by NoOneImportant » Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:45 pm
With the Beirut Iranian Embassy bombing being attributable to Hezbollah - regardless of Debka's credibility - It starts to look like I need to start taking notes in the Middle East regarding who does what to whom, and when.
When the Fordow enrichment facility was bombed removing 3000 active centrifuges from Iran's enrichment program, it was naturally believed that the Israelis were the most probable responsible party. With Prince Bandar's contention, to the Russian's, that Saudi Arabia is able to control Caucasian terror, forces that might jeopardize a peaceful Russian Olympic Games, the contention that the Israelis, and no others, might be responsible for Fordow, might be revisited, and questioned. With the events - from Debka, certainly a source that needs to be questioned - stating that Hezbollah is the responsible source for the Beirut Embassy bombing, almost everything coming out of the Middle East's recent past needs to be reevaluated, and more closely questioned in the future.
In the best of times murder is a way of life in the Middle East, with lying being the normal course of human interaction. There are starting to be so many antagonists that a score card is necessary to assess who did what to whom, and when. There appears to be an ever increasing slide toward chaos taking place in the Middle East, with greater and greater difficulty in determining who is responsible for what. Anyone who has ever been in a position where lying is the routine method of human communications quickly comes to the conclusion that the only way to be sure of the truth is to: listen to what they say, but then watch what they do. With enough stress people will tell you whatever they "need" to tell you at the moment - in the Middle East that stress might be considered simply being awake - ; but, whether they are lying or not, what they do will always reflect what they really believe - listen to what they say, but then watch what they do to determine reality. Living like this makes life quite difficult, as paranoia is one of the major byproducts of adopting this method of analysis, as everything must be questioned, and evaluated.
So what unusual is happening in the Middle East? One might just as easily ask: so what isn't; but what can't be ignored is that something has happened to cause Iran to exhibited an extraordinary external change of position. Iran will now do what, until recently, what was unfatomable; not only will they meet with the Great Satan, but will discuss their nuclear ambitions? As John has noted in his articles, this is more than just a simple change of verbiage, although the verbiage, in Islamic circles, is telling. What the Iranians are doing may represent earnest change on their part, or perhaps their nuclear program was always something in place only to be bargained away at the appropriate moment. In any case the question is why, and why now? It may be simple duplicity necessary to buy the time to complete Iran's nuclear bomb fabrication, or the change may be in earnest. If the change is real, what has happened to alter a 25 year recalcitrant Iranian antagonistic position towards America and Israel? A position that remained unaltered even in the face of a U.S. invasion of Iraq? Why, and what has caused Iran to have "changed?" Almost at the same moment that Iran gets "religion" and decides to become a responsible international player, at that moment those wonderful people who gave you the 1981 Marine barracks bombing get a conscience and decide to withdraw from Syria after 10s of thousands of innocent deaths? An unrestrained Saudi Arabia might be something to be feared by the Shi'a Iranians, and indeed the Saudis might have found it easier to perpetrate the Fordow bombing than the Israelis, and may have had as much to gain by disabling the Fordow facility as the Israelis. The Saudis control the wellspring of Islam - Mecca - and might conceivably be able to galvanize/organize a united entire Sunni world against Iran; and with that Sunni organization comes a nuclear armed Pakistan who might conceivably pass a nuclear device or two onto the Saudi controlled Sunni terror network - a network that no one is even really sure exists, Prince Bandar's assurances aside - for actual use in Iran. But the Saudis may see it as the only way - given Iran's world wide history of terror - to assure that they - Saudi Arabia - are not at the top of any nuclear armed Iranian terror hit list. Any such move would be quite scary, and not just for Iran. Although there is no historical precedent for something so radical - Prince Bandar's comments to the Russians, with recent Iranian, Hezbollah actions, and Debka contentions, give cause for consideration.
What isn't far fetched is that after the U.S. Syrian debacle, Saudi Arabia will no longer be restrained, or influenced by America - as punctuated by the Saudis refusing to accept their seat on the U.N. Security Council.
But then again what do I know: listen to what they say; then watch what they do.
