Alastair Crooke On Armageddon

Yesterday’s interview of Alastair Crooke with Judge Napolitano was quite worthwhile. These interviews typically follow publication of a new article by Crooke and work off the content of the article. In this case the new article is:

The World’s Gyre

ALASTAIR CROOKE MONDAY 12 FEB 24

Biden may see himself needing some ‘grand victory’, as much as does Netanyahu, Alastair Crooke writes.

I thought that the interview, in my edited version below, was perhaps more incisive than the article. Crooke—as also Doug Macgregor—fears that US involvement in a regional Middle East war is almost inevitable. Both argue for that conclusion from the same facts—the widening US involvement, including fueling the war on Palestinians, attacks in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq, and above all the prospect for involvement against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The greatest fear is caused by the steady drumbeat for war on Iran.

The interview also contains some brief comments by Crooke regarding the big Putin interview, which I’ll address separately. For now, this portion provides a good overview of a murky situation on the ground in the Middle East. This portion begins with Judge Nap asking Crooke by “Armageddon”. Crooke’s response is that the failure of Israel to secure a reasonably quick victory—which knowledgeable military commentators predicted would happen—is leading to Israel’s drive for escalation. Escalation means: Bring in Uncle Sam on the ground and in the air. The US military wants to avoid that, but … can we? Who runs policy in DC? The people with the money.

Alastair Crooke: Regional Armageddon in Middle East

What I mean by that is the embrace of Israel that was reflected when Biden clearly embraced Israel and said, 'Do what you have to in Gaza against Hamas and we will back you,' and they did, with weapons and bombs. But Gaza hasn't gone so well for Israel. Hamas is very much intact in Gaza and it hasn't produced the great victories that people were expecting or hoping for. Far from it, and so the move has been to a widening war. All the time the pressure goes up. Just last week the United States assassinated a very senior Iraqi leader of one of the militias that are part of the government forces.

America is edging into a conflict with these groups in Iraq. Hezbollah's conflict is growing and intensifying and America may get pulled into that. It's already pulled into the one in Yemen and of course it's watching very much what's happening in Gaza and finding that its policies are really breaking down. The idea that the Saudis would come out and say something about normalization with Israel and that they would be able to announce a sort of Palestinian State--all of these sort of palliatives which were meant to sort of calm things down really haven't worked. So the United States finds itself being pulled further and further and I don't think much thought has been given to this because the next stage will be with Hezbollah in the North, in Lebanon, and Israel has made it very clear that that's what's going to happen.

But Hezbollah is a much different case than Hamas. It's a very formidable force. If the United States gets pulled into that the question is, What happens to those bases in Iraq and Syria? There will be a reaction [if the US attacks Hezbollah]. That'll be blamed on Iran and people in the United States will say, We really have to hit Iran.

The question I keep asking is, Where are Biden's limits? Is he okay for the attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon? it seems so. They've given it a green light, but what happens if that goes badly, like Gaza went badly? Then people will start saying, Actually it's Iran that's behind all of this and we need to attack Iran. Is that a bridge too far for the United States? We are at the 11th hour, where either the United States will find itself dragged into going all the way on supporting Israel--both in Lebanon, in Iraq, and even with Iran--or it needs to find a way out and start to prepare Israel for the next stages. Not Gaza, but to tell Israel it really needs to think about what its future posture in this region is. All the other things have failed, so how do they propose to keep Zionism in the region?

Hezbollah will never move from the south. They've been there for 500 years. This is where they live, these are their villages, their towns. They're not going to be pushed out of those to somewhere else.

If Israel does try to do this that will be the beginnings of something much more serious and of a quite different order from what's been happening in Gaza. Has this been thought through? How far will Biden go?

I think the Netanyahu government has effectively given up in the hostages. The whole tenor of discussion has moved away from Gaza for Israel towards the need for a big victory. The Israelis have lost deterence, the region is no longer frightened of them. They have to get deterrence otherwise they can't sustain themselves in this part of the world. So they need a big victory, and that means a victory over Hezbollah or maybe even Iran. Of course, I don't believe that America wants to enter a fight with Iran--it would be a disaster.

