WILL THE US EVER GO TO WAR AGAIN? 

If I told you that I genuinely wonder if the US would ever go to war again, what would you think? Crazy? Overly negative? Doomsday believer? Unpatriotic? How could I, of all people, make post such a statement? What would drive me to ponder such a question? Okay. Let's get started! 

General Abdulwahab al-Saadi was removed from power in Iraq? Who is he, and why does it matter? In a region where the number of "true" allies can be counted on hand without using your thumb, General al-Saadi would not be counted. Have pro-US so-called "supporters turned their back on the US in the past? Silly question. Have pro-US supporters been removed from positions of authority or worse, killed? Yep. Was General al-Saadi more aligned with the US than most essential leaders in Iraq? Yes. So, is any of this really worth worrying about? Not as an individual event, no it's not. Then why bring it up? Patterns. Trends, in the 21st century, the whole world is about patterns and trends, stacked on top of perceptions. So, an event like the one with al-Saadi does give us another indicator of where we might be heading? Yes. 

Patterns and Trends:

Does the US seem more than reluctant to get involved in any event that might turn into a real conflict? Yes. Is that a stance many in the US, on both political sides, agrees with? Yes.  Does the US population have a valid case of War Fatigue"? Yes. Is that feeling justified? Yes. Who is to blame for this feeling? DC, the political leadership of the nation for the past 18yrs. Was the US wrong to launch the War on Terrorism? No! Was the leadership, both sides, of the US guilty of turning this "War" into an industry? Yes. Has all of this happened at the moment in history when the US is as socially divided as ever? It seems that way. By the way, how could I make the statement the US is more divided than at any time in the past? Easy. Social Media. It's the nitrous oxide of social friction. 

Here is the "trend" the enemies of the US perceive and it's the same one I just spoke about. The US seems more and more distracted, more fragmented with each passing day. Is that perception / trend / justified? That answer only matters to the person or nation that questions the "trend." Let me put this another way. If someone is to watch or read US media networks, what would be the overwhelming topic 24/7/365? The hatred between the two US parties and why each of them is destroying the country. Do you think the enemies of the US care what party is right and what party is wrong? They don't see the topic as, right and wrong, left or right, conservative or liberal. What they see is a weakness, division and at the end, opportunity. 

Patterns? What patterns does the rest of the world see with the US? Reluctance? Is that a pattern? Talk loudly but carry no stick, except Twitter that is. Is that a pattern the US's enemies and allies would pay attention to? Yep. Would these patterns and trends lead the US's enemies to change their approach to the US? Yes. Does that same concept hold true of the US's allies? Yes. Patterns and trends can often mean one thing to both enemies and allies, weakness! Harsh word? Yes. Accurate? Unfortunately, yes! 

Tehran set's perception: 

I've talked about the events of the past few months about Tehran, both on this blog page and my podcast / Col Dans Viewpoint on iTunes. ( Look for the Black Globe). I've gone over the issue of how the US should and shouldn't react to the actions of the Mullahs. Time and time again, I've addressed the issue of Tehran being a reluctant proxy of Moscow. At the end of the day, the overwhelming opinion/perception/ of the world has been the US's reluctance to respond to the Mullah's actions. Now, with what might be a ground attack by Tehran's proxies from Yemen into Saudi Arabia, Najran region, it seems the US's reluctance will once again be tested. If I need to mention the Mullah's desperation and emboldening again, then let me make that point. Are the Mullah's desperate? Yes. Are they also, embolden? Yes. Does this create an unforeseen risk? Yes. Will the US still be reluctant to take any physical action? Well, except for sanctions, ones that are working by the way, and cyber, the new battlefield, yes, the US will remain reluctant. Does that create the risk of unintended consequences? If you have followed me, then you know my long-standing position on the law of unintended consequences. 

Conditions: 

When nations contemplated / plan / on how to stay ahead of or neutralize their enemies, a key factor they must obtain is the overall social stability of the enemy in question. Just what is the enemy's resolve and what is that resolve based upon? Most levels of threat have varying intensities of resolve. Threaten a nation's very existence, and they will most likely have the resolve to do whatever it takes to survive. Anything lower than that, and the resolve to take action will become more complicated. So, here is the question that started this post. What is the resolve of the US? At what level of threat would the US population unify at a significant enough degree to support a response? When I say, unite, it's is implied that means the majority of the population supports action.  It is this analysis an enemy must make as they review potential actions. Having said that, what steps are the US's enemies contemplating? Are they plotting as individuals or as a unified effort? What risk are those enemies willing to take? What are these questions based upon? Yep, the overall status of the US. 

What is the "condition" of the US government? It's 2019, and the US is heading into an election year after three consecutive years of emotional end fighting at all levels of government. Sanctuary Cities, Open attacks on the US's Border Security process, Antifa's movement being all but ignored by all levels of government an endless accusations against the US President. Daily mainstream media reports on how polarized the US population has become. From the outside, what perception does this create? What level of action against the US will most likely not lead to a physical response?  If the US Intelligence Community and the US Military pulled the President into an emergency meeting and informed him Tehran was about to launch a massive strike against the oil-producing Gulf nations, what would be the deciding factor in the US's response; a response heading into an election year? What would be CNN or MSNBC's coverage? How long would it take for the US Democratic Party to use the event to further damage Trump's chances of being re-elected? Honestly, how mad would that party be if this event was to take the attention away from the Impeachment Circus?  You see, everything I just mentioned here goes into the planning/analysis process of adversaries? Would a regional war take the US's attention off of the so-called, Trade Wars? Would anyone pay attention to North Korea or Venezuela? More importantly, what would the American people say?  If the nation is adverse to the idea of yet another, "endless war," would that factor into the administration's decision? Would the US population go to war over the South China Seas, Taiwan, or South Korea? Just what level of unity and resolve do the enemies of the US perceive? Let me put that in a different perspective. What level of unity does DC believe exist inside the US? 

