> Implying Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't nuclear powers already.
Not going full Siege on ya here. There were actually valid reasons why the Obama administration had that de-facto non-agression pact with Iran. Even they understood better than trying to start troubles with both the Russian federation and Iran, given Chinese objections to the latter option. Iran might still side with the Russian federation if there was a military confrontation with the US, especially over Syria but still, the agreement would have mitigated that. Or the conflict could happen over the "ukraine".
Israel didn't dare to attack Syria even before the Russian intervention in 2015. Neither will the "deep state". They can threaten but things would go really bad for them if they did. To clarifiy, I don't mean all-out nuclear war, Geore Orwell was right about that one (notice that he was also right about the Soviet-Union having plenty of nuclear warheads by 1954, unlike "experts" of the time), both sides fears losing control in the aftermath.
So no all-out war or even a real
cold war, not anytime soon.
Still, good to see the Russian gov's policies of appeasement, globalism-lite fail. It is delightfull that the EU kvetching about the loss of shekels and humilate itself with empty threats. www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05…
It really is good that confrontation reign, since it weakens the post-modern status quo.
The Day of the Woodchippers got just a little bit getting closer. -)