THE ROVING EYE - Burn, Men in Black, burn - By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE Burn, Men in Black, burn By Pepe Escobar  Let's cut to the chase. As in chasing that Zara outdoor summer collection, complete with state of the art assault rifles, brand new white Nike sneakers and brand new, unlimited mileage white Toyotas crossing the Syrian-Iraqi desert; the Badass Jihadis in Black. Once upon a (very recent) time, the US government used to help only "good terrorists" (in Syria), instead of "bad terrorists". That was an echo of a (less recent) time when it was supporting only "good Taliban" and not "bad Taliban". So what happens when Brookings Institution so-called "experts" start blabbering that the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) is really the baddest jihadi outfit on the planet (after all they were cast out of al-Qaeda)? Are they so badass that by warped newspeak logic they're now the new normal? Since late last year, according to US government newspeak, the "good terrorists" in Syria are the al-Qaeda spinoff gang of Jabhat al-Nusra and (disgraced) Prince Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, the Islamic Front (essentially a Jabhat al-Nusra multiple outlet). And yet both Jabhat and ISIS had pledged allegiance to Ayman "the doctor" al-Zawahiri, the perennial gift that keeps on giving al-Qaeda capo. That still leaves the question of what Men in Black ISIS, the catwalk-conscious beheading stormtroopers for a basket of hardcore tribal Sunnis and Ba'ath party "remnants" (remember Rummy in 2003?) are really up to. We interrupt this desert catwalk to announce they will NOT invade Baghdad. On the other hand, they are busy accelerating the balkanization - and eventual partition - of both Syria and Iraq. They are NOT a CIA brainchild (how come Langley never thought about it?); they are in fact the bastard children of (disgraced) Bandar Bush's credit card largesse. The fact that ISIS is NOT directly in Langley's payroll does not imply their strategic agenda essentially differs from that of the Empire of Chaos. The Obama administration may be sending a few marines to protect the swimming pools of the largest, Vatican-sized embassy on Planet Earth, plus a few "military advisers" to "retrain" the dissolving Iraqi Army. But that's a drop of Coke Zero in the Western Iraqi desert. There's no evidence Obama is about to authorize "kinetic support" against ISIS, even though Baghdad has already green-lighted it. Even if Obama went ballistic ("targeted military action"), and/or manufactured a new kill list to be itemized by his drones, that would amount to no more than a little diversion. What matters is that the confluent ISIS/Beltway agenda remains the same; get rid of Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki (not by accident the new meme in US corporate media); curb Iran's political/economic influence over Iraq; fundamentally erase Sykes-Picot; and promote the "birth pangs" (remember Condi?) of vast wastelands bypassing centralized power and run by hardcore tribal Sunnis. For the Empire of Chaos, ISIS is the agent provocateur that fell from (Allah's?) Heaven; the perfect ski mask-clad tool to keep the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in Enduring Freedom Forever mode. The icing in the (melted) cake is that the House of Saud hasofficially denied support of ISIS. So this means it's true, even over Bandar Bush's carcass. Cue to the official House of Saud and House of Thani narrative about ISIS: they are not in charge of what's happening in Iraq. It's all organized by the Ba'athist "remnants". Bring on more regime change  Now for the all-encompassing Iranian angle, because the whole drama, as usual, is mostly about "containment" of Iran. We just need to endure this to confirm it; the same old regurgitation about "evidence" that "Iran and its Syrian allies" have "cooperated" with ISIS and that Bashar al-Assad in Syria has a "business partnership" with ISIS. And don't forget the scaremongering; what's ahead is a "nuclear Iran" against a "Sunni Arab world" in which the great bogeymen remains al-Qaeda. Neo-con propaganda denouncing the US government for being in bed with Tehran against ISIS is, once again, disinformation. Commander of Iran's Basij, General Mohammad Reza Naqudi, was very close to the mark when he said, "Takfiri and Salafi groups in different regional states, especially in Syria and Iraq, are supported by the US", and that "the US is manipulating the Takfiri terrorists to tarnish the image of Islam and Muslims." The same applies to Speaker of the Majlis Ali Larijani; "It is obvious that the Americans and the countries around it have made such moves ... Terrorism has grown into an instrument for the big powers to advance their goals." What this all implies is that Tehran has identified the ISIS catwalk parade for what it is; a trap. Moreover, they are also convinced Washington won't break with its vassals at the House of Saud. Translation: Washington remains committed to old school GWOT. What Tehran is already, practically, supporting - also with "advisers" on the ground - is a myriad of Shi'ite militias who are being deployed to secure Baghdad and especially the Shi'ite holy cities, Najaf and Karbala. US Return of the Living Neo-Con Dead, meanwhile, insist on regurgitating their favorite theme; Maliki Maliki Maliki. Nothing of what's goin' on in Iraq has anything to do with Shock and Awe, the invasion, occupation and destruction of most of the country, Abu Ghraib, or the vicious, totally Washington-instigated sectarian war (Divide and Rule, all over again). It's all Maliki's fault. So he must be booted out. When everything fails - to the tune of trillions of dollars - the neo-con playbook always resets to default; regime change. Slouching towards Hardcore Sunnistan It's all extremely fishy about ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, aka Abu Dua, born in Samarra in 1971, a Saddam "remnant" but - crucially - a former prisoner of the US government in Camp Bocca from 2005 to 2009, as well as a former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. It's no secret in the Levant that ISIS Men in Black were trained in 2012 by US instructors at a secret base in Safawi, in the northern desert of that fiction disguised as a country, Jordan, so they would later fight as Western-approved "rebels" in Syria. It was al-Baghdadi who sent a batch of Men in Black to set up Jabhat al-Nusra ("good terrorists", remember?) in Syria. He may have split from Jabhat in late 2013, but still remains in charge of a vast desert wasteland from northern Syria to Western Iraq. He's the new Osama bin Laden (the gift that keeps on giving, again), the all but certain Emir of an Islamically correct desert Caliphate in the heart of the Levant. Forget about Osama in the Hindu Kush; this is so much sexier. A hardcore Sunnistan between Iraq's Kurdish north and the Shi'te south, swimming in oil, extending all the way to Aleppo, Rakka and Deir ez-Zor in Syria, between the two rivers - the Tiger and the Euphrates - with Mosul as capital, back to its ancestral role of pivot between the twin rivers and the Mediterranean. Sykes-Picot, eat your heart out. Obviously, al-Baghdadi could not have pulled that awesome feat off all by himself. Enter his top Saddam "remnant" sidekick, Ba'ath party theorist extraordinaire Izzaat Ibrahim al-Douri, who happens to be from strategic Mosul. And most of all, enter the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries - an awesomely "secret" organization which has had the guile to dribble, like an infernal composite of Lionel Messi and Luiz Suarez, the whole Western intel apparatus, Orwellian-Panopticon NSA included. Well, not really, because this ISIS-Ba'athist coalition of the willing was brokered by none other than Bandar Bush - while he was still in action, with crucial, lateral input from Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan. No way to trace it all back to the Beltway. What the General Military Council managed to assemble was no less than all the "remnants" of the good old early 2000s Iraqi resistance, top tribal sheiks, merge it with ISIS, and create what might be dubbed a "Resistance Army" - those Badass Jihadis in Black in their white Toyotas, now the stuff of legend, performing the miracle of being untrackable by the NSA's satellite maze. They're so hip they even have their own Facebook page, with over 33,000 "likes". Balkanize or bust Meanwhile, the agenda of the Empire of Chaos proceed unabated. Balkanization is already a fact. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, crucially a Kurd, pledged Kurdish Peshmerga "cooperation" with the Iraq army to keep oil-rich Kirkuk away from ISIS. Like clockwork, the Peshmergas for all practical purposes annexed Kirkuk. Grand Kurdistan beckons. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, also for all practical purposes, launched a Shi'ite jihad against ISIS. For his part, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim, all but resurrected their formidable paramilitary, the Badr Corps - very close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. These are real badasses, against which ISIS does not stand a chance. And Muqtada al-Sadr is launching "Peace Brigades" to protect the Shi'te holy cities and also Christian churches. Civil war rules. Meanwhile, in the Land of Oz, the Pentagon will certainly be able to extract extra funds for its perennial crusade to save Western civilization from Islamist terror. After all, there's a (ski masked) neo-Osama bin Laden in da hood. Although the majority of Iraqis reject balkanization, Sunnis will keep accusing Shi'ites of being Iranian pawns, and Shi'ites will keep accusing Sunnis of being the House of Saud's fifth column. ISIS will keep getting loads of cash from wealthy Saudi "donors". The US government will keep weaponizing Sunnis in Syria against Shi'ites and (perhaps) conducting soft "targeted military strikes" for Shi'ites against Sunnis in Iraq. Welcome to Divide and Rule run amok. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