You see. Wars are almost always thrust upon those nations that wish to avoid warfare. How odd it must seem to the enemies of the US; the country that championed the war on terrorism" but now seems to have no stomach for war. Wars. History tells us they come even when you don't want them! 

THE US DEPLOYMENT TO SAUDI ARABIA. NOW WHAT? 

All the talk Friday, that is until the whole soap opera of the Whistle Blower came back up, just like I knew it would, was focused on the "deployment" of US assets to Saudi Arabia. I watched how long it took for CNN to make this into yet another Trump crisis. two minutes. it took two minutes. " Is he getting the US into another conflict in the Middle East? Are we going to fight Saudi Arabia's battles for them".....and so on....and so on! Is this deployment a "big deal", or as Uncle Joe would say, " a BIG FU--ING Deal"? Short answer. No. What is being mobilized? If you guessed nothing but Air Defense, you might want to guess again. I will give you a hint. A Fighter Wing may just be on the hook as well, maybe more than one. PSAB. Look the place up. Okay. A deployment of a "limited" force to Saudi is the answer to ARAMCO being openly attacked by Tehran? Is that the proper response?  If you didn't read my blog post from a few days ago on the topic of, "bait", you might want to spend a few minutes to take a look. Again, is the limited deployment enough? Short answer, yes, it's enough. Doesn't seem like a major commitment right? Well, physically, it's not, but the message is clear. " Every time you act, the US's footprint increases". Is that the right message? Time will tell. Do I think that message will work? Now, that's an interesting topic. Let's dive into the answer.

Do the Old Men get, "messaging"?

 Is that a concept that pays dividends? Now, we get into an even deeper topic and one I'm going to bring back to the forefront of my conversations on US operations in the 21st Century. " Effects Based Operations", commonly refereed to as " EBO". What is it and how does it work? I will give you my short answer, an answer I base on a great deal of practical experience. EBO is the concept of making your enemy conduct themselves in a predictable pattern that is designed to achieve one's goals with maximum efficiency and economy of effort. My words, but trust me, it's a topic I know well. Alright. If the US's deployment is an action meant to shape the actions of Tehran, then what actions is DC looking for? Here comes the issue and it's a huge one. A percentage of the military's leadership truly understands EBO. The number of political leaders, to include those in the US DoS who could find EBO in a word game is nearly ZERO! Walk into a fifth grade math class and inform the kids they are about to take a quiz on quantum physics. The looks the kids would give  you would match eyebrow for eyebrow the political "leadership" in DC. Here is my point. when military commanders formulate COA's / Courses of Action / for DC, many concepts the commander's staff have been trained on for years are completely foreign to the very people the COAs are briefed to. What's typically the result? Well, it usually ends up with a nearly endless list of questions that rival, "why does 2+2=4? Why are the questions so........let me just put this in old Command words..... asinine? Again, it's fifth grade math students making decisions on concepts they have never been trained on. Someone answer me this? what is the formal training young political leaders are given? I'm not talking about the tour of the building or the three day "one over the world" they typically send their staffers to. Think about this for a minute. When it comes to asking the military to come up with a "plan", those who would on that task have been through years of what we call, PME / Professional Military Training. By the way, the best and most advanced training in the world takes place in the US military. So, what does the US end up with?  A group of political leaders who have just enough knowledge about the military to be dangerous and get still get votes. What they get is an extremely complex process reduced to a series of power-point slides so those in the room can keep up. Sorry, but I've been down this road and the truth hurts.   Why do you think you always hear the statement,  " I had no idea this is what we were going to do" or, " I was not briefed on this issue". Yes, yes they were briefed, but when they say, "okay, let's move on", than what do you expect. 

What does this lead to? 

Have I painted a ugly picture? yes. Does that mean this deployment to Saudi and the message DC thinks it will send may backfire? Do the old men in Tehran understand messaging? No, at least not in the same way the West does. Was this deployment meant to bring about a desired outcome from Tehran? Let's hope so. Does the leadership in DC know how to shape that outcome as it begins to unfold? No, at least history tells us so. Does that mean this deployment event might backfire? I hope not. There is only one thing the Mullahs understand and that is the fear of losing power. Stack that on top of their opinion Trump is handcuffed from taking real action in the Middle East and the desired outcome, if DC has one, may change and do so dramatically. If the physic's problem changes. Who do you want working on the new answer, the fifth grade math class or the physicist? Sorry. Not a good ending to this story, but sometimes, reality is not kind. By the way, I really want to go down the Rabbit hole of EBO, but I will do that on my podcast tomorrow.  

It will be on iTunes. You can find it under, Col Dans Viewpoint. 

