on Tue, 15th May 2018 9:02 am 

    Ike warned us about the MIC becoming the primary guiding force of the republic and it has come to fruition. It has become a cancer so engulfing that to remove it would kill the host. The flag wavers and support the troops fanatics are like the troops themselves, conditioned to follow blindly wherever their leaders direct them. Money and power are in charge of our collective fate now and to follow blindly or fully aware matters not. We shall ride this wave en masse til it crashes upon the rocks.

  13. Rockwellstartrek on Tue, 15th May 2018 2:01 pm 

    War would be a great diversion from the findings of the Mueller probe and jin up the base for the 2018 election – make america great again!

  14. MASTERMIND on Tue, 15th May 2018 2:08 pm 


    Yes the people on the right have been conditioned to the level of Pavlov’s dogs..

  15. Theedrich on Wed, 16th May 2018 1:16 am 

    Gulf War 3 would be good for the earth.  Yippee! If dog-wagger Bibi had his way, the U.S. would try to “decapitate” Iran from space using our orbiting mini-nukes.  In return, the “dead-hand” strategy of the Persians would instantly result in rockets being launched across the short Gulf distance to the Abqaiq global oil spigot and lesser Saudi petroleum operations, thereby terminating Araby’s role as oil teat to the world.

    That would mean the end of the high-rolling, oil-dependent West.  No more fun and games, no more virtue signalling, no more effectiveness to all of the sob stories.  Only desperation.

    The power lords in DC know all of this, of course.  So their main technique will be relying on unending proxy wars, propaganda and sanctions to wear down Iran and affiliates.  The Gaia-destroying lube job must continue.  So there will be no GW3.

  16. Cloggie on Wed, 16th May 2018 1:53 am 

    “The power lords in DC know all of this, of course. So their main technique will be relying on unending proxy wars, propaganda and sanctions to wear down Iran and affiliates. The Gaia-destroying lube job must continue. So there will be no GW3.”

    That is correct, which leaves only one question to be answered: is DJT a DC powerlord drowned in The Swamp or is he a closet white nationalist, determined to destroy ZOG from within?

    I say 60/40 he is the latter.

  17. Cloggie on Wed, 16th May 2018 12:06 pm 

    In 1939 Poland volunteered to be Washington’s useful idiot in getting the war started.

    At least Donald Tusk refuses to fulfill that role and he happens to be the president of the EU:

    Tusk literally: “with friends like Trump, who needs enemies?”.

    The quip is not entirely original but makes a clear statement nevertheless. Turks doesn’t want to consider breaking with the US, but we have to be prepared for negative developments and if necessary act alone. What Europe needs is more unity and resolve. European companies need to be protected against US sanctions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *