It merely confirms my thesis.

Saudi Arabia needs the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia does not need Hamas or the Palestinian Arabs.

That may prove to be Iran's crucial miscalculation.

Expand full comment

This analysis is magnitudes of order better than any others I’ve read in the mainstream media! If there was any competence left in rags such as the New York Times, they would be offering you huge piles of money to write for them, Mr. Kust.

And what heartening news! If the oil industry isn’t pricing in the expectation of WW3, that’s the most hopeful sign in weeks!

Expand full comment

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/biden-trashes-abraham-accords I’m not so sure Biden was eager to see peace .

Expand full comment

Dementia Joe and his handlers probably don't want peace in the Middle East. Even during the Trump Administration the Deep State remained heavily invested in Middle Eastern (and illegal) wars.


However, Riyadh is not Washington, and neither is Jerusalem. Saudi Arabia needs peace with Israel more than they need support from Washington. If MBS can broker peace with the Houthis, normalize relations with Israel, and achieve detente with Iran, the security guarantees that the US has provided Saudi Arabia for decades become considerably less meaningful. And MBS is not exactly a political naif, and it is certain that neither is Bibi Netanyahu.

This is the thread that people frequently overlook in many Deep State/Great Reset narratives: events, actions, and reactions do not move according to the machinations of the Deep State or even the globalists. Whether we are talking about the Federal Reserve or the CCP, at crucial junctures the power commonly ascribed to these institutions is revealed to be more chimerical than real.

Dementia Joe is not in favor of the Abraham Accords. His favor is not necessarily required. If Israel and Saudi Arabia decide to seek peace together, ultimately the US cannot oppose it.

Expand full comment

So many bad guys. But many good guys. The more I read , the more I think it was Russia or a friend of Russia’s who started it. Hopefully it will end soon since they are deep into Gaza City now. The IMEC sounds good for the supply chain if they can make it happen.

Expand full comment

The key word is "if".

The IMEC might be a good idea, but it also might be a bit late to the party.

One of the challenges in assessing the future trajectories of events is there is a very strong probability that we are approaching a geopolitical singularity. Call it "the Great Reset", call it "Armageddon", call it "End Of Days", but however you label it what lies on the other side is wholly unpredictable. Anyone who thinks they know how that will turn out is simply deluding themselves.

Expand full comment

I did. That is not as remarkable as it might seem.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are dueling for regional influence in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. This requires them to be engaged in issues that affect that region. We see a similar duality in the EU, where Paris and Berlin regularly both jockey for position within the EU governance structure while seeking to project EU unity outwardly. Within the EU superstate, hegemonic influence takes the form of guiding and even setting EU policy. Part of that influence requires the EU governance structure to jockey with the US on the global stage.

Incidentally, what makes the US still the sole remaining superpower is that it is still able to exert hegemonic influence globally on its own, whereas the EU nations have had to combine into the EU to exert even a portion of that same level of influence.

China was on a path to being able to challenge the US for global hegemonic influence--or at least it seemed to be--until the post-2008 economic dislocations as well as China passing the Lewis turning point at around the same time (approximately 2012) shifted its economic challenges in ways it was not prepared to handle.

As the US is choosing to pull back from wielding global hegemonic influence quite so forwardly, due to our own shifting internal politics, places like the Middle East are becoming opportunities for new regional hegemons to emerge. In the Middle East Saudi Arabia and Iran, as major oil producing countries, are jockeying with each other for influence over the Persian Gulf. Iran is also using its terror proxies to exert influence in Syria and Lebanon.

Israel is something of a wild card in this regional game of thrones, because it is the one nation in the region with a genuine representative democratic system, with all the usual imperfections of such systems, but without the explicitly autocratic institutions we see in nearly other Middle Eastern country. They also have one of the better performing and more diversified economies.

If the economic potentials of the Abraham Accords are even partially realized, several things happen: 1) Israel no longer needs US sponsorship and support. 2) Saudi Arabia no longer needs to buy its security umbrella from the US. 3) Middle Eastern countries have a chance to diversify economically--which may also force them to liberalize their economies and therefore their political systems.

Iran is opposed to the Abraham Accords, and the bulk of the reasons for this opposition boil down to their doctrine of "Vilayat-e Faqih (ولایت فقیه)", or "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist". This doctrine, which was refined and enlarged by the Ayatollah Khomeini during his time in exile from Iran, is what binds Iran into a true theocratic autocracy. As with all autocratic institutions, it also restricts how Iran can function both internally and externally.

If the Abraham Accords take hold in the Middle East, Iran will be challenged to respond to them while retaining their theocratic autocracy. Additionally, if Saudi Arabia signs the Abraham Accords, there will be very little reason for any other Arab holdouts. Once Saudi Arabia signs the Abraham Accords, the Arab Peace Initiative--of which Saudi Arabia has been a principal advocate and adherent--is largely rendered superfluous and irrelevant, and so Oman and Qatar no longer have much reason to refrain from the Accords.

Egypt and Jordan then have to rethink their strategic calculus. Their stance vis-a-vis Israel has for quite some time been centered on a "two state" solution to the question of the Palestinian Arabs. The Abraham Accords drops the question of the Palestinian Arabs entirely.

Jordan has limited diplomatic leverage for a two-state solution, having abandoned its claims to the West Bank region in 1988. Egypt, while it concluded a separate peace with Israel at Camp David, has been a champion of the two-state solution, but is also highly reluctant to allow Palestinian Arab refugees into Egypt from Gaza.

If the Abraham Accords prevail as the diplomatic initiative throughout the Middle East, then the Palestinian Arabs lose most of their regional supporters, and groups like Hamas lose sponsors outside of Iran. This limits the capacity of what Palestinian Arab terror organizations can hope to do, and diminishes their utility to Iran.

If one ascribes to the thesis that Hamas was moved to the October 7 attack by Iran, the strategic objective was to derail Saudi Arabia's coming rapprochement with Israel, but in particular Saudi Arabia's decision to back the Abraham Accords. If Saudi Arabia can be persuaded to stick with the Arab Peace Initiative structure instead, Iran has a chance at ultimately defeating the Abraham Accords. If Saudi Arabia signs the Abraham Accords Declaration, they will become the dominant platform for peace in the region.

Are the Abraham Accords a guarantee for peace in the Middle East? No. The only guarantee for that will always be the nations themselves. They have to choose peace over war. The significance of the Abraham Accords is that they indicate that more and more, the nations of the Middle East are choosing peace over war. The more Arab nations are willing to choose peace, the more isolated the Palestinian Arabs will become. Eventually they will be compelled to choose some form of peace with Israel. They might not be able to come around to the Abraham Accords, because their situation is demonstrably different, but broad acceptance of the Abraham Accords could open the door for negotiations not unlike those in Northern Ireland that led to the Good Friday Agreement which ended The Troubles (at the time that civil conflict was almost as old as the Palestinian Arab conflict with Israel). Both the Good Friday Agreement and the Abraham Accords are fundamentally declarations of a desire for peace today and tomorrow, and letting go of much of the grievances of the past.

The players in the Middle East that want the current states of war to continue are all arrayed against the Abraham Accords (including portions of the Swamp in Washington). The players in the Middle East that want peace and a chance at greater prosperity are slowly coming around to the Abraham Accords.

Which side will prevail? That answer I do not have.

Expand full comment

I see. So the pressure is really on Iran right now. Thank you for that very informative reply. How do you know so much about this? And how much of a part does the energy transition play in these changes ?

Expand full comment