Given the tensions that are once again rising in the Middle East, it's easy to talk about what might happen.  this post today is not an attempt on my part to make that argument. I've been down that road already, more than once. What I have attached here is part of the scene setter for my book on what the next Word War may look like, how it will take place and what will be the outcome. I know I have often spoke of not supporting those  who are out to push a book as they try to capitalize on some current crisis in the world. Trust me, that is NOT what I have attempted here. I started this journey several years ago at the request of a good friend and his dream of seeing me put my "Theory" on paper. As your read this, understand my fears of immature nations with advanced weapons as well as the open desire of China to show the world, "China's time has come" . What I am attempting to show you is what might take place almost any day or even any hour right now. I have finished the book and I am just waiting for my Boss's review, insert the word Wife here, before I push it over to Amazon. Do I want to make a bunch of money? Not really. Do I won't to be known as Nostradamus? Lord I pray I never will be compared to that name. But know this. I believe with all my heart this is close to how the human race could be set back a thousand years or more. No, we will not perish from the Earth, but future generations may look upon the ruins of our great civilization much as the tribes in England looked upon the ruins of the roman Empire scattered across England. as i have stated before, this account of what took place, five years after the third world war, is not intended to be a novel. it has no heroes. it has no love story. it is not meant to be dramatic or a thriller. it's the story of a military officer who tried his best to capture what happened and how it led to the downfall of the modern world. if you stop to wonder just what may take place, then my job is done. if you want to read the book, well that's up to my Boss / editor in Chief! 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CRISIS:

Iran’s Miscalculation

_A

s is the case with all wars, this one had a point of origin. Prior to the start of the war, I wrote a blog post about the US attack on Syria in April of 2017: (https://coldansviewpoint.blogspot.com) I had been posting on this site since the Arab Spring began, as I was one of the many who believed that the events in the Middle East could lead to a biblical prediction coming true. My point was this: Many conflicts over the past few thousand years have been ignited by reckless actions. Actions that were poorly thought through. Actions that were based on emotions and an unsound understanding of possible repercussions. Throughout the history of war, concepts such as Second- and Third-Order Effects or the Law of Unintended Consequences had seldom been given the level of importance they should have been. The events in Syria in 2017 were no different. The attack by the US on a Syrian airbase was reckless not just on the part of the US, but also on the part of the Russian government and the Iranian leadership, leadership that provoked the event to begin with. When the Russian government decided to make Iran responsible for the event that nearly brought two superpowers to war, it became clear that the Iranian dream of becoming the next regional power were gone. The Tsar, as I called Putin at the time, had to make a decision, and cutting lose his Iranian puppet was far less damaging to Mother Russia than continuing down the road to war with the US. Both nations were desperately looking for an “off-ramp” from the event, and trading away Iran’s plans was an easy action for Putin. It’s difficult to prove that this agreement was made, and it’s possible that the US never knew the Russians had decided that Iran would be collateral damage in a far more important plan. In the end, the future of Mother Russia was the nightmare of the Persian dream. Iran would not control their future in the region, and that placed the Persians in a position they could not accept.

Out in the cold. That is where Iran suddenly found itself. Gone were the dreams of the old men in Tehran. Gone was the vision of the new Persian Empire. The picture painted was not only believable, it was true. The Iranians had secretly convinced Assad that European Christians could not decide the future of Syria. Not again. Just as President Trump was ready to capitulate on the status of Assad in Syria, the Iranians realized why. Assad’s time was coming to an end. That was the “deal” the Russians had struck with the US. Russia would bring the US to the table on the issue of NATO in Eastern Europe, and the US would get what they wanted, Assad out of power. It may have been a plan that would take time, but in the end the Iranian plan for Assad was going to be swept away. Worse yet, it seems the deal was struck and the Iranians were not given a chance to vote. The region was changing and peace was being negotiated without a voice from the Persians. The Russians would pay hollow homage, but those who tracked the region understood where the Iranians stood. The Iranian informed Assad of the Russian plot for his demise, along with a plan to make the US and Russia’s compromise fall apart. The plot would call for extreme measures by the Iranians, but the risk was far less than the known outcome of the Russian / US agreement. Iran would create a new dynamic in the region, and the prominence of the Persians would not be denied. As for the Russian / US plan, it was simplistic and unified. Unified by the Arab League, the US, and the Gulf Cooperative Council ,GCC, and all the while the Russians remained publicly opposed, as that was the stance that would make the whole process work. A charade on their part that just about everyone saw through. Iranian backed forces were to leave Syrian soil by an unrevealed date. It was Lebanon in 2005 all over again, at least from the standpoint of the Persians. Syria’s future would be decided by the superpowers, and Iran was to abandon their dreams immediately. When the Iranian leadership became aware of this concept, the result was dramatic. Tehran was a tinderbox. With the ever-present tension among the so-called “moderates” and the hardliners, this insult could have only been seen as a huge, perhaps devastating setback for the government in power. Iran’s leadership was injured and injured badly. They had gambled to save their dreams for the region and lost. Wounded and without their historical protector, Russia, not only did Iran’s leadership believe they were vulnerable, their true enemy was convinced. Saudi saw an opportunity, and a young prince’s vision of victory was almost immediately put into action. Iran’s meddling in the future of the Middle East was ending, and the Saudis were more than willing to hasten the process.