Intelligence chatter abuzz with plans for Saudi chemical weapons attack on Sochi Olympics

Intelligence chatter abuzz with plans for chemical weapons attack on Sochi Olympics

WMR is receiving dire warnings from multiple intelligence sources that all have a common theme: that Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan is following through on his threat to have Saudi-backed Salafists inside Russia launch a terrorist attack on the Winter Olympiad in Sochi because Russian President Vladimit Putin failed to withdraw his support for Syrian President Bashar al Assad. The Winter Games are scheduled to open on February 7.

Two men, identified only as "Suleiman" and "Abdulrakhman" and claiming to be with a Dagestani-based terrorist group called "Vilayat Dagestan" appeared on a 49-minute long video distributed on the Internet issuing a stark warning to Russia and all the athletes and visitors who will be arriving for the Olympics in Sochi. The two men, who Vilayat Dagestan claimed were the suicide bombers who launched two deadly attacks on public transportation targets in Volgograd last month, were said to be the suicide bombers who died in that attack. One of the two men in the video pushes a button attached to what is believed to be a mock explosive device.

Sitting in front of a black and white flag with Arabic writing often associated with Al Qaeda and Saudi-backed terrorist groups in Syria, the two men issue the following statement: "We have prepared a present for you -- for you -- [Putin] and all those tourists who will come over."

The two men add, "If you hold these Olympics, we will give you a present for the innocent Muslim blood being spilled all around the world: in Afghanistan, in Somalia, in Syria . . ."

The "present," according to WMR's sources, is one or more chemical weapons bombs, possibly containing sarin nerve gas stolen by Al Qaeda affiliates from Libyan stockpiles after the overthrow of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi's government. Those stockpiles of sarin were transferred by Saudi intelligence to Syrian rebels who used them in an attack in Al Ghouta, outside of Damascus, last year and to Chechen and Dagestani terrorists who now plan to use them during one or more Winter Olympics venues in Sochi, including the opening ceremonies.

On July 31, 2013, Bandar told Putin at a meeting in Moscow that if Putin pulled support for Assad, Saudi Arabia would agree to rein in Islamist terrorists from attacking Sochi. Bandar reportedly said, "I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten

the security of the games are controlled by us.” Putin became enraged with Bandar, told him Russia has known for years of Saudi support for terrorist attacks around the world, including in Russia, and abruptly ended the meeting with the man whose links with the Bush political family are so close, he is known as "Bandar Bush."

The Libyan chemical weapons believed to have been smuggled into Russia are also said to have been handed over to Vilayat Dagestan by a Saudi-backed Iraqi Salafist terrorist group called Ansar al-Sunna. The self-declared leader of an Islamic state in the Caucasus region, Doku Umarov, threatened to attack the Sochi Olympics last July. However, last week, Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov, claimed that Russian security forces had killed Umarov, although no corpse of the terrorist leader was produced by Russian or Chechen authorities.

Because of the nature of the threat, Russia has reversed course and agreed to accept U.S. military assistance during the Olympic Games. The deal worked out between U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Russian armed forces chief General Valery Gerasimov will provide counter-improvised explosive device (IED) and associated radio frequency jamming technology to Russian security forces. Russia has also reportedly agreed to allow a U.S. Navy destroyer and amphibious vessel to patrol closer to Sochi waters in the Black Sea to assist in security and/or evacuation operations. The U.S. Navy says the ships will be available "for all manner of contingencies."

