By Vince Dhimos
Serious commentators are now saying war in the Middle East is inevitable. If you look at the reasons why they think so, it is pretty scary. The facts certainly suggest war.
A few such commentaries can be found here and here.
The author linked here thinks the Saudis, the US and Israel will attack Syria.
The latter proposition sounds a little too surreal to be true and it is unlikely that those three nations would join forces because their own people would not likely back them. (We commented previously that the Saudi royals fear their own people more than anything else). The Saudis have had some publicity lately that may have hurt them with their own people, notably, a leaked cable showing that the Saudis and Israel have been eyeing an official military alliance against Iran. While the bloody Saudi dictators get along fine with kindred-spirit Israel, for the anti-Jewish Saudi people, it is not kosher – or rather not halal, to have their government get too cozy with that country.
What’s worse, the entire Muslim world has been turned against the US because of Trump’s plan to help the Judeo-Christian God out by moving the US embassy to Jerusalem (we had explained here why this is not at all scriptural, but US politicians and voters have a way of making the scriptures say what they want them to. See the post-script at the end). At any rate, this is a bad time for Saudi to be schmoozing with Israel so said alliance is unlikely.
On the other hand, the Russian Federation recently announced that it was withdrawing much of its military personnel from Syria. It has already done so to a large extent.
Meanwhile the US has announced quite the opposite. It is staying put and will keep all its bases. It has also been reported here and in the Turkish, Russian and Middle Eastern press, to be training remnants of defeated anti-government militia, including “former” ISIS fighters, notably at a refugee camp in the Khaseq governate (frequently misspelled as Hasakah). America has a war habit it just can’t shake and a fatal love affair with terrorists.
Could Russia be so naïve as to allow these US-trained militias to continue the fight to oust Assad?
Let’s see. For one thing, despite the withdrawal, Russia has left military bases in Syria and someone is certainly manning them. Besides that, the Russians had also announced a withdrawal previously, with great fanfare, but within a short time, they were back operating full force in Syria in support of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).
Of course, the Russian defence ministry has also promised that, should terrorists return to the Syrian battlefield, they are prepared to redeploy their personnel and materiel.
Moreover, Russia has been training Syrian pilots and has delivered modern aircraft to the Syrians. The Syrian Arab Army’s Facebook page proudly displays an action video of an MiG29Sy fighter based on a late model MiG upgrade.
The operators of that Facebook page (not official representatives of the SAA but knowledgeable about its activities) told me in personal correspondence that the Russians were called in only at a critical time when ISIS and Al-Qaeda were still strong and that, now that their power is broken, the Syrians are confident they can go it alone.
However, the problem is probably not Assad this time. The Iranians seem to be the target. As is usual when the US accuses a country of something, a war narrative is being set up. There are two important narratives supporting a future attack on Iran. The first is intended for “conservative” consumption and is based on the simplistic reason that Obama was the one responsible for negotiating the deal with Iran, and for many Trump voters, Obama is just plain evil and could do no good. This necessarily means that Iran is developing a nuke (although no evidence exists. It’s like Russiagate. Who needs evidence when you have a narrative promoted by billionaires?) Therefore, the Iran deal must be bad for the US and must be undone (who knows whether the Trumpies are even aware that without Iranian boots on the ground, the terrorists would still control much of Syria and Iran?). The fact that the Europeans are ok with the Iran nuclear deal is further “proof” that it simply must be a bad deal because the Europeans are also evil in their minds. After all, they initially refused to fight Iraq during Bush’s just war against that country, and while Trump had dissed Bush for that war, he seems to be having no qualms about setting up another war on the same kind of flimsy grounds. And of course, the waffling indecisive Trump is an absolute god to this large personality cult.
The other part of the narrative is the fact that the Saudis claim to have found “evidence” of Iranian weapons used by the Houthis to defend against the bloody Saudi dictators whom Americans are all supposed to patriotically support because they support us (meaning Israel). Americans must support them so that they can hold their heads up high and claim patriotism and loyalty to the government, which if they thought it over, they would realize is just the opposite of what Trump-the-candidate taught. That Trump was anti-Deep State and opposed to war. But since that anti-war Trump is now for war, then war must be necessary because the anti-war hero Americans love is for it now. Get it?And besides, Trump went and sword danced with the Saudis, so they must be just a bunch of fun-loving guys. Our series “Making the Saudis great again” here, here and here shows the real reason the US billionaires who control you love the Saudis). By the same token, Americans are supposed to hate the Houthis, a small group of Shia (patriotic Americans are supposed to hate all Shia) in Yemeni, whose men, women and children are being bombed from the air by the Saudis and are also being starved to death in what groups like the UN and Human Rights Watch are calling a desperate humanitarian crisis. But Trump followers know that these organizations are bad because they did not approve the Iraq War which Trump-the-candidate did not like. Again, the logic is clear for an amazingly high percentage of Americans.
So as in the Iraq war, a rumour of weapons of mass destruction is the motive which is legitimate this time because the peace-loving Trump says so.
Read this quote from Jesus very carefully:
37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered they children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
This is prophetic:
38. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Now ask yourself: Has Jerusalem said "blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"?
Speaking of the temple at Jerusalem:
Verily I say unto you, there shall not be one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Was Jesus blessing or condemning Jerusalem?
Would He have commanded his followers to fight to make it the capital of a country that rejected him? Has this country said "blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord"?