A byproduct of this “deal” would also set into motion the pending crisis. The disengagement of Shia militias in Syria was a process that did not go according to plan. Yes, the Iranians had no leg to stand on as even Assad understood the price he would pay for insisting the Iranians remain in his country, but, as is often the case, departure proved to be almost as damaging as staying. There was no validated exit plan designed around the withdrawal of Iranian support in Syria. The only thing that was truly holding the Syrian military together was Iranian support and Russian airpower. The rumor of the Iranian departure exposed what everyone already knew. The Syrian military was incapable of defending its homeland. Russia’s reaction to the Iranian displeasure did further harm to the Syrian government. Putin was not a man known for taking betrayal lightly. The Iranians were expected to follow the Russian lead, even if they disagreed where the Russians were taking them. When it became clear to Moscow that the Iranians were not cooperating with the process the Russians had agreed to, it was predictable what would happen next. Creating a peaceful Syria or even a peaceful region was never the Russian plan. Leaving Syria to disintegrate further was a price the Russians were willing to pay for the desired outcomes in Eastern Europe, but watching Syria fade away was almost more than the Iranians could stand.

In the end, Russia had what it had been working towards from the very first day it intervened in Syria. The US had brought the one topic to the table Putin longed for. NATO. If the US would agree to stop the spread of NATO alliances into Eastern Europe, Putin would walk away from the Persians and let the Middle East travel a path determined by someone else. Some were even of the opinion that the region would finally stabilize. The Iranian threats to the region would be gone; at least, that was the theory. As most theories go, it didn’t hold true. Desperate to show that they could still influence the future of the Middle East, they could decide the fate of nations around them. Iran pushed Iraq into yet another crisis that would impact the Saudis more than most realized. Shia militias pulling out of Syria were tasked with creating a level of disruption not seen in Iraq since the Daesh nearly drove into Bagdad. The Shia militias and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) easily manipulated Iraq’s slide into violence.

Within a month of the understood, undeclared plan between the Russians and the US, the Iranians had also turned up the heat in Yemen. It was the events in Yemen that began the spiral into war, not only for the region, but also for the rest of the world. Deliberate planning by the Iranians mixed with the overreaction of the Saudi leadership led to an escalation in Yemen not seen to that point. Few believed that the events in Yemen would lead to a regional crisis, a crisis that only took three days to explode into something the nations of the Gulf had not witnessed since the 1973 war with Israel. Iran’s desperate attempt to stay relevant in the region resulted in the region being the first casualty of what is now considered the Third World War. Again, the speed of events overwhelmed almost everyone who tried to control or even understand what took place with Iran. Iran wished to show its relevancy, but, in the end, all it achieved was its destruction. When the dust settled in just a few short days, it was obvious Iran had not only miscalculated the impact of its actions on the region, but it had set into motion the destabilization of the entire world. In reality, Iran had begun a process that the Chinese had anticipated for years.

Saudi Arabia’s Overreaction

Iran’s intent in Yemen had been known for several years prior to the deployment of Shia militant units, units that were openly supported by the IRGC. Iran understood the movement of weapons, and specialized units into Yemen would not go unnoticed. To Saudi Arabia, the concept of blaming Iran for the prolonged conflict in Yemen was nothing new. What was new was the sudden increase in support by Iran. Support that was clearly out in the open. The coincidence of this sudden increase of open support in conjunction with the ordered withdrawal of Iranian-backed forces in Syria was there for everyone to see. The problem was, the decision to react to the Iranian actions were slow and mixed at best. The Russians were indifferent to the Iranian plans to increase support in Yemen. As far as they were concerned, transferring trouble in the region was not part of the deal they had quietly reached with the Americans. When the Saudis realized what was taking place, the protest fell on deaf ears. Agreements were being made in the region, and once again those agreements were based upon old colonial powers and world superpowers, not the actual nations in the region.

When US intelligence was shared with Saudi on what was being moved into Yemen, the reaction should have been an indicator of just how quickly the event might escalate. It was clear that the ships off the coast of Yemen were delivering Iranian weapons. What was stunning was the delivery of well-armed and well-trained battle-hardened units. Units that had seen three years of operations in Iraq and Syria. Units that were clearly placed in Yemen to threaten the Saudi-led operations there. Saudi reaction to the US intelligence should have been another indication of just how desperate they were becoming. Saudi understood the US’s ability to track these types of movements. It was also clear to them that the process had been taking place for days, and yet there had been no warning. In their minds, once again, the US and others were making decisions without the input of the nations in the area. Trust was a concept the Saudis had grown accustomed to not relying upon. News of this dramatic escalation of the crisis in Yemen was covered by all the major Western networks. Speculation about what it would mean to the conflict was the hot topic until Saudi Arabia gave the world their answer. It would mean war. A war that would quickly spin out of control.

Two days after the verification of Iranian-supported units arriving in Yemen, the Saudis reacted. The attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s naval ship supporting the offloading of combat units shocked everyone who was paying attention. The act was uncoordinated with the US or any other nation that the US was aware of. The decision to attack seems to have been made by the Saudi government within hours of the US intelligence briefing. US intelligence intercepted the communications between Saudi military commanders, but the typical notification process was too cumbersome and prevented a US response prior to the act. Simply put, by the time US leadership understood what was about to take place, the attack was underway. The end result was a stunned US administration and nothing less than pure panic among Western and regional news media organizations.