Russian authorities in Sochi are reportedly on the lookout for a 22-year old Dagestani widow named Ruzanna Ibragrimova. Her husband was a Salafist terrorist killed by Russian security forces last year. Russian authorities have been distributing "wanted" posters of Ibragimova throughout Sochi. It is believed that the woman, one of a number of  militant widows dubbed "black widows" by counter-terrorism officials in Russia and abroad, sneaked past several cordons of Russian security perimeters and may now be in Sochi hiding. WMR's sources believe the widow may be carrying one or more chemical weapon devices to be detonated during the Olympics. The realization that chemical weapons may have been smuggled into Sochi, courtesy of Saudi intelligence, is what caused Dempsey and Gerasimov to make hasty preparations for U.S. military assistance at their previously-scheduled meeting in Brussels.

On a down note, WMR has also learned that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have arranged for a supply of body bags to transport U.S. victims from Sochi to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware in the event of a terrorist chemical attack. In addition, the U.S. European Command also has plans to evacuate Americans and other visitors from Sochi in the event of a successful terrorist operation. C-17 transport aircraft will be on stand-by at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

The potential for a chemical weapons terror attack in Sochi has been known by worldwide intelligence agencies for quite some time. However, rather than warn of this threat, a number of world leaders cynically used their opposition to Russia's policy on homosexual advocacy to decide to boycott the opening ceremonies. Among those leaders who hid behind the lavender curtain rather than reveal the actual reason for their absence -- the threat posed by the Saudis to the Sochi games -- are U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, German President Joachim Gauck and Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, French President Francois Hollande, Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski, and European Justice and Fundamental Rights Commissioner Viviane Reding.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte and King Willem-Alexander, Norwegian King Harald and Prime Minister Erna Solberg, and Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev are scheduled attend the ceremonies.

Some leaders are only planning on attending the closing ceremonies only. These include Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Bulgarian PresidentRossen Plevneliev. Bulgarian Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski will attend the opening ceremonies.
The decision by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to reject an invitation from Putin to attend the Sochi opening ceremonies is noteworthy. Putin and Netanyahu are on better speaking terms with one another than is the case with Putin and Obama. Although Putin and Netanyahu are worlds apart on issues like Syria and Iran, they mutually recognize the importance of business ties between Russian Jews living in Israel and their compatriots in Russia. Netanyahu's rejection of Putin's invitation may have arisen from advance knowledge of Saudi plans for an attack on the Winter Games. Israel and Saudi Arabia have forged close intelligence and military links owing to their common cause against Iran and Assad's government in Syria.

The national teams of two countries whose leaders are boycotting Sochi, the United States and Germany, received emails in Russian warning that their teams would be attacked in Sochi. Other teams receiving the emails were those of Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The emails were deemed a hoax by International Olympic Committee officials.

According to WMR's sources inside the DHS and FEMA, contingency plans for Sochi are now dealing with the worst possible scenario -- a terrorist chemical attack with massive casualties.