Biden's red lines are sort of moving. They said, You can't go into Rafah. Well, last night they did. And now Netanyahu is mobilizing another 30,000 reserves at this time when the economy is in bad shape. Well, they're either going into Rafah or they're going to the north for a conflict with Lebanon against Hezbollah. My guess is it's the latter rather than Rafah. Rafah will be done by air, not on foot.

The Israelis have said absolutely that as soon as they're ready they are going to move Hezbollah away from the border to the north. They suggest it'll be easy because it can be done with a little bit of artillery and a little bit of bombing. If America believes that then they haven't done their homework. They don't know who they're dealing with and they need to rethink. Otherwise they'll be pulled into something much more serious, with at the same time a deeper problem in Iraq and the Houthis continuing. Israel is moving more and more towards this sort of apocalyptic idea that only with a major victory can they reestablish the deterrence that they need to survive in a region that is hostile towards them.

I don't think the Pentagon wants a war with Iran because they understand what it would involve. What I'm saying is that this is a conveyor belt. Once you start the conveyor belt in Lebanon with Hezbollah and with Iraq, then the conveyor belt will take you in the direction of Iran. Will he say no? That's anybody's guess? Netanyahu needs a victory because things are not going so well for him at all. He needs a victory, and that's why he's pushing for an attack on Hezbollah.

The other factor here—as we discussed yesterday, working from John Helmer’s articles—is that the economic pressure on Israel (which Crooke mentions) is forcing Israel to seek to act sooner rather than later. But America is in its own political crisis. It’s a presidential election year, with Trump presenting a serious challenge to the ruling class. American finances are in a shambles, our borders are in a state of crisis. The Oval Office is empty—except for a suit—but that raises the spectre of a President Kama Sutra. Is the ruling class ready for that? Is there a workaround to that? Israel needs war now. But it can’t do that without the US, and the US—for multiple good reasons—prefers to avoid war. On the other hand, the Axis of Resistance appears to favor some degree of war with the US. The question is, To what degree? Full out war, or simmering whack-a-mole that wears the US down and keeps it tied up?

Speaking of financial machinations behind the scenes that are influencing the global war, we did address that yesterday with regard to Russia and Israel. Today we see this article, which may point to behind the scenes maneuvering in the Imperial City on the Potomac, perhaps revolving, for the time being, around war funding:

Jamie Dimon believes U.S. debt is the ‘most predictable crisis’ in history—and experts say it could cost Americans their homes, spending power and national security

Ouch! I don’t think I’d like that one bit, and I’d bet I’m not alone. Who are these crazies who seem to think they can ride this out and defeat the world? Here’s the introductory summary to the article, which precedes the back and forth exchange of views on what it’s all about and where it’s heading:

In the late 19th century Alexander Hamilton wrote "national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing." A nice idea in theory, but America's governments since then haven't quite stuck to the plan.

Instead, the U.S. economy is resting atop a public debt exceeding $34 trillion, with its debt-to-GDP ratio sitting at around 120%. Perhaps not the blessing the Founding Fathers had once envisioned.

Now, alarm bells are beginning to ring with increasing frequency and volume.

Jamie Dimon says Washington is facing a global market "rebellion" because of the tab it is racking up, while Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan believes it's time to stop admiring the problem and instead do something about it.

Elsewhere The Black Swan author Nassim Taleb says the economy is in a "death spiral", while Fed chairman Jerome Powell says it's past time to have an "adult conversation" about fiscal responsibility.

And despite the issue being the “most predictable crisis we’ve ever had" according to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan—a summary Dimon agrees with—it's an item that isn't yet top of the political agenda.

It's also worth noting this isn't the job of one party or the other to fix—this debt has been accumulated courtesy of spending by both Republicans and Democrats.

The list of presidents who added the most debt by percentage begins with FDR (Dem.), followed by Woodrow Wilson (Dem.) and Ronald Reagan (Rep.).

Whoever's shoulders it falls on to address, it's clear the public now wants action.

Last year Pew Research found that 'reducing government debt' was a key concern for 57% of the 5,152 people surveyed—up from 45% just a year prior.

They say all wars are bankers wars. Keep an eye on that aspect.