Social media coverage of the attack was on the Internet within fifteen minutes of the strike. Fishermen in the area took photos of the smoke plume and then attempted to help those who were in the water. Posted images and short video clips depicted the event for the first several hours, and nowhere were these images more powerful than in Tehran. A retaliation by Iran was anticipated, but, again, the speed of the response was not anticipated. The Iranian vessel was attacked at 8 a.m. CST, and the second attack by Saudi Arabia took place within ten minutes of the initial attack. The Western media headlines of open conflict between Iran and Saudi and its GCC Allies were poorly developed, and the response of other key nations was confusing and seemed uncoordinated. Canned words such as “we urge all parties to show restraint in this crisis” were completely ineffective. People couldn’t get timely information on the event from the standard media or government statements, so they went to what they knew, social media. Within two hours, Iranian, Saudi Arabia and the US were in a conflict that seemed uncontrollable and the world could not believe what it was witnessing.

The Iranian Navy’s encounter with the US Navy off the coast of Yemen took place somewhere during the second attack event launched by Saudi Arabia. Within one hour of the event between the US and Iranian navies, an exchange was occurring in the Strait of Hurmuz. Restraint was being called for, but only from those who were not actively engaged in the conflict. After the first several hours of the event, it was clear that the primary objective of the US and its allies was to keep this event limited to a naval operation. That objective changed rapidly as the incident continued to unfold. It’s still not clear whether Iranian missiles struck the oil refineries on the coast of Saudi first, or whether the Saudis attacked the naval bases of Iran. What was clear was that this phase of the crisis was no longer confined to the waterways of the region. Tanker traffic in the straits attempted to follow the known protocols for a conflict in the region. In the early stages of the conflict, those measures seemed to be working. Civilian ships were not targeted for the first several hours. All tankers made full speed for the safety of open waters. When the first missile strikes took place in Saudi, the threat shifted quickly to the landside of the fight, and many of the ships in the area were able to continue to make full speed. That changed shortly after the initial strikes on Saudi refineries. The accuracy of some of the Iranian anti-ship weapons was underestimated, but worse than that, the location of Iranian boats that could attack both landside and seaside operations had been completely miscalculated. Covert boat capabilities, boats that were not recognized as Iranian weapons platforms, were able to inflict damage far beyond anything that had been anticipated. The regular Iranian naval vessels took an anticipated level of attack from both the US and the British task force in the Straits. But, the Iranian ability to counterattack soft targets, especially land-based facilities, was something the rest of the world was not prepared for. Iran’s priority of effort surprised the US, and that required time to recalculate counter actions.

Saudi Arabia had set the conflict into motion, but Iranian leadership had begun the process that the Saudi government could not ignore. The decision to attack the Iranian operations off the coast of Yemen was one that propelled further events, and that was an issue the Saudi government may or may not have anticipated. It should also be noted that this phase of the conflict produced a reality many had not anticipated. Both the Iranians and the Saudis had weapons in their arsenals that could do damage far greater than their leadership realized. Trained well enough to operate advanced weapons platforms, both sides inflicted damage on the other much faster and with a degree of severity both had not anticipated. This strategic misunderstanding led the Saudi government to believe that they could simply disable the first Iranian ship off the coast of Yemen and perhaps send a larger warning to the rest of the world. A warning on the tolerance level for Iranian “meddling” in Saudi affairs. Whether that was their intent is unclear, but there is speculation that the Saudi government never truly understood the potential consequences of their actions. By the end of the first day, those not directly involved in the conflict were demanding that the whole event be stopped immediately. More ominously, those in the area who believed that the event would continue to spiral out of control would not wait for their interest to be jeopardized. Preventive actions were decided upon by a few key nations, and that set into motion the escalation that pushed this crisis outside the Middle East.

Israel’s Fateful Actions

The fate of Syria was to be decided by the Russians and the US. The negotiated issues were informally briefed to Israel by the US and Russia. Israel’s concerns over Syria were simplistic. Hezbollah and the Iranian-backed militias could not and would not be allowed to exist in what was left of southern Syria. Even more important, the power of Hezbollah in Lebanon was to be reduced drastically. With the loss of Iranian influence inside Syria, the ability for Tehran to control the events in Lebanon were becoming nothing more than a shattered dream. The Iranian plan to create a new level of crisis inside Iraq was less concerning for Israel, but the idea of active, Shia militias supporting a much-improved Hezbollah was a known nonstarter for the Israelis. The US intelligence capabilities for monitoring the actions of Iran’s Shia militias as well as the IRGC were well known. But Israel was the leading expert on that topic, and as such it was no surprise to them when the support shifted to Yemen. There was even speculation that Israel informed Saudi Arabia of those actions prior to the US. Within hours of the Iranian and Saudi conflict, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) recommended a plan that had been developed several years prior to the current actions. This plan called for the complete destruction of all Hezbollah assets in Lebanon as well as in Syria. Israel believed that Iranian leadership was heading into a death spiral; otherwise, why would they would openly send support into Yemen? Provoking Saudi would not be enough. To win the support of the Arab people and hopefully split the GCC nations’ commitment, the accusation of a Saudi-Israeli secret partnership would have to be exposed. What was then underway in Saudi and Iran would lead to Iran lashing out with the most effective tool they had, Hezbollah. Israel would not wait for Iranian backed missiles to rain down on them. The IDF would enter the fight with Iran, not as the secret partner of Saudi but as the loyal ally of the US. A partner the US wanted desperately to leave out of the conflict, given that the US truly believed the event could be stabilized within a few days.