THE ROVING EYE - All in play in the New Great Game By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE All in play in the New Great Game By Pepe Escobar The big story of 2014 will be Iran. Of course, the big story of the early 21st century will never stop being US-China, but it's in 2014 that we will know whether a comprehensive accord transcending the Iranian nuclear program is attainable; and in this case the myriad ramifications will affect all that's in play in the New Great Game in Eurasia, including US-China. As it stands, we have an interim deal of the P5+1 (the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany) with Iran, and no deal between the US and Afghanistan. So, once again, we have Afghanistan configured as a battleground between Iran and the House of Saud, part of a geopolitical game played out in overdrive since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 along the northern rim of the Middle East all the way to Khorasan and South Asia. Then there's the element of Saudi paranoia, extrapolating from the future of Afghanistan to the prospect of a fully "rehabilitated" Iran becoming accepted by Western political/financial elites. This, by the way, has nothing to do with that fiction, the "international community"; after all, Iran was never banished by the BRICS, (ie Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the Non-Aligned Movement and the bulk of the developing world. Those damned jihadis Every major player in the Barack Obama administration has warned Afghan President Hamid Karzai that either he signs a bilateral "security agreement" authorizing some ersatz of the US occupation or Washington will withdraw all of its troops by the end of 2014. Wily puppet Karzai will milk this for all it's worth - as in extracting hardcore concessions. Yet, whatever happens, Iran will maintain if not enlarge its sphere of influence in Afghanistan. This intersection of Central and South Asia is geopolitically crucial for Iranian to project power, second only to Southwest Asia (what we call the "Middle East"). We should certainly expect the House of Saud to keep using every nasty trick available to the imagination of Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, to manipulate Sunnis all across AfPak with a target of, essentially, preventing Iran from projecting power. But Iran can count on a key ally, India. As Delhi accelerates its security cooperation with Kabul, we reach the icing on the Hindu Kush; India, Iran and Afghanistan developing their southern branch of the New Silk Road, with a special niche for the highway connecting Afghanistan to the Iranian port of Chabahar (Afghanistan meets the Indian Ocean). So watch out for all sorts of interpolations of an Iran-India alliance pitted against a Saudi-Pakistani axis. This axis has been supporting assorted Islamists in Syria - with nefarious results; but because Pakistan has also been engulfed in appalling violence against Shi'ites, Islamabad won't be too keen to be too closely aligned with the House of Saud in AfPak. Washington and Tehran for their part happen to be once more aligned (remember 2001?) in Afghanistan; neither one wants hardcore jihadis roaming around. Even Islamabad - which for all practical purposes has lost all its leverage with the Taliban in AfPak - would like jihadis to go up in smoke. All these players know that any number of remaining US forces and swarms of contractors will not fill the power vacuum in Kabul. The whole thing is bound to remain murky, but essentially the scenario points to the Central-South Asia crossroads as the second-largest geopolitical - and sectarian - battleground in Eurasia after the Levantine-Mesopotamian combo. Zero energy from our neighbor? As much as India, Iraq is also in favor of a comprehensive deal with Iran. And to think that Iran and Iraq might have been engaged in a silent nuclear arms race with one another at the end of the last century, just for Baghdad now to fiercely defend Tehran's right to enrich uranium. Not to mention that Baghdad depends on Iran for trade, electricity and material help in that no-holds-barred war against Islamists/Salafi-jihadis. Turkey also welcomes a comprehensive agreement with Iran. Turkey's trade with Iran has nowhere to go but up. The target is US$30 billion by 2015. More than 2,500 Iranian companies have invested in Turkey. Ankara cannot possibly support Western sanctions; it makes no business sense. Sanctions go against its policy of expanding trade. Moreover, Turkey depends on inexpensive natural gas imported from Iran. After deviating wildly from its previous policy of "zero problems with our neighbors", Ankara is now waking up to the business prospect of Syrian reconstruction. Iraq may help, drawing from its oil wealth. Energy-deprived Turkey can't afford to be marginalized. A re-stabilized Syria will mean the go-ahead for the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. If Ankara plays the game, an extension could be in the cards - fitting its self-proclaimed positioning as a privileged Pipelineistan crossroads from East to West. The bottom line is that the Turkish-Iranian conflict over the future of Syria pales when compared with the energy game and booming trade. This points to Ankara and Tehran increasingly converging into finding a peaceful solution in Syria. But there's a huge problem. The Geneva II conference on January 22 may represent the nail in the coffin of the House of Saud's push to inflict regime change on Bashar al-Assad. Once again, this implies that Bandar Bush is ready to go absolutely medieval - plowing the whole spectrum of summary executions, beheadings, suicide and car bombings and all-out sectarianism all along the Iraqi-Syrian-Lebanese front. At least there will be a serious counterpunch; as Sharmine Narwani outlines here, the former "Shi'ite crescent" - or "axis of resistance" - is now reconstituting itself as a "security arc" against Salafi-jihadis. Pentagon conceptualizers of the "arc of instability" kind never thought about that. Missile nonsense, anyone?  Adults in Washington - not exactly a majority - may have already visualized the fabulous derivatives of a Western deal with Iran by examining China's approval and the possibility of future Iranian help to stabilize Afghanistan. For China, Iran is a matter of national security - as a top source of energy (plus all those myriad cultural affinities between Persians and Chinese since Silk Road times). Threatening a country to which the US owes over $1 trillion with third-party, Department of the Treasury sanctions for buying Iranian oil seems to be off the cards, at least for now. As for Moscow, by coming with a diplomatic resolution to the chemical weapons crisis in Syria, Vladimir Putin no less than saved the Obama administration from itself, as it was about to plunge into a new Middle Eastern war of potentially cataclysmic consequences. Immediately afterwards, the door was opened for the first breach since 1979 of the US-Iran Wall of Mistrust. Crucially, after the Iranian nuclear interim deal was signed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov went for the jugular; the deal cancels the need for NATO's ballistic missile defense in Central Europe - with interceptor bases in Romania and Poland set to become operational in 2015 and 2018, respectively. Washington has always insisted on the fiction that this was designed to counter missile "threats" from Iran. Without the Iranian pretext, the justification for ballistic missile defense is unsustainable. The real negotiation starts more-or-less now, in early 2014. Logically the endgame by mid-2014 would be no more sanctionsin exchange for close supervision of Iran's nuclear program. Yet this is a game of superimposed obfuscations. Washington sells itself the myth that this is about somewhat controlling the Iranian nuclear program, an alternative plan to an ultra high-risk Shock and Awe strike to annihilate vast swathes of Iranian infrastructure. No one is talking, but it's easy to picture BRICS heavyweights Russia and China casually informing Washington what kind of weaponry and material support they would offer Iran in case of an American attack. Tehran, for its part, would like to interpret the tentative rapprochement as the US renouncing regime change, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei paying the price of trading elements of a nuclear program for the end of sanctions. Assuming Tehran and Washington are able to isolate their respective confrontational lobbies - a titanic task - the benefits are self-evident. Tehran wants - and badly needs - investment in its energy industry (at least $200 billion) and other sectors of the economy. Western Big Oil is dying to invest in Iran. The economic opening will inevitably be part of the final agreement - and for Western turbo-capitalism this is a must; a market of 80 million largely well-educated people, with fabulous location, and swimming in oil and gas. [1] What's not to like? Peacemaker or just a trickster?  Tehran supports Assad in large part to combat the jihadi virus - incubated by wealthy sponsors in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. So whatever the spin in Washington, there's no possibility of a serious solution for Syria without involving Iran. The Obama administration now seems to realize that Assad is the least bad among unanimously bad options. Who would have bet on it only three months ago? The interim deal with Iran is the first tangible evidence that Barack Obama is actually considering leaving his foreign policy mark in Southwest Asia/Middle East. It helps that the 0.00001% who run the show may have realized that a US president globally perceived as a dancing fool engenders massive instability in the Empire and all its satrapies. The bottom line is that Obama needs to respect his partner Hassan Rouhani - who has made clear to the Americans he must secure non-stop political backing by Khamenei; that's the only way to sideline the very powerful religious/ideological lobby in Tehran/Qom against any deal with the former "Great Satan". So "Great Satan" needs to negotiate in good faith. A realpolitik old hand (with a soft heart) would say that the Obama administration is aiming at a balance of power between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. A more Machiavellian realpolitik old hand would say this is about pitting Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arabs versus Persians, to keep them paralyzed. Perhaps a more prosaic reading is that the US as a mob protector is no more. As much as everyone is aware of a powerful Israel lobby and an almost as powerful Wahhabi petrodollar lobby in Washington, it's never discussed that neither Israel nor the House of Saud have a "protector" other than the US. So from now on, if the House of Saud sees Iran as a threat, it will have to come up with its own strategy. And if Israel insists on seeing Iran as an "existential threat" - which is a joke - it will have to deal with it as a strategic problem. If a real consequence of the current shift is that Washington will not fight wars for Saudi or Israeli sake anymore, that's already a monumental game changer. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin see it is in their interest to "protect" peacemaker Obama. And yet everyone remains on slippery territory; Obama as peacemaker - this time really honoring his Nobel Prize - may be just a mirror image. And Washington could always march towards regime change in Tehran led by the next White House tenant after 2016. For 2014 though, plenty of signs point to a tectonic shift in the geopolitical map of Eurasia, with Iran finally emerging as the real superpower in Southwest Asia over the designs of both Israel and the House of Saud. Now that's (geopolitical) entertainment. Happy New Year. Note: 1. Iran Deal Opens Door for Businesses, Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2013. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. (Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