With the Beirut Iranian Embassy bombing being attributable to Hezbollah - regardless of Debka's credibility - It starts to look like I need to start taking notes in the Middle East regarding who does what to whom, and when.
When the Fordow enrichment facility was bombed removing 3000 active centrifuges from Iran's enrichment program, it was naturally believed that the Israelis were the most probable responsible party. With Prince Bandar's contention, to the Russian's, that Saudi Arabia is able to control Caucasian terror, forces that might jeopardize a peaceful Russian Olympic Games, the contention that the Israelis, and no others, might be responsible for Fordow, might be revisited, and questioned. With the events - from Debka, certainly a source that needs to be questioned - stating that Hezbollah is the responsible source for the Beirut Embassy bombing, almost everything coming out of the Middle East's recent past needs to be reevaluated, and more closely questioned in the future.
In the best of times murder is a way of life in the Middle East, with lying being the normal course of human interaction. There are starting to be so many antagonists that a score card is necessary to assess who did what to whom, and when. There appears to be an ever increasing slide toward chaos taking place in the Middle East, with greater and greater difficulty in determining who is responsible for what. Anyone who has ever been in a position where lying is the routine method of human communications quickly comes to the conclusion that the only way to be sure of the truth is to: listen to what they say, but then watch what they do. With enough stress people will tell you whatever they "need" to tell you at the moment - in the Middle East that stress might be considered simply being awake - ; but, whether they are lying or not, what they do will always reflect what they really believe - listen to what they say, but then watch what they do to determine reality. Living like this makes life quite difficult, as paranoia is one of the major byproducts of adopting this method of analysis, as everything must be questioned, and evaluated.
So what unusual is happening in the Middle East? One might just as easily ask: so what isn't; but what can't be ignored is that something has happened to cause Iran to exhibited an extraordinary external change of position. Iran will now do what, until recently, what was unfatomable; not only will they meet with the Great Satan, but will discuss their nuclear ambitions? As John has noted in his articles, this is more than just a simple change of verbiage, although the verbiage, in Islamic circles, is telling. What the Iranians are doing may represent earnest change on their part, or perhaps their nuclear program was always something in place only to be bargained away at the appropriate moment. In any case the question is why, and why now? It may be simple duplicity necessary to buy the time to complete Iran's nuclear bomb fabrication, or the change may be in earnest. If the change is real, what has happened to alter a 25 year recalcitrant Iranian antagonistic position towards America and Israel? A position that remained unaltered even in the face of a U.S. invasion of Iraq? Why, and what has caused Iran to have "changed?" Almost at the same moment that Iran gets "religion" and decides to become a responsible international player, at that moment those wonderful people who gave you the 1981 Marine barracks bombing get a conscience and decide to withdraw from Syria after 10s of thousands of innocent deaths? An unrestrained Saudi Arabia might be something to be feared by the Shi'a Iranians, and indeed the Saudis might have found it easier to perpetrate the Fordow bombing than the Israelis, and may have had as much to gain by disabling the Fordow facility as the Israelis. The Saudis control the wellspring of Islam - Mecca - and might conceivably be able to galvanize/organize a united entire Sunni world against Iran; and with that Sunni organization comes a nuclear armed Pakistan who might conceivably pass a nuclear device or two onto the Saudi controlled Sunni terror network - a network that no one is even really sure exists, Prince Bandar's assurances aside - for actual use in Iran. But the Saudis may see it as the only way - given Iran's world wide history of terror - to assure that they - Saudi Arabia - are not at the top of any nuclear armed Iranian terror hit list. Any such move would be quite scary, and not just for Iran. Although there is no historical precedent for something so radical - Prince Bandar's comments to the Russians, with recent Iranian, Hezbollah actions, and Debka contentions, give cause for consideration.
What isn't far fetched is that after the U.S. Syrian debacle, Saudi Arabia will no longer be restrained, or influenced by America - as punctuated by the Saudis refusing to accept their seat on the U.N. Security Council.
But then again what do I know: listen to what they say; then watch what they do.