In the early morning hours of the second day, IDF raids into Lebanon destroyed the hope of a limited conflict. The Iranians had what they wanted, a battle cry of betrayal. A betrayal by the custodian of the two holy mosques. The picture they so desperately wanted the world to see, a unity of Israel and the GCC, was there. But the Iranians realized too late that this unity didn’t matter. Even more importantly,  it didn’t matter to the Arab population in general. As they watched the crisis quickly encompass nations outside the region, the fear of what was taking place left no room for anger based on betrayal. The ability to communicate in the region, at least with respect to public communication, was lost after the third day. What the people of Egypt thought compared to what the people of Jordan or Saudi thought never mattered.

Israel’s actions in Lebanon were more than dramatic. The events of the first day were stunning enough, but the strikes on Hezbollah by the IDF came without warning and at a tempo that let everyone know the actions of the IDF, this time, were unlike any in the recent past. The ability of the Israel military to mobilize and fight at the same time was the byproduct of years of deliberate planning and training. The telltale signs of mobilization that Hezbollah had anticipated and even counted on didn’t take place. A concept of initiating military operations with little or no warning, a process known as “Cold Start”, was not an IDF brainchild, but they had perfected it to a level unseen anywhere else in the modern world. Southern Lebanon was a warzone in a matter of minutes, and the strikes in Beirut and the Beqaa Valley were nearly seamless with the initial strikes into southern Lebanon. Reaction to the Israeli attacks on Hezbollah strongholds only added to the hysterical reporting coming in from all over the region.

CRUISE MISSILES FROM KHUZESTAN? A "GAME CHANGER"?

Iran and the Mullahs, a topic that just seems to get worse and worse with each passing day. As much as I would like to stay focused on Mexico and the cartels, it's obvious my old "passion", the Middle East continues to be the hot topic. How many times have I addressed the Issue of Tehran in the past several months? A lot.... more than a lot....I would say it falls in the category of a sh.... well, I better not express myself that way as I may have some intellectuals reading these post, maybe! To say a lot has taken place since my last post on the actions of the Mullahs is a given and in the interest of saving time, let me summarize my last twenty or so post. The old men in Tehran and both desperate and emboldened. Crazy combination I know, but the fact is, it's the truth. 

Desperate because the actions of Team Trump have ripped apart Tehran's ability to make money. 

Desperate because the Tehran thought other nations would come to their economic rescue have not done so, at least not at the level the Mullahs demanded....yes.....demanded....and that is one of the reasons the aid has been slow or nonexistent. 

Desperate because Moscow is maintaining control over Syria's future, regardless of what Tehran desires. Yes folks, Tehran is remains a proxy, all be it a reluctant and even hostile one, of Moscow. To have Syria's future cast in Moscow is not the dream of the Mullahs.

 Desperate because they continue to witness their proxy groups repeatedly attacked by Israel and the US, if the truth be known, while the Russian anti air networks sit idle. 

Desperate because the Mullahs know the youth of Iran grows more restless with each passing day. The " In Crowd / IRGC Al-Qud senior leaders, not the rank and file and that is a point I hope I can get back to, eat and shop while the rest of the nation begs for scraps. 

Okay. That's a lot of desperate. Let me move on to "Embolden".  

The old men in Tehran are embolden by the lack of actions by The Donald!  Tweets, and a few extra ships and troops in the area are not enough to convince them their time is nearly up. 

Embolden by the fact that each time Tehran turns up the heat with a new, more dramatic event, nothing happens. 

Embolden by the constant attacks on The Donald over not getting the US involved in yet another conflict in the region. 

Embolden by the Sultan's support for the Mullahs, ya... The Turks and the Persians are going to hold hands with the Russians! Has anyone read a history book about the region? That whole mental picture cracks me up. 

Embolden by the French. Yes, the French. The country that rights checks to try and keep Tyrannical leaders at bay. Side note. The French military leadership must have a hard time working for a real live Teletubby.   

Okay. about twenty or thirty of my post summarized in a half a page. Not bad for a guy who can ramble on for hours. Now, let's get down to the nuts and bolts. Let's take a look at what just took place and what it could lead to.

Rumor has it, this is where part of the attack came from. It sounds like we shall soon see if the US verifies this rumor. If and I stress if, this is true, than Tehran's attempt to increase the temperature of this crisis just went up dramatically. Is it critical what target was chosen? Was the fact that target struck was ARAMCO the real issue? No. Aramco has been hit before, yes, not to this extent, but it's been a target in the past. Why did the US center it's statement about the event around the launch location of the attack? If the rumor is true and the US is going to verify the launch locations, why does that become the center of gravity for this stage of the crisis game from Tehran?  Well, just look at the map above and you have your answer. If the US or anyone else is to accuse Tehran of attacking the worlds oil industry, something they've been doing by the way, then showing that attack's origin coming from Iranian soil is a HUGE issue!  

How:

How did a series of cruise missiles fly from the Khuzestan region of Iran, or any other area for that matter, and the US didn't see it coming? Can cruise missiles fly around a region that has more surveillance taking place than any other area in the world? Was this an intelligence failure like some of the party hacks and so called "experts" in the US are saying? Does Moscow and Beijing really believe that could happen? Remember when everyone was wondering how Israel could just fly into Syria, a Syria covered by Russian air defense, and bomb Iranian proxies? What happened here? If you want me to tilt my head with confusion, this is the issue I'm stuck on. How, or maybe better yet, why? Yep, I said it. Why? Why, the world that indicates prior knowledge. Did we know the attack was coming? Would we let unannounced cruise missiles fly a path that most likely took them over or forces in the area. Yes, they may have hugged the Iranian coastline, but that wouldn't have stopped us from taking action.  I don't like what I am insinuating here, but I have two choices. 1. The US didn't know the weapons were launched, a realty that terrifies me. 2. We did know they were launched, but we knew where they were going and we decided not to take the bait. Bait! 