The Wahhabi-Likudnik war of terror By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE      The Wahhabi-Likudnik war of terror By Pepe Escobar The double suicide bombing targeting the Iranian embassy in Beirut - with at least 23 people killed and 170 wounded - was a de facto terror attack happening on 11/19. Numerology-wise, naturally 9/11 comes to mind; and so the case of the Washington-declared war on terror metastasizing - largely conducted by oozy forms of Saudi "intelligence". Yet don't expect the "West" to condemn this as terror. Look at the headlines; it's all normalized as "blasts" - as if children were playing with firecrackers. Whether carried out by a hazy al-Qaeda-linked brigade or by Saudi spy chief Bandar bin Sultan's (aka Bandar Bush's) goons, the Beirut terror attack is essentially configured as a major, Saudi-enabled provocation. The larger Saudi agenda in Syria implies getting both Hezbollah and Iran to be pinned down inside Lebanon as well. If that happens, Israel also wins. Once again, here's another graphic illustration of the Likudnik House of Saud in action. Nuance also applies. Bandar Bush's strategy, coordinated with jihadis, was to virtually beg for Hezbollah to fight inside Syria. When Hezbollah obliged, with only a few hundred fighters, the jihadis scurried away from the battlefield to implement plan B: blowing up innocent women and children in the streets of Lebanon. While Hezbollah welcomes the fight, wherever it takes place, Tehran's position is more cautious. It does not want to go all out against the Saudis - at least for now, with the crucial nuclear negotiation on the table in Geneva, and (still) the possibility of a Geneva II regarding Syria. Yet the House of Saud is not welcoming Geneva II anytime soon because it has absolutely nothing to propose except regime change. On Syria, the main pillar of Bandar Bush's strategy is to turn the previously "Free" Syrian Army into a "national army" of 30,000 or so fully weaponized hardcore fighters - mostly supplied by the "Army of Islam", which is nothing but a cipher for the al-Qaedesque Jabhat al-Nusra. King Playstation of Jordan, also known as Abdullah, collaborates as the provider of training camps near the Syrian border. Whatever happens, one thing is certain; expect Bandar Bush's goons to be carrying out more suicide bombings on both Lebanon and Syria. The Zionist/Wahhabi/Salafi axis The dodgy al-Qaeda-linked Abdullah Azzam Brigades in theory exist since 2005, placing the odd bomb here and there. One sheikh Sijareddin Zreikat tweeted responsibility for the Beirut terror attack. Curioser and curioser, the claim was "discovered" and translated into English by the Israeli disinformation website SITE. [1] Yet another Israeli intelligence disinformation site, DEBKAfile, claimed the terror attack was an Iran/Hezbollah false flag, based on a "Saudi warning" reaching "Western intelligence agencies, including Israel". [2] The rationale, according to "Saudi intelligence", was "to convince Hezbollah fighters consigned against their will to the Syrian battlefield". This does not even qualify as pathetic. Hezbollah is basically defending the Lebanese-Syrian border, and has only a few hundred fighters inside Syria. Moreover, no string of suicide bombings will deter Hezbollah and Tehran from regaining control of what really matters in the Syrian strategic context; the Qalamoun area. Qalamoun, ringed by mountains, is a 50-kilometer stretch bordering the Bekaa valley in Lebanon, between Damascus and al-Nabk, and right on the absolutely critical Damascus-Homs corridor of the M5 highway. The Syrian army is on the offensive in Qalamoun. Recapturing the whole area is just a matter of time. This means controlling the northern approach to Damascus. Hezbollah is helping in the offensive out of Bekaa valley. This does not mean they will camp out in Syria afterwards. Now for the false flag accusation. As far as real false flags are concerned, one just has to re-examine three recent international bombings that supposed victimized Israel. In India the bomb had no projectiles; it barely injured an Israeli attache. In Azerbaijan the bomb was miraculously "discovered" before it went off. And in Thailand, the bomb exploded too soon, injuring only a nearby Iranian. Crass Israeli disinformation is unmasked when it leaps into this conclusion: If Tehran is capable of such atrocities merely as a diversionary tactic, then perhaps Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin ought to take a really hard look at their negotiating partner across the table before signing a major deal Wednesday, Nov. 20, which leaves Iran's nuclear program in place. So this neatly ties up with the current Israeli hysteria about the Geneva negotiations, which also includes the umpteenth report by a News Corporation outfit, London's Sunday Times, that Saudi Arabia will help Israel to attack Iran. [3] It also ties up with the proverbial US shills spinning, gloating rather, that, "strategically, this de-facto Israeli alliance with the Saudis is an extraordinary opportunity for Israel". [4] Even such shills have to admit that the House of Saud is "blocking formation of any government in Lebanon, for example, to obstruct Iran's ally, Hezbollah". "Blocking" of course is a euphemism to normalize suicide bombing. And then comes the ultimate wishful thinking disguised as "analysis"; Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu "bidding to replace the United States as military protector of the status quo". Translation; the Likudniks dreaming of becoming the new military Mob boss of petrodollar Wahhabis. The enablers Bandar Bush's strategy - weaponizing and providing cover to Salafis, jihadis and every patsy or mercenary in between - will go on unabated. After Bandar Bush convinced Washington to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Qataris, the Saudis are the supreme warfare go-to channel. The Bandar Bush machine has ties with virtually every jihadi outfit in the Levant. It certainly helps that Bandar has the perfect cover; the fact that he knows and has cajoled every significant player in Washington. In the US, Bandar Bush remains a dashing hero, even eliciting fawning comparisons with Gatsby. [5] Right. And my name is actually Daisy. Even with its own embassy attacked in Lebanon, Iran is maintaining an extremely calibrated approach. The number-one priority is the nuclear negotiations in Geneva with the partner that really matters, the US. This explains Iran blaming the Beirut terror attack on the proverbial "Zionists", and not Saudi-enabled jihadis posing as "rebels" and part of the whole Bandar Bush nebula. For the moment though, enough of Orwellian newspeak. What happened in Beirut was a terror attack, cheered by Israel, and fully enabled by Saudis; a graphic display by the Likudnik-House of Saud axis. Notes: 1. Al-Qaida-linked group claims responsibility for deadly Beirut attack, Ha'aretz, November 19, 2013. 2. Incredible! Beirut bombings killing 25 people were self-inflicted by Iran and Hizballah as a diversionary tactic, DEBKAfile, November 19, 2013. 3. Israel, Saudi Arabia Unite For Attack On Iran, RT, November 17, '13. 4. The stakes of an Iranian deal, Washington Post, November 15, 2013. 5. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's Gatsby, Master Spy, The Daily Beast, November 16, 2013. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

Will the House of Saud pivot to China? By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE 

Will the House of Saud pivot to China? 

