The context is the Israeli killing of Hizballah and Iranian commanders fighting ISIS near the Golan Heights. Perhaps, Israel is signalling that it doesn't like the outcomes of Iranian gains in Syria and the collapse of the so-called FSA/al-Nusra "moderate" opposition. The other is the succession crisis in KSA, probable instability there, and a potential shift in Saudi policy in the region. A third is US strains with Israel. These go together, perhaps?

or with his description of Israel and its motives, I was more interested in the big picture discussion of the Saudis and takfiris and Iran and so on, the geopolitical discussion, BECAUSE, I am concerned that the sort of changes he talks about are under way, that ISIS is a revolutionary movement, a rising. In other words his analysis of the Saudi political situation. And I had not really thought of it, but if the Houtihis really give Iran a foothold in Yemen, it is going to make a good base from which to destabilize Saudi Arabia. There are Shi'ia in Asir and along the Red Sea coast, and the Houthis are right next door there with close ties.

And the growing prospects for a major religious war in the region.

That said, and omitting some parts of his analysis, I do think it was a bit of tit for tat done for political effect, the Israeli attack and the Hezbollah response.

This was posted in the J-Post article I linked to, above. I have to admit,many of these same questions have occurred to me of late. The overarching question is: is the Obama Administration preparing for war on Iran or overthrow of the House of Saud? Neither? Both? What do you think?

I think he is wrong, but I'll have to formulate an argument.

far from it. The Obama Admin. would desperately like to get things stabilized again, under control, but without assuming much responsibility for the result, so they could say "see, it worked" or imply some kind of success. There are always, of course, the war lovers littered through the US government and its bureaucracy, and they are using every trick they know to try to provoke something, somewhere.

The comment persons idea that Obama allowed fracking to get enough oil to attack Iran assumes the glut is not real, I think it is. We are in a deflationary economic environment, and gluts are one of the things that happens then.

The rest of his argument is classic coincidence theory.

My present theory of the Israeli Hezbollah spat is that originally it was a provocation pursuant to getting re-elected, which overshot the mark somewhat, thus necessitating allowing a measure of Hezbollah response, all accompanied by the usual apocalyptic fulminations.

I am somewhat concerned that Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas might get ideas and start something, for a constellation of related reasons, but probably not.