Saudi Arabia and a world teetering once again on the brink of destruction

In view of the manyfold arguments and explanations provided it is impossible to assess whether the attack could have taken place as claimed. There is also a comprehensive number of possible repercussions. However, one circumstance is completely new, and we can only understand this if we know about the circumstances to which I referred in my book “Deutschland im Umbruch” (Germany in Transition), listing them as the motives leading to the nomination of Trump as candidate.
There were three elements that are still subject of heated debate in the United States today: the possible collapse of infrastructure, the outcry in American small and medium-sized towns over the endless series of zinc coffins, and the explosively rising number of anti-Semitic incidents.
These three elements remain unchanged and, in the light of his statements and his actions, President Trump is very aware of these circumstances. One can assume that his constant emphasis of his commitment to all his election promises is due to the aforementioned circumstances. This is a kind of “self-protection” in an almost desperate situation.
Whoever was responsible for what happened in Saudi Arabia will have had this dimension in mind. That means no more and no less than seeing the fate of the United States on a knife edge, should President Trump’s prudent approach not be maintained by him or other American forces.
One or two things get to be reported even at a time when governments around the world are about to go over to stopping to explain things to their citizens, and are evading this commitment with the help of “mental combat groups” who liberally use the term “conspiracy theories” in order to keep citizens down. This includes the intensive travel activities of the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is still in office. Not only are his continuous visits to the Russian president conspicuous. On the eve of the elections, Prime Minister Netanyahu flew to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a 45-minute meeting – in the middle of the final spurt of his all-decisive election campaign. This is not just an admission that no communication link can be called secure any more. It’s like old times when news was handed over “by officer, from hand to hand”. You don’t fly to London for 45 minutes to drink tea.
In Berlin there is immediately talk of an imminent war. It is the last nick of time to give thought to what signal is sent out about peace in the world, if the Chancellor – visible for all the world – takes the side of the Washington war coalition leaders like Clinton, Obama and Graham against President Trump; and what this behaviour will signal to people like Putin, Netanyahu, or Trump, who have so far been able to provide proof of being able to get along together. Who is actually going to prevent these gentlemen from implementing their declared will? That is the question that Dr Merkel and Mr Macron should be asking themselves as soon as possible.
* * *
km. Willy Wimmer’s instructive commentary on the attacks on important parts of the Saudi Arabian oil industry makes it clear that as long as the US government remains reasonably rational, it can have no interest in participating in a new war in the Middle East. Another war would not only make a re-election impossible for Donald Trump, but would also lead to the downfall of the own country. The current prime minister of Israel and the Russian president can also have no possible interest in a new war in the Middle East, not least because they have an interest in the current US president’s remaining in office. And what about Saudi Arabia and Iran? Willy Wimmer does not answer this question, but very probably they are not interested, either. But what is the position of the German and French governments?    •

(Translation Current Concerns)