By Pepe Escobar 

The favorite geopolitical sport du jour is to deconstruct the reasons why the House of Saud - that marriage of hyper-absolute monarchy and Wahhabi fanatics - has gone completely bonkers, with the ineffable Bandar Bush in the frontline. 

They are terrified with the possibility that the 34-year Wall of Mistrust between Washington and Tehran finally tumbles down. They are terrified that those American infidels refused to fight "our" regime change war on Syria. They were horrified by (mild) criticism about hardcore repression in Bahrain (which was invaded by Saudi in 2011, by the way). They abhor the American worshipping of that weird deity - democracy - that allowed friendly tyrants in Tunisia and Egypt to be abandoned (Libya is different; King Abdullah had wanted Gaddafi snuffed since at least 2002). 

The House of Saud is so mad as hell at the Obama administration that even "all options" are supposed to be "on the table". Which begs the question; what if Riyadh is actually dreaming of pivoting to China? 

Beijing's self-described "socialism with market characteristics" badly needs Saudi oil; after all the House of Saud is already China's top supplier. King Abdullah looks East and what he sees is an aspiring superpower, flush with unlimited cash, which will never dream of interfering in Saudi internal affairs, not to mention contemplate toxic Arab Spring ideas. 

So picture the dying King Abdullah dreaming of a Riyadh-Beijing axis as his legacy - with the inbuilt added benefit of displacing mortal enemy Iran as a supreme matter of national security for the Chinese (although Beijing would certainly see it as the proverbial win-win situation, keen to buy even more oil from Saudi as it keeps buying more gas from Iran). 

Saudi Arabia produces roughly 10% of the global total, which stands at around 90 million barrels of oil a day. It is the world's top exporter, swing producer, and essential in influencing the price of oil - which remains very high not only because of Chinese and Indian demand but also due to ceaseless speculation. 

Riyadh is carefully observing the possibility of the US becoming energy self-sufficient because of fracking technology - dirty, nasty and causing devastating pollution. They are certainly factoring that even with the US producing http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/us-now-leads-the-world-in-oil-and-gas-production-131008?news=851336 more than Saudi - around 12 million barrels a day, including ethanol - it still needs to import no less than 6.7 million barrels of oil a day in 2013. The US will still need oil - Saudi oil - in the foreseeable future. 

If "all options" are really "on the table", the House of Saud may be mulling striking a decades-long deal with the energy-voracious Chinese, assuring supply for a certain price. But let's assume demand - especially from Asia - rises, as it will; the House of Saud knows the US may find itself in trouble, and graphically manifest its displeasure. 

Losing my (petrodollar) religion
The House of Saud also knows very well it is the solid anchor that keeps OPEC tied to the petrodollar system. Without Saudi Arabia the petrodollar is history. 

That's arguably the number one scam in international relations. Virtually everyone and his neighbor needs US dollars which are mostly invested in US Treasury bills and other securities and mostly used to buy US dollar-denominated commodities like oil. How sweet it is to be bought by you; Washington keeps running up untold trillions of US dollars of debt that everyone must buy. The House of Saud of course duly invests its cascades of US dollars in US debt. Now imagine the House of Saud deciding to ditch the petrodollar. That would be Apocalypse Now for the US economy. 

Slowly but surely times are changing. Iran under those declaration of war-style sanctions is pointing the way, selling energy in other currencies, accepting gold and even bartering (the House of Saud, by the way, is also terrified that with a US-Iran d?tente, there will be a lot more Iranian oil and gas on Western markets, thus diluting Saudi profits.) 

Russia is now the number one global oil exporter, and China is the number one global oil importer - importing more from Saudi Arabia than the US. By 2020 China will be importing a whopping 9.2 million barrels of oil a day. So it obviously makes no sense for BRICS members Russia and China to keep using the petrodollar; that's a crucial feature of Beijing's recent call to "de-Americanize" the world. And Riyadh knows it. 

The House of Saud also considers two other trends; it has been exporting most of its oil to Asia for years now; and China, inevitably, has become the top exporter - myriad manufactured products - to Saudi Arabia, ahead of the US. Beijing, once again, is playing a discreet, long game, investing in Saudi infrastructure. Aware that Saudi Arabia cannot export more of its heavy, high sulfur oil - because few customers can refine it - China is buildinga massive new refining/export complex. So, long-term, what we have is essentially a US-China confrontation (with Russia and Iran also weighing in) over the petrodollar. 

The House of Saud utmost priority - whatever happens - is self-perpetuation. Then to keeping earning loads of cash - petrodollar or otherwise. And then to keep mortal enemy Iran - those "apostate Shi'ites" - in check. 

But would that warrant a pivoting to China? 

The mob protection racket is so sweet; because of the petrodollar religion, the House of Saud is essentially self-perpetuated by the Pentagon umbrella and those tons of weapons contracts. 

But now House of Saud paranoia is developing on two fronts like a deadly virus. They are terrified the protection racket will not last if Iran is back in the game - worse, they imagine, with a nuclear breakout capability. 

And they suspect that the much-vaunted - and so far inexistent - US pivoting to Asia is a not so discreet "say goodbye to your new friend", as in Saudi Arabia's preferred partner China. The pivoting could even be interpreted by a paranoid House of Saud as a double threat; directed towards China in the long term but also against Saudi Arabia, as in "don't even think about moving to the petroyuan." 

So far, a House of Saud devoured by a vicious succession battle, as well as angry, fearful and paralyzed by fast evolving geopolitics, offers no evidence it would let escape the mongrel "special relationship" with the US. It's just throwing a fit. If, and when, it switches to losing my (petrodollar) religion mode, then the real action begins. 

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com. 

