Obviously, for some probably crazy reason (maybe numerology, which is allegedly popular with the IMF’s Christine Lagarde), the “war party” have decided now is the time for the final showdown. No more pussyfooting around with wimpy things like diplomacy and international law. Just get in there and start mixing it up, whether it be Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Syria, or Yemen, and anyone who doesn’t like it can just suck on America’s Exceptionalism.
If anyone doubted the US is going for broke on a global scale the Saudi attack on Yemen makes it impossible to do so any longer. Washington may claim it’s a bystander in this conflict, but that’s just a routine Washington lie. The US wants total control of the Middle East. The recent Houthi uprising in Yemen threatens that control and therefore has to be crushed. Enter the Saudis and other US vassals, willing as always to allow Washington to wear the fig leaf of deniability. It’s also, of course, a bid by the “war party” to derail the encroaching international rapprochement with Iran. There’s no profit in peace – not for the psychopaths who get high on chaos, or the makers of military equipment, or the investors in “restructuring” when the bombs stop falling. War is their friend. War allows occupation and exploitation to pass by unnoticed in the fog. So, Iran must be dragged to war over Yemen, just as Russia must be dragged to war over Ukraine.
Unless sanity prevails – and it probably won’t – the entire Middle East will soon be a war zone. And when Iran gets sucked in – as of course it must – then a second front of proxy-war with Russia is effectively opened. Which of course is the “plan” (if anything so deranged can deserve the name). Nuland and her buddies think they will watch the ensuing WW3 on their office TVs and it will all be over by lunch time. Then they will of course inherit the earth.
It won’t be like that of course, but by the time they realise this it will be too late to matter.
Note the Guardian obediently presenting this latest bout of NATO/US aggression sans context as yet another reactive “defence of democracy.”
Is it at all strange how routinely the US needs to defend democracy in regions of key strategic or material interest? No. Of course not. The question is ridiculous. (Probably wise they have not opened this piece up for comment though).