"Surreal Coincidences"


I find it quite "interesting" that the price of crude has gone down from 133$ from 3 days ago to 127$ today --when all analysts were speculating that it would reach the 200$ ceiling.

133 $ was just before the Doha agreements, 127$ right after...and more predictions on its price decline.

I suppose the new American-Iranian deal on Lebanon does pay off, specially bearing in mind that not too long ago, Ahmadijenad stated that the price of oil was not high enough for his taste.

Bush being totally lost, ran to the Saudis urging them to bring it down, they shook their heads with a polite NO. Bush was not pleased with that....But Doha arranged it all with its new American-Iranian deal on Lebanon and Syria.

If you want to find out more on how "surreal coincidences" occur, you need to read this article - "Lebanon's deals hint at new regional accord".

By the way I don't agree with the theory that affirms blindly that the deal between Syria and Israel is to isolate Iran. As I've mentioned in my previous posts, Syria will never forfeit its privileged strategic relation with Iran in exchange for the Golan Heights. This thing has been cooking since the Israeli war of aggression on Lebanon in 2006 (and some argue way before) and this latter was only the paving of the way...the beginning of a new road map...

It is also quite "interesting" that the Israeli war of aggression in 06 and the Hezb show of "divine resistance" took place at the height when the other proxy Iranian militias conducted their ethnic cleansing in Iraq, enhancing Iran's political grip in Baghdad - the center, in the South (rich in oil) and today in the North of Iraq -(Mosul and Kirkuk, again rich in oil) and this time with the direct help of the Kurdish warlords. All done under an American occupation.

I guess it was/is another "surreal coincidence." Or maybe just the old political ploy/adage - wage a war to make a peace.
Wage a war to justify a peace now that Iraq has been "neutralized." from its Arab, anti-zionist, anti-Imperialist role.

And, on a side note, until this very day, the Iraqi Sunnis cannot get themselves to form an accord with this sectarian Iranian government. Today, the Sunnis have walked out again.

All of this makes you also wonder, that with an Israel- Syria breakthrough, a return of the Lebanese prisoners back to the Hezb (which was really the starting point of the war in 06), and possibly a deal on the Shab'aa farms in Lebanon (since they are tied in with Syria), and add a possible accord between the PA and Hamas (in the making after this breakthrough)--with all of that, what will the Iranian Nasrallah new rhetoric be about?

Want to know ? Are you sure ? He/they will have IRAQ left. Iraq where the clear cut Iranian-American deal is on the table. All Iraqis know it and see it, except you. Another little show of force and a few barks here and there, and they will both rush to another Doha table.

I guess you can call that another "surreal coincidence" in the making...

And further down the line, expect more of the Iraqi "experiment" to take place where there are Shia minorities --in particular Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan. Bahrain and Kuwait have already sold it to both -- the U.S and Iran.

In any case, the latest events in Lebanon and what really took place was Iran's show of bargaining power over Lebanon through its proxy militia - the Hezb. And it was not so much directed against the U.S but very much against Saudi Arabia.

In conclusion, and to make it real simple for you - expect to see more deals along the same lines - with the first preliminary secret "affair" between America and Iran in Iraq taking on more of a public, cajoling ouverture...

And as the popular saying goes "Birds of feather, flock together" or to use more political terms - One fundamentalism calls onto the other. And what better racist fundamentalists are they around in the Middle East, but US/Israel and Iran ?

"Surreal Coincidences"- indeed.


Painting: Iraqi artist, Mowafak Abdel Hadi Al Rassam

Comments

KM said…
OHHHH YEAAAAHHH BAAAAABYYYY !

http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/260508Dollar.htm

Check out this article Layla.
Two days ago in the US ( Monday ), was the natioanal holiday called Memorial Day. What perfect timing. Maybe a wreath should be laid on the grave site of the US Dollar.

I originally come upon this article from a Doha News site.

The GCC ( Gulf Cooperation Council )will and are beginning to drop it's currency peg to the US dollar. The 6 GCC countries are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Oman & Bahrain. Kuwait dropped it last May according to this piece and sites that the US of the US dollar is causing inflation. Similar problems are happening accross the Gulf. I believe Vietnam abandoned the US dollar a while ago and other Asian block countries will do likewise. Iran alos is off the US dollar.

The US governemnt is pretending that everything is OK and the dollar is strong enough to make it thru. Ha, yeah right ! The US appears to be trying to save-face as if THEY are in control.

The dollar will not be the reserve currency much longer.

OH WELL
KM said…
MAYBE, the Israelis (in government) have come to the realization that they have followed the US down a road that reads DEAD END.

Now, because of the declining conditions inside the US, the diabolical illegal invasion into Iraq and occupying it, America's NEED to suck on the MidEast oil tit along with the rise of other powers...they've been somewhat forced to abandon attack plans and rely on 'negotiations / deals'.

Likewise it certainly appears that the US no longer has the 'control' over the MidEast and had to succomb to Not forcing countries to peg their currency to the US dollar.

Israel is not a member of OPEC. All it can do is latch on to a regional power at this point and the US is certainly not in a condition where it can attack Iran.

kissy - kissy :-)
Layla Anwar said…
KM,

VERY GOOD analysis.

By the way I read your link

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE21Ak02.html - American foreign policy in tatters after I wrote this last post. A good article by the way, even though I don't agree with all of it. But the bit about the oil kind of joins what I just wrote in this post.

I agree with you from the last thread that Naz is trying to gather more popular support but not for Lebanon, but for IRANIAN IRAQ and in particular the Sadr wing since according to Iran, Maliki is tilting too much towards the Americans. In other words, Iran does not mind Maliki bedding the yankees occasionally on a few muta nights, as long as it does not become a permanent marriage!