Bandar Bush's mad, mad world

THE SAKER Bandar Bush's mad, mad world All signs are showing that the otherwise secretive Saudi regime is angry. Very, very angry. Not only did the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia refuse to take a seat at the UN Security Council, [1] but now the Saudi spy chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, appears to be threatening a "major shift" in "relations with the United States at its perceived inaction over the Syria war and its overtures to Iran". The Wall Street Journal provides further details: In the run-up to expected US strikes, Saudi leaders asked for detailed U.S. plans for posting Navy ships to guard the Saudi oil center, the Eastern Province, during any strike on Syria, an official familiar with that discussion said. The Saudis were surprised when the Americans told them U.S. ships wouldn't be able to fully protect the oil region, the official said. Disappointed, the Saudis told the U.S. that they were open to alternatives to their long-standing defense partnership, emphasizing that they would look for good weapons at good prices, whatever the source, the official said. In the second episode, one Western diplomat described Saudi Arabia as eager to be a military partner in what was to have been the U.S.-led military strikes on Syria. As part of that, the Saudis asked to be given the list of military targets for the proposed strikes. The Saudis indicated they never got the information, the diplomat said. Bandar (aka Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, aka Bandar Bush) spent most of his career in Washington DC, where he was the Saudi ambassador from 1983 to 2005 and was considered exceptionally close to the Bush family. Not only that, he could observe, as no one else could, how the US went to war against Iraq not once, but twice, in 1991-1992 and, again, in 2003-2005. So he, of all people, should now that: the US does not have the physical capability to "fully protect" the entire oil region of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; the US would only share a critical proposed strike list with close Anglo allies (the UK and, maybe, some other Anglo country). Not even the Israelis or the French would be given that kind of access. So what in the world is Bandar upset about? Sure, there are other good reasons for him to be angry: the entire Saudi strategic plan to defeat the Shi'ite in the Middle East has fallen apart. The Saudis wanted to trigger an insurrection in Syria, then execute a "false flag" chemical attack, then have the US take out the Syrian regime and replace it with a Saudi puppet regime of Wahabi liver-eaters. That would isolate both Hezbollah and Iran. The Saudis would let the Israelis deal with Hezbollah while they would then push the US into a confrontation with Iran. As strategic plans go, this was a pretty good one too, but it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding the of Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah determination to defeat it. We know that Russia sent a very powerful naval task force to the Syrian coast, we have pretty good information showing that Iran covertly sent both equipment and combatants to Syria and Hezbollah publicly admitted that it sent several thousands of its combatants into Syria. These combatants are really those who turned the tide of the war on the ground (especially around al-Qusayr). What we don't know (but what must have happened for sure) is what Russia, Iran and Hezbollah told the US through their back-channel communications. I personally have a very strong feeling that some very serious threats were made by one or several of these parties and that these threats were taken very seriously by the White House. Yes, of course, we then had US Secretary of State John Kerry's "rhetorical point" about Syria giving up chemical weapons, but there are plenty of indicators that the US had already decided to "fold" two or three days before this actually occurred. Whatever may be the case, it is clear that the US took the only possible sane decision and decided that it did not want to start a major war in the Middle East. Did the Saudis really think that the US would take on Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia on their behalf? Now let's look at the Saudi reaction. First, they refused to take their seat at the Security Council. So what? With the predictable exception of Kuwait and Bahrain, who is going to be heartbroken at not having the Saudis sit at the horseshoe table? Kosovo? And now comes this threat of a "major shift" in the US-Saudi alliance. What in the world is Bandar talking about again? First, does Bandar really believe that the US vitally needs the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Does he not realize that the US will be self-sufficient in energy pretty soon? Or does he not realize that the days when ARAMCO was the key to the strength of the dollar are long gone and that now the strength of the dollar depends mostly on US military and financial power? And even if Saudi Arabia was vital to the strength of the dollar, does Bandar really think that he can threaten US vital strategic interests with impunity? Second, if Bandar wants to shift away from the alliance with the US, where does he think he could shift to? Most definitely not China, which has a very serious "Islamic problem" on its hands in its western provinces; not the EU, which is faithfully committed to its colonial status in the US empire, and nobody in Africa - even less so after the recent carnage in Kenya. Nobody in Latin America for sure, if only because of its long history of anti-US struggle and its large Arab population which know what kind of sick ideology Wahabism is. In Asia, maybe the desperate rulers of North Korea or Myanmar would want to explore options, but that's about it. So unless Bandar thinks he can punish the US by shifting its alliance to some "heavyweights" like Kuwait or Bahrain, one can only be left wondering of what Bandar has in mind. Think about it: first he threatens Putin with terror attacks during the Sochi Olympics [3] and now he threatens to "dump" the US. This would be comical if the House of Saud was not sitting on a huge amount of money which they have - and will - use to spread terror and Wahabi extremism all over the planet. Which brings me to my last questions: does Bandar really not understand how fragile his regime is? Does he seriously believe that he can threaten both the US and Russia and get away with it? Maybe the poor man believes that the Bush clan will do something about it, but if so, then that hope misplaced. Sure, the Bush family and the House of Saud are old accomplices in all sorts of ugly deals, but not only are the Bush people currently not in power, they will always love their money more than they will love their friends. And the truth is, neither the Bush family nor even the US need the Saudis all that much. The reverse, however, is not true. The Wahabi house of Saudi is sitting on top of a treasure trove of Shi'ite oil (the oil rich regions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are also the ones where a repressed Shi'ite minority lives). Both Bahraini and the Saudi regimes have held on to power only thanks to a ruthless and systematic repression against its population, especially Shi'ites. For the Wahabis, to stay in power means killing Shi'ites, lots of them. And to do that, one needs a "protector" at the Security Council. In the case of Saudi Arabia, this protector has always been the US. But just imagine what could happen if the US withdrew its protection of the kingdom at the Security Council. Imagine what kind of signal that would send to the repressed Shi'ites in these two countries? Without even going into an R2P (responsibility to protect) situation, it is pretty obvious that the Saudi regime only serves "at the pleasure of the US President" and that it could be summarily dismissed. But Bandar seems to be completely oblivious to that. Bandar must have gone clinically insane. Either that or it is the entire House of Saud has gone mad, maybe as a consequence of its degenerate lifestyle. Who knows? If Bandar is "retired" - administratively or physically - sooner rather than later, then its option one. If not, then its option two. But either way, the writing is on the wall for the House of Saud.