Bait:

Every single action taken by the old men in Tehran can be tossed into the category of "bait". Is Tehran attempting to start a region war, a war that would leave them in concrete dust? No, at least not yet or not deliberately. Remember at the top of this story when I addressed the issue of the Mullah's "demands", well, that is the key to every thing we see going on here. Who is the target of these demands? I've said it time and time again, but I will let you guess. Yep, the EU. the land of Teletubbies. Each time one of the actions sanctioned by Tehran doesn't produce the desired results, an EU begging the Mullahs to stop as the EU money flows back into the bank accounts, private bank accounts of the blackmailers, a new, more dramatic event takes place. In the scale of events, this attack from Iranian soil and a major oil complex in Saudi is the apex blackmail card. Here is the problem. So far, it hasn't worked. Can the EU afford to be seen as being soft on the Mullahs after such an open attack on Saudi? Not even a Teletubby would think such a move to be wise, well, maybe, give it a few days and we may be surprised. Yes folks, these events are bait and so far, no one is taking the bait. As bad as this one was, no bites, at least not yet. Well, that explains the whole bait concept, but how does that answer the question of, "did the US know or was intel that bad"? 

How could the US "Know":

 If someone in the Iranian military speaks, if someone has a conversation with the Mullahs, if the Mullahs say, "take it to the next level", who knows it? Is it possible the US intelligence network and "others" are that good? Could the US have known this even was taking place and decided to still not take the bait? What would happen if that bait had been swallowed? Where would we be today if we struck the Khuzestan site, before the cruise launches, you know, the Israeli model of doing business? Would the US Democratic Party be foaming at the mouth by now? Would CNN and MSNBC being screaming into the camera on how The Donald has started a conflict with Iran that might lead to regional war? By the Tuesday after the attack, would this whole thing have been Trump's fault? Why did the US not take the bait?  Hint. How many oil workers were killed in the attack? How fast did Saudi recover from the event? Why has Saudi's future King, a Hardliner to say the least, not responded? You know, why did Saudi not take the bait? Does all of this sound crazy? Can anyone prove me wrong? At the end of the day, most of everything you hear is opinion. Oh, by the way. Has Moscow come to the aid of Tehran on this issue? Did the Mullahs let Moscow in on what their next step was? I bet not! Has anyone hear out of China? 75 percent of ARAMCO fuel goes to Asia. It sucks to be in Hong Kong right now. Not too many people in the West are paying attention and that is music to the Dragon's ears.  Yep, opinions. That's what we have. Trump didn't take the bait, but is that the end of the story? No, no it's not. 

Time to pull the pole into the water:

When you go fishing, you never expect the fish to win, yet they often do. Tehran is fishing for a response, but so far, they not gotten the one they want. It seems the fish just aren't biting. That usually goes on for a long period of time and then all of a sudden, wack! The next thing you know, your pole is in the water and gone. It's time for that wack. It's time for the Mullahs to see a response they may have been warned about from Moscow or Beijing or even their own military commanders. If you have read my post or listen to my podcast, Col Dan's Opinion on iTunes, than you know my opinion on this response issue. Will the Mullahs go to war over their proxy militias in Iraq and Syria being turned into smoking holes in the ground? Better yet, would the military commanders allow the old men in Tehran to drag Iran into a regional war that would leave Iran a crushed nation unable to recover for decades?  Send the message. " Stop fishing this hole before it's too late". Strike the Shia Militias and strike them hard. Keep striking them and then, with a flash, be gone. No boots on the ground. No Nation State Building. No follow on contracts for BILLIONS of dollars for international companies to chase. Follow the Israeli model only do so on a grand scale. As the US is conducting this operation, get Putin on the phone and tell him. " We are not going to strike inside of Iran unless they strike back at our assets. If that happens all bets are off. You have the opportunity to change the course of your hostile proxy. You have the option of conducting a change in leadership. We don't care if you keep your influence over Tehran, but the path they are on is only going to lead to regional destruction and then you can explain to Beijing how your proxy ended up costing China it's flow of fuel. Have a good day"! 

Yep, that would be me if I was in the White House:). Look. If this round of attempting to bait the West / US / EU / doesn't work, than one thing is for certain. There will be another round. If each round is an escalation of the last, then what is next? At what point does the preplanned criticism of Trump go from, " He got us in another conflict in the Middle East", to, " Trump has no foreign policy and is in way over his head"! Oh wait.....they are already saying that! It's time to go from talking tough and carrying no stick to playing Wack a Mole with the Mullahs proxies and then looking their Puppet Master in they eyes and saying, "that's enough". 

By the way. I have had this conversation with one of the few people who truly doesn't let party politics get  folded into his opinions and let me tell you, that's refreshing. If you don't follow Daniel Horowitz at The Conservative Conscience, you should. Neither he nor I stick to any "party line" Call it like you see it. That's Dan. @RMConservative

Thanks Dan for giving me a much bigger platform to give my "Opinions".  

THE MEXICAN MILITARY. WHAT IS TAKING PLACE?

https://twitter.com/hrs4ntos/status/1171219712413327360?s=12

( Hopefully, this site will open for you).