And Iran really would like to have the upper hand in ALL of IRAQI's AFFAIRS. The GZ govt is doing a good job but NOT ENOUGH TO THE IRANIAN FULL GREEDY TASTE.

Americans are definitely stuck. Your bit about Israel makes sense but do remember that Olmert is on his way out and a harder line of Likud is in. And that explains why BUSH gave a loving declaration at the Knesset in his last visit, not so much for assuring OLMERT who was framed big time, but for ASSURING the one come AFTER Olmert.

So am glad you agree that there will be NO strike on IRAN but more strikes on IRAQ for sure.

And by the way, the IRAQI resistance helped all of this even though not deliberately on its part.

Hence Naz cheap statement to the Iraqi resistance after 5 years of SILENCE. A fucking opportunist is what he is - typical of all sectarians. Now that the IR is being rounded up and detained in Mosul, after being rounded up and detained and killed in the Center, he's calling on the shias, sunnis and kurdish resistance ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fucking bastard that he is.

Thanks for your kisses ;-)
Anonymous said…
"the first secret affair between America and Iran taking on more of a public, cajoling ouverture."

Ha ! What will the pro-Iran "intellectual" pricks and cunts of the so-called Left say then ? Will the evidence of their beloved "anti-imperialist resisters" being in bed with the "Great Satan" finally open their blind eyes ? Wait, they are not really blind, they CHOOSE not to see. For sure they will perform some even more absurd ideological acrobatics of theirs so to be able to keep on wet-dreaming about Ahmadimidget and the Hezb of My Ass. After all the Persians are of "pure" Aryan race and Shiite, hence perceived as "not really Muslim", a more acceptable cause for the ethnocentric orientalists of the First World ! Cowardly, in bad faith, bloody-handed lot... May they find themselves one day in the same desperate situation as their senselessly despised Arabs now - and be left as much alone and in the shit.
Layla Anwar said…
pan arabist,

ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL and PERFECT COMMENT

You hit right on the head !
KM said…
:-) I know what ya mean.

I wonder if Israel is playing super-whore now because it may be 'free' to date again.

The US may not have been Israe's knight in shining armor after all.

Yes, I caught that too about what you said about oil and what they said in the Asia Times piece.
KM said…
Layla, I re-read yer post again. I was running late earlier.

I was thinking that the Naz is trying to gain a backing behind hin in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, with al-Sadr doing his bidding inside Iraq.

I agree that al Sadr is not seeing eye to eye with Maliki and Sadr may even like to de-throne Maliki.

On Israel, I was wondering if Israel feels a bit naked being that the US is stuck in Iraq and has no way of dealing with Iran militarily, so as you say...Israel, Iran and US do not want to give up any slices of Irag.

Just wanted to clarify my last comment on Israel.

Maybe you can clarify this for me because this is all happening basically on yer doorsteps; why can Israel get away with continuing to demolish Palestinian homes when Iran is arming groups in South Lebanon and in Palstine?
Anonymous said…
Is Iran the biggest problem in Iraq?
Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:37 AM
Filed Under: Baghdad, Iraq
By Richard Engel, NBC News' Chief Foreign Correspondent

Over a meal this weekend at a Green Zone chow hall (chicken salad and Baskin-Robbins pralines and cream ice cream, a KBR delight), I had a revealing conversation with two senior U.S. military officials.

"We've pretty much defeated al-Qaida here," one of the military officers said. "If Iran stopped doing what it's doing, things would dramatically change."

"You think that would be it, a turning point? If Iran stopped backing militias, you think things would get much better?" I asked.

"No doubt. It would be dramatic," replied the officer.

Success of the surge
For many military commanders there is a feeling of euphoria that the U.S. troop "surge" and the top commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus managed to reduce violence, especially in Sunni areas.

The surge has become something sacred for the military in Iraq. It was a plan that worked. It has been entered into the annals of history – at least here – as a success, not to be questioned. The commanders I spoke to this weekend were angry Iran, they claim, is trying to ruin their surge.

The frustration is understandable. Sunni radicals have gone quiet, thanks in part to the "Sons of Iraq" program in which former insurgents (mostly Sunnis) are paid to fight al-Qaida. (Critics say the program is just arming the insurgents to fight another day).

Anbar province, once considered a lost region overrun by Sunni radicals, is now mostly calm. It is the Shiite areas, especially where Iran is strong, like in Basra and Sadr City, which are now in revolt.

U.S. military commanders deduce that if Iran stopped stoking the fires of conflict, both Sunnis and Shiites would stop fighting long enough for Iraq to blossom into the prosperous nation that U.S. officials promised and that the U.S. military needs to prevent failure in Iraq.

Perhaps they are correct. It would be logical to assume that if both sides stop fighting, there would be less bloodshed and more room for dialogue.

Flavor of the month?
The problem, however, is that Iran is only the U.S. military's latest enemy in Iraq. It is only the latest spoiler here. There have been others, each considered vital at the time; yet the war continues.

U.S. Enemies:

2003: Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction and supposed alliance to al-Qaida.

2004-2005: Sunni insurgents, former Baath party members and Syria, all of whom allegedly wanted to stop democracy and freedom.

2006-2007: Sectarian gangs, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "al-Qaeda in Iraq."

2008: Iran's "Special Groups," militias backed by Iran's Revolutionary Guards

Is this the end? Is Iran, as U.S. military officials suggest, the lynchpin to success in Iraq? Or is it just the flavor of the month?

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/30/961145.aspx
Anonymous said…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7321964.stm
nur

Popular posts from this blog

A brief Hate statement...

Endless Beginnings...

The White Ebony & the Eunuch