Fear and loathing in House of Saud By Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE Fear and loathing in House of Saud By Pepe Escobar Every sentient being with a functional brain perceives the possibility of ending the 34-year Wall of Mistrust between Washington and Tehran as a win-win situation. Here are some of the benefits: The price of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf would go down; Washington and Tehran could enter a partnership to fight Salafi-jihadis (they already did, by the way, immediately after 9/11) as well as coordinate their policies in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban in check post-2014; Iran and the US share the same interests in Syria; both want no anarchy and no prospect of Islamic radicals having a shot at power. An ideal outcome would balance Iranian influence with a power-sharing agreement between the Bashar al-Assad establishment and the sensible non-weaponized opposition (it does exist, but is at present marginalized); With no more regime change rhetoric and no more sanctions, the sky is the limit for more trade, investment and energy options for the West, especially Europe (Iran is the best possible way for Europeans to soften their dependence on Russia's Gazprom); A solution for the nuclear dossier would allow Iran to manage civilian use of nuclear energy as an alternative source for its industry, releasing more oil and gas for export; Geopolitically, with Iran recognized for what it is - the key actor in Southwest Asia - the US could be released from its self-imposed strategic dogma of depending on the Israeli-Saudi axis. And Washington could even start pivoting to Asia for real - not exclusively via military means. Ay, there's the rub. Everybody knows why the Israeli right will fight an US-Iran agreement like the plague - as Iran as an "existential threat" is the ideal pretext to change the debate from the real issue; the occupation/apartheid regime imposed on Palestine. As for the House of Saud, such an agreement would be nothing short of Apocalypse Now. I'm just a moderate killer  It starts with Syria. Everybody now knows that shadow master Bandar bin Sultan, aka Bandar Bush, has been fully in charge of the war on Syria since he was appointed Director of National Intelligence by his uncle, Saudi King Abdullah. Bandar is taking no prisoners. First he eliminated Qatar - the major financier of the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) - from the picture, after having a helping hand in Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad, deposing himself to the benefit of his son, Sheikh Tamin, in late June. Then, in late July, Bandar spectacularly resurfaced in public during his now famous "secret" trip to Moscow to try to extort/bribe Russian President Vladimir Putin into abandoning Syria. Notoriously, the House of Saud's "policy" on Syria is regime change, period. This is non-negotiable in terms of dealing a blow to those "apostates" in Tehran and imprinting Saudi will on Syria, Iraq, in fact the whole, mostly Sunni Levant. In late September, the Jaish al-Islam ("Army of Islam") entered the picture. This is a "rebel" combo of up to 50 brigades, from supposedly "moderates" to hardcore Salafis, controlled by Liwa al-Islam, which used to be part of the FSA. The warlord in charge of Jaish al-Islam is Zahran Alloush - whose father, Abdullah, is a hardcore Salafi cleric in Saudi Arabia. And the petrodollars to support him are Saudi - via Bandar Bush and his brother Prince Salman, the Saudi deputy defense minister. If this looks like a revamp of the David Petraeus-concocted "Sunni Awakening" in Iraq in 2007 that's because it is; the difference is this Saudi-financed "awakening" is geared not to fight al-Qaeda but towards regime change. This (in Arabic) is what Alloush wants; a resurrection of the Umayyad Caliphate (whose capital was Damascus), and to "cleanse" Damascus of Iranians, Shi'ites and Alawites. These are all considered kafir ("unbelievers"); either they submit to Salafist Islam or they must die. Anybody who interprets this stance as "moderate" has got to be a lunatic. Incredibly as it may seem, even Ayman al-Zawahiri - as in al-Qaeda central - has issued a proclamation banning the killing of Shi'ites. Yet this "moderate" tag is exactly at the core of the present, Bandar Bush-concocted PR campaign; sectarian warlords of the Alloush kind are being "softened", so they are palatable to a maximum range of Gulf sources of funds and, inevitably, gullible Westerners. But the heart of the matter is that Jaish al-Islam, essentially, sports just a slight chromatic difference with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) - the al-Qaeda-linked umbrella which is the prime fighting force in Syria; as in a bunch of weaponized fanatics on varying degrees of (religious) crystal meth addiction. Paranoia paradise To complicate matters, the House of Saud is in disarray because of the succession battle. Crown Prince Salman is the last son of King Abdul Aziz, the founder of the Saud dynasty, to have a shot at power gradually by age. Now all bets are off - with hordes of princes engulfed in the battle for the great prize. And here we find none other than Bandar Bush - who is now, for all practical purposes, the most powerful entity in Saudi Arabia after Khalid Twijri, the chief of King Abdullah's office. The nonagenarian Abdullah is about to meet his Maker. Twijri is not part of the royal family. So Bandar is running against the clock. He needs a "win" in Syria as his ticket to ultimate glory. That's when the Russia-US agreement on Syria's chemical weapons intervened. The House of Saud as a whole freaked out - blaming not only the usual suspects, UN Security Council members Russia and China, but also Washington. No wonder the perpetual foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, snubbed his annual address to the UN General Assembly last week. To say he was not missed is an understatement. The House of Saud's nightmare is amplified by paranoia. After all those warnings by King Abdullah for Washington to cut "the head of the snake" (Iran), as immortalized on WikiLeaks cables; after all those supplications for the US to bomb Syria, install a no-fly zone and/or weaponize the "rebels" to kingdom come, this is what the House of Saud gets: Washington and Tehran on their way to reaching a deal at the expense of Riyadh. So no wonder fear, loathing and acute paranoia reign supreme. The House of Saud is and will continue to do all it can to bomb the emergence of Lebanon as a gas producer. It will continue to relentlessly fan the flames of sectarianism all across the spectrum, as Toby Matthiesen documented in an excellent book. And the Israeli-Saudi axis will keep blossoming. Few in the Middle East know that an Israeli company - with experience in repressing Palestinians - is in charge of the security in Mecca. (See here and here (in French)). If they knew - with the House of Saud's hypocrisy once more revealed - the Arab street in many a latitude would riot en masse. One thing is certain; Bandar Bush, as well as the Saudi-Israeli axis, will pull no punches to derail any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. As for the Bigger Picture, the real "international community" may always dream that one day Washington elites will finally see the light and figure out that the US-Saudi strategic alliance sealed in 1945 between Franklin D Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud makes absolutely no sense. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.