Is it new news that I am once again focusing on the conditions in Mexico? No. Is it new news I'm taking issue with the status of the Mexican Military? No. I'm I doing so today because things are getting worse? Yes. So, what is taking place? What prompts me to come back to the issue of the Mexican Military? Well, this time, it's not about corruption. It's not about Death Squads, although I hear rumors those are on the way back as well. No. It's not about either of those issues. It's worse than that. It's about an issue I have been addressing for over ten years now. Stability. It's about the stability of the country of Mexico and how the signs are becoming more and more obvious stability needs to be a real concern. What is the key "sign" I've picked up on? what makes me come to the conclusion Mexico's government is in real trouble? Well, it's a series of events that most are going to once again say, "look.....it's Mexico..... no big deal.....it's always been like that"! Here is the problem. Some of that mindset may be true, but times have changed and with that, the threat has changed as well. The once "heros" of the Mexican people are increasingly becoming the target of the public's anger. Anger that is both justified and fabricated.

let's start by recapping where Mexico really stands at this moment in time. A few weeks ago, I made the statement Mexico, the US's number one trading partner, is controlled by the cartels. controversial? You bet. An opinion I am willing to back up? Absolutely. So, a little "reality 101" here. Mexico has no real judicial system. Yes, it has courts and yes it has civilian law enforcement, but both are nothing more than the Hollywood version of props. You know, fake buildings that make the viewer believe there is a real Western Town. Is this true or just my opinion? Do you remember Mexican President Calderon? Do you remember when he placed the Mexican military on the streets of Mexico because civilian law enforcement was so corrupt or so overmatched, the nation was demanding he take action? Was that a mistake? Yes and some of us said so from day one. What became of that concept? An increase in murders. Nationwide accusations of the military killing people without hesitation. Within just a few years, most of the senior leaders of the Mexican Military wanted out of the job they were not designed or trained for. Did that stop them from being utilized as the day to day police force? No. The years kept clicking by and the situation in Mexico continued to get worse. Then, along comes Nero, my new name for AMLO, and the promise to remove the military from the streets of Mexico. Not only that, but Nero stated the apprehension of the major drug lords would not be his top priority. Sound like a recipe for disaster? it was and it still is, even as I write this post. In the end, Mexico became a place where the violence was still going up. The President lives in some alternative universe and the military? It's has become what is known in military terms as, "combat Enefective". At the end of the day, what holds a nation together? What makes a nation have the ability to survive? If you answered it's military, you're about 60 percent correct. Here is the problem. Mexico doesn't have the other 40 percent.

A bleak picture? Yes. From the standpoint of the Mexican Military, could it get any worse? Hold on because the answer is yes. For weeks now, I and a few other folks that track events in Mexico have been observing and talking about a very concerning trend. Videos of what appear to be ordinary citizens actually confronting small squad size elements of SEDENA, Mexico's Army. The link I posted above, the one I hope works, is of just such an event, only this one has a twist, a twist I predicted was coming. The unit being confronted, at least it seems it's them, began to fire their weapons. Into the air? That is what I and a few others pray took place. Why? Why would they resort to this level? Here comes the answer the Mexican government, at least the current one, doesn't want you to hear. As I've said over the past few months, Nero has made it clear the military is not to get into any confrontation with the population, even if it means being humiliated and disarmed. Now, think about that for just a minute. The military, who is involved in its 11th year as a civilian police force, a job it has never wanted, has gone from public heros to Villians. They have become the symbol of oppression and are often feared to the same level as the cartels. Was this something they wanted? Is this an environment absolutely devastating to unit and individual morale? Yes. More importantly, is this a situation the cartels can exploit? Reality check. It's already taking place. The past two or three videos of these incidents where the public seems to be challenging small units of SEDENA appear to be far more coordinated than I can accept. Like every adversary, the cartels have developed a mechanism to exploit the weaknesses in their enemy. Gather up people who are beholden to you, from town and areas you control. Place them in the streets in front of the military units and then video whatever takes place. Does the military know most of these events are staged? Yes, but to the rest of the nation, a nation where the people are tired of seeing the military on the streets every day for the past eleven years, it's a brilliant ploy. A ploy that up until I watched the clip attached was limited to the military simply standing there. Was it bound to happen? Was it predictable someone in these units would fire a weapon? Just how frustrated is the rank and file of Mexico's military, to include its senior leaders? Better yet, could the cartels have fired those shots? Just look at Hugo Chavez and how he manipulated the truth in Venezuela.

What does this mean? Why did I take the time to post this story today? Are these instances of the military being confronted by so-called, "civilians" having an impact on the perceptions of the Mexican People? Here is the real question. Is anyone even bothering to do that analysis? I think I know that answer and that is why I sat down today to put this issue in front of you. Mexico has no judicial system. It has no functioning law enforcement network, that's the reason why Nero has not removed them from the streets like he promised. Last but not least, Mexico has a political base that is so saturated with corruption that anyone who thinks they can make a difference is slapped with reality as soon as they show up in Mexico City. On top of all of this, Mexico's "A-Team" it's military is now portrayed as being openly confronted by the very population it's sworn to protect. Nero fiddles while Mexico burns and the Legions have rotten food tossed in their faces. But that's okay. DC will look into the camera and simply say, "it's not that bad", or, " It's Mexico...... It's always been like that". The Mexican Military. Doing a job they were not designed or tasked to do and now, now they have a leader who sits and fiddles as the country burns.